HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: tc.2007.021683v1 17/3/151    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Okoli, C T C Articles by Johnson, J L PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Okoli, C T C Articles by Johnson, J L

An examination of the smoking identities and taxonomies of smoking behaviour of youth

¹ NEXUS Research Unit, School of Nursing University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
² Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Correspondence to:
C T C Okoli, NEXUS, University of British Columbia, 302-1620 Agronomy Rd, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada; chizimuzo.okoli{at}nursing.ubc.ca

Objective: To address observations that the smoking identities of youth are valid descriptors of their smoking behaviour, we examined the relationships between self-reported smoking identities, perceived levels of addiction, and established taxonomies of smoking behaviour of youth.

Method: Cross-sectional data were collected on demographics, perceived extent of addiction to tobacco, smoking history, and self-reported smoking identity from questionnaires administered to 8225 students in British Columbia, Canada. A total of 7246 participants were categorised according to four smoking taxonomies established in the literature. Differences in perceived physical and mental addiction between smoking identity groups were calculated. The strength of the associations between the taxonomies of smoking and the smoking identity groups was also assessed.

Results: There were significant differences in perceived levels of physical (Kruskal–Wallis ² = 3985.02, p<0.001) and mental (Kruskal–Wallis ² = 4046.09, p<0.001) addiction to tobacco by the participants’ self-reported smoking identity. Youth smoking identities were modestly associated with the established smoking taxonomies (Pearson C contingency coefficient = 0.64–0.72).

Conclusion: Self-reported smoking identities appear to provide valid characterisations of the smoking behaviour of youths that complement and elaborate existing taxonomies of smoking behaviour. Questions about self-reported smoking identity should be used in conjunction with smoking behaviour taxonomies when investigating youth smoking behaviours.