Parental influence on adolescent smoking initiation among Mexican origin youth

Smoking is often initiated in adolescence through trying or experimenting with cigarettes. Smoking initiation is the beginning critical stage in the smoking trajectory often resulting in addiction. This dissertation examined the effect of parenting variables on smoking initiation behavior among 11–14 year old Mexican origin adolescents, a largely understudied group. The participants in this study were part of a population-based cohort of Mexican origin adolescents residing in Houston, Texas. ^ Aim 1 of this study assessed the appropriateness of the Family Life Questionnaire (FLQ) among Mexican origin adolescents. Second order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to examine the factor structure of the FLQ and measurement invariance testing was conducted to evaluate the cross-cultural validity of this scale. Aim 2 analyzed cross-sectional associations between parenting variables and adolescent ever tried smoking behavior while aim 3 focused on prospective examination of changes in parenting variables from baseline to final follow-up on ever tried smoking behavior among never smokers. ^ Overall, the results of the CFA indicated that the original factor structure of the FLQ, with alterations, was a good fit for the Mexican origin adolescents. The measurement invariance analysis of the modified FLQ scale indicated adequate measurement invariance. The aim 2 cross-sectional analyses indicated that family cohesion was significantly associated with lower odds of ever tried smoking. Authoritarian parenting was significantly associated with smoking initiation only at the baseline while family conflict was significantly associated with smoking initiation only at the two-year final home visit. The findings from the aim 3 prospective analysis indicated that changes in levels of family cohesion and conflict are important predictors of smoking initiation among those who have never tried smoking. Specifically, perceiving low levels of family cohesion and a decrease in the family cohesion over two years, as well as perceiving high levels of family conflict and an increase in conflict over two years was associated with smoking initiation among never smokers. ^ In general, the findings of this study provide important insights on the links between parenting and adolescent smoking and assist in designing prevention and intervention programs that emphasize the role of family bonding to prevent adolescent smoking behavior. Family education programs for Mexican culture could also highlight the positive effects of authoritarian practices and good family communication to prevent family conflict and subsequent smoking behavior.^

How Family Stability Affects Children

The following commentary serves as a response to the article, “Family Stability and Childhood Behavioral Outcomes: A Critical Review of the Literature.” The review article provides a good overview into family factors affecting children, but falls short in discussing how modifying family factors could change specific child behavioral outcomes. The next step in this field of research is a unified definition of family stability, a standardized measure of family stability, and discussion of how child behavior affects family stability, and how changes in family stability could affect child behavior.

Editorial: What's Good for Families?

In the midst of the debates in Washington, D.C. over the budget, health care, welfare, and foreign affairs, a central question remains unanswered ~ what is good for families? Part of the ongoing debate has included family preservation which has been both tauted as the solution for society's ills and, simultaneously, as the cause. The reality, of course, is somewhere in between. Family preservation is a new and exciting approach for helping the most basic unit of our society, families, do their job. The principles which guide family preservation grow out of professional helping values and practice experience. Family preservation is a powerful approach to practice which puts the families we are trying to help at the center of the process, not as "symptom bearers" or "dysfunctional systems," but as full partners. While family preservationists enter a family with their eyes wide open to help solve problems, sometimes very serious ones, most of their energy goes to finding strengths and resources in the family in order to meet its needs. It works! And thousands of families who have been helped, along with researchers and other practitioners, sing its praises.

A Multi- Faceted, Intensive Family Preservation Program Evaluation

This evaluation of a county intensive family preservation services (ifps) program makes several important methodological contributions to assessing post-treatment placement patterns of ifps clients. It is the first published ifps evaluation that utilizes an interval-level, overall measure of restrictiveness of placement, and one of the few that has followed placement patterns for a full two-years after treatment. The study is also a good example of complementing placement data with measures of family health and stability, and with qualitative feedback from former ifps clients. Finally, this study demonstrates the potential for doing methodologically sound evaluations of local ifps programs.

Development and preliminary validation of the cancer family impact scale for colorectal cancer

This study aimed to develop and validate The Cancer Family Impact Scale (CFIS), an instrument for use in studies investigating relationships among family factors and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening when family history is a risk factor. We used existing data to develop the measure from 1,285 participants (637 families) across the United States who were in the Johns Hopkins Colon Cancer Genetic Testing study. Participants were 94% white with an average age of 50.1 years, and 60% were women. None had a personal CRC history, and eighty percent had 1 FDR with CRC and 20% had more than one FDR with CRC. The study had three aims: (1) to identify the latent factors underlying the CFIS via exploratory factor analysis (EFA); (2) to confirm the findings of the EFA via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); and (3) to assess the reliability of the scale via Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory analyses were performed on a split half of the sample, and the final model was confirmed on the other half. The EFA suggested the CFIS was an 18-item measure with 5 latent constructs: (1) NEGATIVE: negative effects of cancer on the family; (2) POSITIVE: positive effects of cancer on the family; (3) COMMUNICATE: how families communicate about cancer; (4) FLOW: how information about cancer is conveyed in families; and (5) NORM: how individuals react to family norms about cancer. CFA on the holdout sample showed the CFIS to have a reasonably good fit (Chi-square = 389.977, df = 122, RMSEA= 0.058 (.052-.065), CFI=.902, TLI=.877, GF1=.939). The overall reliability of the scale was α=0.65. The reliability of the subscales was: (1) NEGATIVE α = 0.682; (2) POSITIVE α = 0.686; (3) COMMUNICATE α = 0.723; (4) FLOW α = 0.467; and (5) NORM α = 0.732. ^ We concluded the CFIS to be a good measure with most fit levels over 0.90. The CFIS could be used to compare theoretically driven hypotheses about the pathways through which family factors could influence health behavior among unaffected individuals at risk due to family history, and also aid in the development and evaluation of cancer prevention interventions including a family component. ^