Reasearch Awards nomination

Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Public Health and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Perceived risks and benefits of cigarette smoking among Nepalese adolescents: a population-based cross-sectional study

Umesh Raj Aryal12*, Max Petzold23 and Alexandra Krettek24

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Community Medicine, Kathmandu Medical College, Kathmandu, Nepal

2 Nordic School of Public Health NHV, Gothenburg, Sweden

3 Centre for Applied Biostatistics, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

4 Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Public Health 2013, 13:187  doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-187

Published: 2 March 2013

Abstract

Background

The perceived risks and benefits of smoking may play an important role in determining adolescents’ susceptibility to initiating smoking. Our study examined the perceived risks and benefits of smoking among adolescents who demonstrated susceptibility or non susceptibility to smoking initiation.

Methods

In October–November 2011, we conducted a population-based cross-sectional study in Jhaukhel and Duwakot Villages in Nepal. Located in the mid-hills of Bhaktapur District, 13 kilometers east of Kathmandu, Jhaukhel and Duwakot represent the prototypical urbanizing villages that surround Nepal’s major urban centers, where young people have easy access to tobacco products and are influenced by advertising. Jhaukhel and Duwakot had a total population of 13,669, of which 15% were smokers. Trained enumerators used a semi-structured questionnaire to interview 352 randomly selected 14- to 16-year-old adolescents. The enumerators asked the adolescents to estimate their likelihood (0%–100%) of experiencing various smoking-related risks and benefits in a hypothetical scenario.

Results

Principal component analysis extracted four perceived risk and benefit components, excluding addiction risk: (i) physical risk I (lung cancer, heart disease, wrinkles, bad colds); (ii) physical risk II (bad cough, bad breath, trouble breathing); (iii) social risk (getting into trouble, smelling like an ashtray); and (iv) social benefit (looking cool, feeling relaxed, becoming popular, and feeling grown-up). The adjusted odds ratio of susceptibility increased 1.20-fold with each increased quartile in perception of physical Risk I. Susceptibility to smoking was 0.27- and 0.90-fold less among adolescents who provided the highest estimates of physical Risk II and social risk, respectively. Similarly, susceptibility was 2.16-fold greater among adolescents who provided the highest estimates of addiction risk. Physical risk I, addiction risk, and social benefits of cigarette smoking related positively, and physical risk II and social risk related negatively, with susceptibility to smoking.

Conclusion

To discourage or prevent adolescents from initiating smoking, future intervention programs should focus on communicating not only the health risks but also the social and addiction risks as well as counteract the social benefits of smoking.

Keywords:
Susceptibility to smoking; Physical risks; Social risks; Addiction risk; Social benefits