What limits the effectiveness of school-based anti-smoking programmes?

Evaluation of Social Impact Within Primary School Health Promotion: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Health promotion programs and interventions are designed to encourage behavioral changes in children, encouraging them to make safe and healthy life choices. This systematic review seeks to examine how social impact is measured in primary school health promotion interventions.

METHOD

A systematic search and review process was used to identify and examine primary school health promotion interventions. The PRISMA guidelines were followed to source articles from 6 electronic databases reporting school health promotion programs or interventions in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

A total of 77 studies were located, representing 55 health promotion interventions delivered in primary school settings. Of these interventions, only 8 (15%) measured or attempted to measure social impact, whereas another 8 (15%) alluded to social impact. The predominant theories reported were social based theories (theories which examine the social influences on people, environments, and behaviors) (n = 17, 59%), with almost a third not informed by an overt health promotion framework or model (n = 34, 59%). A systematic rating system identified some level of stakeholder engagement (n = 30, 53%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the need for social impact measurement within health promotion to illuminate the role of school programs in delivering lasting change.

Systematic review of universal school-based 'resilience' interventions targeting adolescent tobacco, alcohol or illicit substance use: A meta-analysis

Universal school-based interventions that address adolescent 'resilience' may represent a means of reducing adolescent substance use, however previous systematic reviews have not examined the effectiveness of such an intervention approach. A systematic review was undertaken to 1) assess whether universal school-based 'resilience' interventions are effective in reducing the prevalence of tobacco, alcohol or illicit substance use by adolescents, and 2) describe such effectiveness per intervention characteristic subgroups. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed reports (1994-2015) of randomised controlled trials including participants aged 5-18years that reported adolescent tobacco, alcohol or illicit substance use, and implemented a universal school-based 'resilience' intervention (i.e. those addressing both individual (e.g. self-esteem) and environmental (e.g. school connectedness) protective factors of resilience). Trial effects for binary outcomes were synthesised via meta-analyses and effect sizes reported as odds ratios. Subgroup (by intervention type, prevention approach, setting, intervention duration, follow-up length) and sensitivity analyses (excluding studies at high risk of bias) were conducted. Nineteen eligible studies were identified from 16,619 records (tobacco: n=15, alcohol: n=17, illicit: n=11). An overall intervention effect was found for binary measures of illicit substance use (n=10; OR: 0.78, 95%CI: 0.6-0.93, p=0.007,Tau²=0.0, I²=0%), but not tobacco or alcohol use. A similar result was found when studies assessed as high risk of bias were excluded. Overall intervention effects were evident for illicit substance use within multiple intervention characteristic subgroups, but not tobacco and alcohol. Such results support the implementation of universal school-based interventions that address 'resilience' protective factors to reduce adolescent illicit substance use, however suggest alternate approaches are required for tobacco and alcohol use. PROSPERO registration: CRD42014004906.

Evaluation of a tobacco prevention programme among teenagers in Sweden

OBJECTIVE

To study the prevalence of tobacco use among teenagers, to evaluate a tobacco prevention programme and to study factors related to participation in the prevention programme.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Population-based prospective cohort study.

METHOD

Within the Obstructive Lung disease in Northern Sweden (OLIN) studies, a cohort study about asthma in schoolchildren started in 2006. All children aged 7-8 years in three municipalities were invited to a questionnaire survey and 2585 (96%) participated. The cohort was followed up at age 11-12 years (n=2612, 95% of invited) and 14-15 years (n=2345, 88% of invited). In 2010, some of the children in the OLIN cohort (n=447) were invited to a local tobacco prevention programme and 224 (50%) chose to participate.

RESULTS

At the age of 14-15 years, the prevalence of daily smoking was 3.5%. Factors related to smoking were female sex, having a smoking mother, participation in sports and lower parental socioeconomic status (SES). The prevalence of using snus was 3.3% and risk factors were male sex, having a smoking mother, having a snus-using father and non-participation in the prevention programme. In the prevention programme, the prevalence of tobacco use was significantly lower among the participants compared with the controls in the cohort. Factors related to non-participation were male sex, having a smoking mother, lower parental SES and participation in sports.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of tobacco use was lower among the participants in the tobacco prevention programme compared with the non-participants as well as with the controls in the cohort. However, the observed benefit of the intervention may be overestimated as participation was biased by selection.

Tobacco or healthy children: the two cannot co-exist

Tobacco exposure increases mortality and morbidity of the fetus, the child, the adolescent, and their children in turn. Nearly half the children in the world are exposed. Smoking is not merely personal choice or personal responsibility; those subtle phrases undermine those who have no choice in the matter. Tobacco control must take a multi-pronged attack. Smoking cessation by adults in childbearing years must take center stage of these efforts, because it is the only way to ensure a smoke-free environment for children. Smoke-free parents provide a role model for smoke-free young people, and erode the image of smoking as a desirable adult behavior to emulate. Pediatricians and pediatric pulmonologists have a key role to play here. This goal will reduce morbidity and mortality among adults and children. Legislation regarding taxation, environments, tobacco constituents, product placement and display, packaging, and media education are all key to this core goal. Smoke-free policy must be protected from attack based on trade agreements. Research is needed into more effective ways to attract and help people give up smoking, and into educating and re-deploying tobacco industry workers in emerging and developed countries.

School-based programmes for preventing smoking

BACKGROUND

Helping young people to avoid starting smoking is a widely endorsed public health goal, and schools provide a route to communicate with nearly all young people. School-based interventions have been delivered for close to 40 years.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this review was to determine whether school smoking interventions prevent youth from starting smoking. Our secondary objective was to determine which interventions were most effective. This included evaluating the effects of theoretical approaches; additional booster sessions; programme deliverers; gender effects; and multifocal interventions versus those focused solely on smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Health Star, and Dissertation Abstracts for terms relating to school-based smoking cessation programmes. In addition, we screened the bibliographies of articles and ran individual MEDLINE searches for 133 authors who had undertaken randomised controlled trials in this area. The most recent searches were conducted in October 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where students, classes, schools, or school districts were randomised to intervention arm(s) versus a control group, and followed for at least six months. Participants had to be youth (aged 5 to 18). Interventions could be any curricula used in a school setting to deter tobacco use, and outcome measures could be never smoking, frequency of smoking, number of cigarettes smoked, or smoking indices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Based on the type of outcome, we placed studies into three groups for analysis: Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1), Change in Smoking Behaviour over time (Group 2) and Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3).

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-four studies involving 428,293 participants met the inclusion criteria. Some studies provided data for more than one group.Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1) included 49 studies (N = 142,447). Pooled results at follow-up at one year or less found no overall effect of intervention curricula versus control (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05). In a subgroup analysis, the combined social competence and social influences curricula (six RCTs) showed a statistically significant effect in preventing the onset of smoking (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; seven arms); whereas significant effects were not detected in programmes involving information only (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 14.87; one study), social influences only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 25 studies), or multimodal interventions (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08; five studies). In contrast, pooled results at longest follow-up showed an overall significant effect favouring the intervention (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96). Subgroup analyses detected significant effects in programmes with social competence curricula (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.88), and the combined social competence and social influences curricula (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87), but not in those programmes with information only, social influence only, and multimodal programmes.Change in Smoking Behaviour over time (Group 2) included 15 studies (N = 45,555). At one year or less there was a small but statistically significant effect favouring controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). For follow-up longer than one year there was a statistically nonsignificant effect (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.02).Twenty-five studies reported data on the Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3), though heterogeneity in this group was too high for data to be pooled.We were unable to analyse data for 49 studies (N = 152,544).Subgroup analyses (Pure Prevention cohorts only) demonstrated that at longest follow-up for all curricula combined, there was a significant effect favouring adult presenters (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96). There were no differences between tobacco-only and multifocal interventions. For curricula with booster sessions there was a significant effect only for combined social competence and social influences interventions with follow-up of one year or less (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.96) and at longest follow-up (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96). Limited data on gender differences suggested no overall effect, although one study found an effect of multimodal intervention at one year for male students. Sensitivity analyses for Pure Prevention cohorts and Change in Smoking Behaviour over time outcomes suggested that neither selection nor attrition bias affected the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pure Prevention cohorts showed a significant effect at longest follow-up, with an average 12% reduction in starting smoking compared to the control groups. However, no overall effect was detected at one year or less. The combined social competence and social influences interventions showed a significant effect at one year and at longest follow-up. Studies that deployed a social influences programme showed no overall effect at any time point; multimodal interventions and those with an information-only approach were similarly ineffective.Studies reporting Change in Smoking Behaviour over time did not show an overall effect, but at an intervention level there were positive findings for social competence and combined social competence and social influences interventions.