Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 207–218 | Cite as

Five- and six-year follow-up results from four seventh-grade smoking prevention strategies

  • David M. Murray
  • Phyllis Pirie
  • Russell V. Luepker
  • Unto Pallonen
Article

Abstract

Seven thousand one hundred twenty-four members of the Classes of 1985 and 1986 who had participated as seventh graders in one of several smoking prevention programs were tracked and surveyed for smoking habits at 5- and 6-year follow-up: participation exceeded 90% in both cohorts. These data indicated that participants who received seventh-grade interventions based on the social influences model had similar smoking patterns compared to participants in other conditions. This finding supports the call for booster sessions after the initial seventh-grade intervention program. Future follow-up studies will assess whether the earlier benefits associated with the social influences model will translate into measurable differences in adult smoking patterns.

Key words

adolescent smoking prevention follow-up 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arkin, R. M., Roemhild, H. F., Johnson, C. A., Luepker, R. V., and Murray, D. M. (1981). The Minnesota smoking prevention program: A seventh grade health curriculum supplement.J. School Health 51(9): 611–616.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1972).Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood, Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
  3. Biglan, A., Severson, H., Ary, D., Faller, C., Gallison, C., Thompson, R., Glasgow, R., and Lichtenstein, E. (1987). Do smoking prevention programs really work? Attrition and the internal and external validity of an evaluation of a refusal skills training program.J. Behav. Med. 10(2): 159–171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop, Y. M. M., Feinberg, S. E., and Holland, P. W. (1975).Discrete Multivariate Analysis, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 131–136.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (1979).Quasi-Experimentation, Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Rand McNally, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Dixon, W. J., Brown, M. B., Engelman, L., Frane, J. W., Hill, M. A., Jennrich, R. I., and Toperek, J. D. (1983).BMDP Statistical Software, 1983 Printing with Additions, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  7. Flay, B. R. (1985). Psychosocial approaches to smoking prevention: A review of findings.Health Psychol. 4: 449–488.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Glynn, T. J. (1989). Essential elements of school-based smoking prevention programs: Research results.J. School Health 59.Google Scholar
  9. Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., and Bachman, J. G. (1987). National Trends In Drug Use and Related Factors Among American High School Students and Young Adults, 1975–1986, DHHS Publication No. (ADM)87-1535. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., and Weiner, B. (1972).Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, General Learning Press, Morristown, N.J.Google Scholar
  11. Luepker, R. V., Pallonen, U. E., Murray, D. M., and Pirie, P. L. (1989). Validity of telephone surveys in assessing cigarette smoking in young adults.Adults. Am. J. Pub. Health 79(2): 202–204.Google Scholar
  12. McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1st ed., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey, G., and Ellisson, E. (ed.),Handbook of Social Psychology, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., pp. 136–314.Google Scholar
  14. Murray, D. M., Luepker, R. V., Johnson, C. A., and Mittelmark, M. B. (1984). The prevention of cigarette smoking in children: A comparison of four strategies.J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 14(3): 247–288.Google Scholar
  15. Murray, D. M., O'Connell, Catherine, M., Schmid, L. A., and Perry, C. L. (1987a). The validity of smoking self-reports by adolescents: A reexamination of the bogus pipeline procedure.Addict. Behav. 12: 7–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Murray, D. M., Richards, P. S., Luepker, R. V., and Johnson, C. A. (1987b). The prevention of cigarette smoking in children: Two- and three-year follow-up comparisons of four prevention strategies.J. Behav. Med. 10(6): 595–611.Google Scholar
  17. Murray, D. M., Davis-Hearn, M., Goldman, A. I., Pirie, P., and Luepker, R. V. (1988). Four and five year follow-up results from four seventh-grade smoking prevention strateiges.J. Behav. Med. 11: 395–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pechacek, T. F., Murray, D. M., Luepker, R. V., Mittelmark, M. B., Johnson, C. A., and Shultz, J. (1984). Measurement of adolescent smoking behavior: Rationale and methods.J. Behav. Med. 7(1): 123–140.Google Scholar
  19. Pirie, P. L., Murray, D. M., and Luepker, R. V. (1988). Smoking prevalence in a cohort of adolescents, including absentees, dropouts, and transfers.Am. J. Pub. Health 78(2): 176–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare (1979).Smoking and Health, A Report of the Surgeon General, DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 79-50066, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1987).Smoking and Health, A National Status Report, A Report to Congress, DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 87-8396, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. Murray
    • 1
  • Phyllis Pirie
    • 1
  • Russell V. Luepker
    • 1
  • Unto Pallonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Epidemiology, School of Public HealthUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations