You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 11
  • Evaluation of a novel intervention providing insight into the tobacco industry to prevent the uptake of smoking in school-aged children: a mixed-methods study

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Addiction
Research
Evaluation of a novel intervention providing insight into the tobacco industry to prevent the uptake of smoking in school-aged children: a mixed-methods study
  1. Lisa Szatkowski1,2,
  2. John Taylor1,2,
  3. Amy Taylor1,2,
  4. Sarah Lewis1,2,
  5. Qi Wu1,3,
  6. Steve Parrott1,3,
  7. Ann McNeill1,4,
  8. John Britton1,2,
  9. Linda Bauld1,5,
  10. Laura L Jones1,6,
  11. Manpreet Bains1,2
  1. 1 UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2 Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, Nottingham City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  3. 3 Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
  4. 4 National Addictions Centre, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, UK
  5. 5 Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
  6. 6 Department of Public Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Health and Population Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Manpreet Bains; manpreet.bains{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives Evidence from the US Truth campaign suggests that interventions focusing on tobacco industry practices and ethics may be effective in preventing youth smoking uptake. We developed, piloted and evaluated a school-based intervention based on this premise.

Methods Exploratory study students in years 7–8 (aged 11–13) in two UK schools received Operation Smoke Storm, comprising three 50 min classroom-based sessions in year 7, an accompanying family booklet and a 1-hour classroom-based booster session in year 8. We compared the risk and odds of ever smoking and susceptibility to smoking in year 8 students in study schools postintervention with students in control schools. Focus groups and interviews with students, teachers and parents evaluated the acceptability of the intervention.

Results In intervention schools, the combined prevalence of ever smoking and susceptibility increased from 18.2% in year 7 to 33.8% in year 8. There was no significant difference in the odds of a year 8 student in an intervention school being an ever smoker or susceptible never smoker compared with controls (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.97, p=0.263) and no significant difference in the odds of ever smoking (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58, p=0.549). Teachers highlighted differences by academic ability in how well the messages presented were understood. Use of the family component was low but was received positively by parents who engaged with it.

Conclusions Operation Smoke Storm is an acceptable resource for delivering smoking-prevention education, but it does not appear to have reduced smoking and susceptibility.

  • public health
  • smoking
  • prevention
  • young people

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018031

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors LS, MB, SL, AM, JB, LLJ, LB, SP and QW designed the study. JT and AT led the focus groups and conducted the teacher interviews; MB, LS and LLJ observed the focus groups. JT and AT analysed the data with MB providing external validation of themes. LS and JT wrote the first draft of this manuscript. All authors made critical comments on subsequent drafts of the paper and have approved the final version.

    • Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research (NIHR PHR) Programme (grant number 11/3010/02). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR PHR Programme or the Department of Health. The authors are members of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, a Public Health Research Centre of Excellence funded by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the National Institute of Health Research, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

    • Competing interests LLJ receives personal fees from the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, outside the submitted work.

    • Ethics approval University of Nottingham Medical School Research Ethics Committee (reference 13122012 CHS EPH Smoking).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Requests for access to data should be addressed to the corresponding author.

    • Collaborators UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies.