+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

School-based programmes for preventing smoking



School-based programmes for preventing smoking



Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013(4): Cd001293



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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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 significan t 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.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055662357

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23633306

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001293.pub3


Related references

School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002(4): Cd001293, 2002

School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006(3): Cd001293, 2006

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015(2): Cd004493, 2015

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007(1): Cd004493, 2007

School-based secondary prevention programmes for preventing violence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006(3): Cd004606, 2006

Cochrane Review Summary: Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents. Primary Health Care Research and Development 18(4): 303-304, 2017

What limits the effectiveness of school-based anti-smoking programmes?. Central European Journal of Public Health 20(1): 18-23, 2012

School-based smoking prevention programmes: ethical aspects. Pneumologia 60(2): 107-110, 2011

Predicting the life-time benefit of school-based smoking prevention programmes. Addiction 105(6): 1109-1116, 2010

Potential reach of effective smoking prevention programmes in vocational schools: determinants of school directors' intention to adopt these programmes. Public Health 126(4): 338-342, 2012

The impacts of a school-wide no smoking strategy and classroom-based smoking prevention curriculum on the smoking behavior of junior high school students. Addictive Behaviors 32(10): 2099-2107, 2007

Access to Anti-smoking Information among School Children and its Potential Impact on Preventing Smoking Initiation: Results from the Global Youth Tobacco Use Survey (GYTS) 2014 in Viet Nam. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 17(S1): 31-36, 2016

Role and development of smoking prevention programmes in school. Hygie 7(1): 18-22, 1988

School-based schistosomiasis control programmes: a comparative study on the prevalence and intensity of urinary schistosomiasis among Nigerian school-age children in and out of school. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 93(4): 387-391, 2000

Evaluation of two school smoking education programmes under normal classroom conditions. BMJ 306(6870): 102-107, 1993