Cent Eur J Public Health 2012, 20(1):33-37 | DOI: 10.21101/cejph.a3731

Identifying Gender Differences among Romanian Non-smoking Junior High School Students

Lucia M. Lotrean1, Hein De Vries2
1 Department of Hygiene, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2 Department of Health Education and Promotion, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess gender differences regarding perceptions of smoking between Romanian non-smoking boys and girls, to facilitate the development of effective smoking prevention programmes.

Methods: Cross-sectional data were obtained in 2006 by means of written questionnaires among 981 non-smoking school students aged 13-14 years from Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

Results: The results reveal that girls were more convinced than boys that smoking would result in several positive outcomes such as helping them getting more attention and becoming easier part of the crowd. Moreover, girls declared lower self-efficacy in refraining from smoking when friends smoke or offer them a cigarette. Parental norms regarding smoking seem to be less restrictive for boys than for girls.

Conclusions: The gender differences found in our study do not warrant specific smoking prevention programmes for boys and girls, but it is advisable to include gender-specific issues in prevention activities targeting Romanian adolescents aged 13-14 years.

Keywords: smoking related attitudes, gender differences, Romanian non-smoking adolescents

Received: October 14, 2011; Revised: January 27, 2012; Accepted: January 27, 2012; Published: March 1, 2012  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Lotrean LM, De Vries H. Identifying Gender Differences among Romanian Non-smoking Junior High School Students. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2012;20(1):33-37. doi: 10.21101/cejph.a3731. PubMed PMID: 22571014.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Shafey O, Dolwick S, Guindon GE, editors. Tobacco control country profiles 2003. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2003.
    2. Romanian Ministry of Health. The European school survey project on alcohol and other drugs. Bucharest: The Ministry; 2004.
    3. Hoving C, ReubsaetA, de Vries H. Predictors of smoking stage transitions for adolescent boys and girls. Prev Med. 2007 Jun;44(6):485-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    4. Amos A, Bostock Y. Young people, smoking and gender - a qualitative exploration. Health Educ Res. 2007 Dec;22(6):770-81. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. Markham WA, Aveyard P, Thomas H, Charlton A, Lopez ML, De Vries H. What determines future smoking intentions of 12- to 13-year-old UK African-Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani and white young people? Health Educ Res. 2004 Feb;19(1):15-28. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Lotrean LM, Mesters I, Ionut C, de Vries H. Smoking among Romanian adolescents: do the gender differences exist? Pneumologia. 2009 OctDec;58(4):240-6. Go to PubMed...
    7. Ausems M, Mesters I, van Breukelen G, De Vries H. Short-term effects of a randomized computer-based out-of-school smoking prevention trial aimed at elementary schoolchildren. Prev Med. 2002 Jun;34(6):581-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. de Vries H, Mudde A, Leijs I, Charlton A, Vartiainen E, Buijs G, et al. The European Smoking Prevention Framework Approach (EFSA): an example of integral prevention. Health Educ Res. 2003 Oct;18(5):611-26. Go to original source...
    9. de Vries H, Dijk F, Wetzels J, Mudde A, Kremers S, Ariza C, et al. The European Smoking prevention Framework Approach (ESFA): effects after 24 and 30 months. Health Educ Res. 2006 Feb;21(1):116-32. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. de Vries H, Mudde A, Kremers S, Wetzels J, Uiters E, Ariza C, et al. The European Smoking Prevention FrameworkApproach (ESFA): short-term effects. Health Educ Res. 2003 Dec;18(6):649-63; discussion 664-77. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; 2002 [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2006 Jan 1].Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/pdf-ques/2002brfss.pdf.
    12. Lambert M, editor. Report on gender differences in smoking in young people. Brussels: Flemish Institute for Health Promotion; 2002.
    13. US Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing tobacco use among young people: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1994.
    14. Piko BF, Wills TA, Walker C. Motives for smoking and drinking: country and gender differences in samples of Hungarian and US high school students. Addict Behav. 2007 Oct;32(10):2087-98. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Kim H, Kim EK, Choi ES, Kim YJ, Lee HJ, Kim JJ, et al. The determinants of adolescent smoking by gender and type of school in Korea. J Prev Med Public Health. 2006 Sep;39(5):379-88. (In Korean.) Go to PubMed...
    16. Kaleta D, Usidame B, Polańska K. Tobacco advertisements targeted on women: creating an awareness among women. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2011 Jun;19(2):73-8. Go to original source...
    17. Babar AA, Stigler MH, Perry CL, Arora M, Shrivastav R, Reddy KS. Tobacco-use psychosocial risk profiles of girls and boys in urban India: implications for gender-specific tobacco intervention development. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010 Jan;12(1):29-36. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    18. Dolcini MM, Adler NE, Ginsberg D. Factors influencing agreement between self-reports and biological measures of smoking among adolescents. J Res Adolesc. 1996;6(5):515-42.

    Return to the content