Analysis of Smoking Patterns and Contexts Among College Student Smokers

Many who smoke in college do so infrequently and smoking conditions are not well-understood. We examined smoking patterns among college fraternity and sorority members (N=207) from a Midwestern university in three successive fall semesters in 2006–2008. Participants completed calendar-assisted retrospective assessments of 30-day smoking at up to 5 assessment points over 96 days. Overall smoking rates declined over the course of each semester and higher smoking on weekends was observed, with more variability among daily smokers. The most frequent categories of events to cue recall of smoking were socializing, work, and school. Findings can be used to target prevention efforts

Timeline Follow-Back Versus Global Self-Reports of Tobacco Smoking: A Comparison of Findings With Non-Daily Smokers

Methods assessing non-daily smoking are of concern because biochemical measures can not verify self-reports beyond 7 days. This study compares two self-reported smoking measures for non-daily smokers. A total of 389 college students, (48% female, 96% white, mean age of 19) smoking between 1 and 29 days out of the past 30, completed computer assessments in three cohorts with the order of administration of the measures counterbalanced. Values from the two measures were highly correlated. Comparisons of Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB) with the global questions for the total sample of non-daily smokers yielded statistically significant differences (p\u3c.001), albeit small, between measures with the TLFB resulting on average in 2.38 more total cigarettes smoked out of the past 30 days, 0.46 less smoking days, and 0.21 more cigarettes smoked per day. Analyses by level of smoking showed that the discordance between the measures differed by frequency of smoking. Global questions of days smoked resulted in frequent reporting in multiples of five days, suggesting digit bias. Overall the two measures of smoking were highly correlated and equally effective for identifying any smoking in a 30-day period among non-daily smokers

Childhood vaccination practices and parental hesitancy barriers in rural and urban primary care settings

Nationally and in Montana, children living in rural areas have unique barriers to vaccine access and lower vaccination rates compared to children in urban areas. However, there has been minimal prior research on rural-focused strategies for increasing vaccination rates. Our objective was to compare rural and urban Montana primary care providers’ (PCPs’) practices in promoting childhood vaccination and their perceptions regarding barriers to and strategies for promoting vaccination. We conducted a mail and online survey of rural and urban Montana PCPs. In October-December 2021, the survey was pilot tested by PCPs across Montana. In January-April 2022, we sent out four survey mailings to all eligible PCPs, 4-6 weeks apart. The last mailing contained a hand-addressed, larger, and different-colored envelope than was previously used. The survey included modules on routine vaccinations in children 0-2 years old and COVID-19 vaccination in children 5-17 years old. We completed descriptive analyses and used chi-square statistical tests to compare responses from rural and urban PCPs. The participation rate was 36% (n=298). Urban PCPs (90-94%, depending on vaccine) stocked routinely recommended vaccines more frequently than rural PCPs (71-84%), but stocked the COVID-19 vaccine less often (urban: 44%, rural: 71%, pp=0.01) and concerns that vaccination will weaken their child’s immune system (29% vs. 6%, pp=0.01). This study’s results illuminated potential interventions to increase rural vaccination rates, such as increasing the number of providers stocking all recommended vaccines, identifying strategies to address parents’ concerns, and collaborating with health departments on public vaccine communication campaigns

Validating Automated Integrative Complexity: Natural Language Processing and the Donald Trump Test

Computer algorithms that analyze language (natural language processing systems) have seen a great increase in usage recently. While use of these systems to score key constructs in social and political psychology has many advantages, it is also dangerous if we do not fully evaluate the validity of these systems. In the present article, we evaluate a natural language processing system for one particular construct that has implications for solving key societal issues: Integrative complexity. We first review the growing body of evidence for the validity of the Automated Integrative Complexity (AutoIC) method for computer-scoring integrative complexity. We then provide five new validity tests: AutoIC successfully distinguished fourteen classic philosophic works from a large sample of both lay populations and political leaders (Test 1) and further distinguished classic philosophic works from the rhetoric of Donald Trump at higher rates than an alternative system (Test 2). Additionally, AutoIC successfully replicated key findings from the hand-scored IC literature on smoking cessation (Test 3), U.S. Presidents’ State of the Union Speeches (Test 4), and the ideology-complexity relationship (Test 5). Taken in total, this large body of evidence not only suggests that AutoIC is a valid system for scoring integrative complexity, but it also reveals important theory-building insights into key issues at the intersection of social and political psychology (health, leadership, and ideology). We close by discussing the broader contributions of the present validity tests to our understanding of issues vital to natural language processing