Moving tobacco prevention outside the classroom

Towards a better understanding of factors affecting smoking uptake among Saudi male adolescents: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

An increased smoking uptake by Saudi male adolescents and a lack of data about its determinants emphasize the need for a better understanding of factors leading to the onset of smoking and identifying ways to prevent it. The aim of this qualitative study is to explore adolescents' views on smoking and their opinions about a smoking prevention program.

METHODS

A total of 103 school-going adolescents, aged 12-16 years, were purposely selected from grades seven, eight and nine from nine schools in Taif in Saudi Arabia. They were interviewed in 11 focus group discussions; five groups were held for smokers and six for non-smokers. An interview scheme was developed based on the I-Change Model, a model used for understanding smoking onset and prevention. We used QDA Lite version 2:0 software for data analysis.

RESULTS

Most of the participants agreed on the importance of social influences as determining factors to start smoking. The presence of smoking friend(s) and family member(s), especially the father, were mentioned. Factors such as having extra pocket money, absence of alternatives, showing off, to be seen as western, to be seen as an adult and the good taste of cigarettes were also mentioned as beliefs associated with smoking. Adolescents indicated to have low confidence not to smoke under peer pressure, suggesting self-efficacy problems. Intentions to smoke were also often mentioned. Almost all participants agreed that an interactive approach is optimal for an effective smoking prevention program.

CONCLUSIONS

Determinants of smoking seem to be very similar to those outlined by previous studies. A smoking prevention program for Saudi adolescents should address how to cope with social pressure to smoke, the advantages connected with smoking, and how to increase self-efficacy. Information should be presented in an interactive rather than static way.

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.