Racteristics of children at baselineComparison All (n = 241) M ?SD or Demographics : Différence entre versions

Racteristics of [http://www.medchemexpress.com/Brefeldin-A.html NectrolideMedChemExpress Brefeldin A] children at baselineComparison All (n = 241) M ?SD or  Demographics Age (years) Ethnicity (White British) Deprivation level (IMD) Enjoyment of physical activity PACES enjoyment scale (range 1?) Smoking intentions Total non-smoking intentions (range 4?2) Self-efficacy Total refusal self-efficacy (range 3?5) [http://www.medchemexpress.com/MS023.html MS023 clinical trials] attitudes towards smoking Smoking is bad for health (`definitely yes') Safe to smoke year or two (`definitely not') Difficult to quit once started (`definitely yes') Others smoke harmful to you (`definitely yes') Affects sports performance (`definitely yes') Makes you gain/lose weight (`no difference') Social influences Mother smoking Father smoking Sibling smoking Friend smokinga 40.7 43.6 10.8 18.7 39.5 47.4 10.5 25.4 88.8 59.8 43.2 59.3 51.0 42.3 87.7 60.5 45.6 60.5 53.5 37.7 13.5 ?3.2 13.5 ?3.1 11.7 ?1.0 11.6 ?1.1 4.3 ?0.7 4.3 ?0.7 9.6 ?0.3 98.3 50.9 ?17.9 9.6 ?0.3 99.ranked within the highest 10  for deprivation in England. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:Page 8 of(comparison group, 97.5  ; intervention group, 98.6  ) and T2 (comparison group: 97.1  , intervention group, 98.2  ) remained similar to T0, suggesting that low rates of smoking continued over time.Intervention effects Non-smoking intentionsThe adjusted multilevel linear regression analyses indicated no significant intervention effects on non-smoking intentions between baseline and T1 (Table 2), and between baseline and T2 (Table 3).Cigarette refusal self-efficacyThe adjusted multilevel linear regression analyses showed no significant intervention effects between baseline and T1 (Table 2), and between baseline and T2 (Table 3), for refusal self-efficacy.Attitudes towards smokingThe adjusted multilevel logist.Racteristics of children at baselineComparison All (n = 241) M ?SD or  Demographics Age (years) Ethnicity (White British) Deprivation level (IMD) Enjoyment of physical activity PACES enjoyment scale (range 1?) Smoking intentions Total non-smoking intentions (range 4?2) Self-efficacy Total refusal self-efficacy (range 3?5) Attitudes towards smoking Smoking is bad for health (`definitely yes') Safe to smoke year or two (`definitely not') Difficult to quit once started (`definitely yes') Others smoke harmful to you (`definitely yes') Affects sports performance (`definitely yes') Makes you gain/lose weight (`no difference') Social influences Mother smoking Father smoking Sibling smoking Friend smokinga 40.7 43.6 10.8 18.7 39.5 47.4 10.5 25.4 88.8 59.8 43.2 59.3 51.0 42.3 87.7 60.5 45.6 60.5 53.5 37.7 13.5 ?3.2 13.5 ?3.1 11.7 ?1.0 11.6 ?1.1 4.3 ?0.7 4.3 ?0.7 9.6 ?0.3 98.3 50.9 ?17.9 9.6 ?0.3 99.ranked within the highest 10  for deprivation in England. The majority of children reported to have never smoked at T0 (97.5  : comparison group, 96.3  ; intervention group, 97.9  ). CO readings were recorded for 82  of participants and confirmed self-reported non-smoking status with all readings below 10 ppm (Mean = 1.3 ?0.7 ppm). Over half of children (57.3  ) reported that at least one family member was a current smoker, whilst almost one in five children reported having a friend who smoked. Children generally had strong non-smoking intentions and high refusal self-efficacy expectations, though 40-58  [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2677-0 title= s00221-011-2677-0]  of children displayed more favourable attitudes towards smoking on five of the six attitude items. Children in the intervention group were less likely to be White British and were significantly more deprived (p [https://dx.doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.120120-QUAN-57 title= ajhp.120120-QUAN-57] proportion of intervention children, in particular girls, definitely believed that smoking was difficult to quit (p