Evaluation of a smoke- and tobacco-free campus policy: The issue of displacement

What are the effects of smoke-free and tobacco-free university campus policies, and how can they be assessed? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This article looks at the evaluation of smoke-free (SF) and tobacco-free (TF) university campus policies that ban smoking (and often vaping) both indoors and outdoors. To assess the effectiveness of these policies, we performed a systematic literature review to answer the following questions: what is the effect of SF/TF policies on campus users' behaviors/norms/perceptions around smoking? Are the SF/TF policies an effective measure for reducing smoking among young adults? What methods and indicators can we use to assess the impact of SF/TF campus policies? What is the theoretical model underpinning the influence of SF/TF policies on the behavior of campus users?

METHODS

Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched over the period from January 2005 to December 2022. The article selection process included 54 articles published in scientific journals that analyzed the post-implementation impact of SF/TF campus policies. The quality of these articles was analyzed using six ad hoc indicators based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist and Joanna Briggs Institute scoping tools.

RESULTS

Most of the research on SF/TF campus policies has been conducted in the United States using quantitative methodologies. Most of these studies show that SF/TF policies reduce positive beliefs about smoking and its acceptability, influence smoking behavior (reducing smoking initiation and increasing the number of quits and quit attempts), and reduce exposure to passive smoking and pollution from cigarette butts. User acceptability of SF/TF policies is generally high. Limitations of SF/TF campus policies include difficulty for smokers to comply with them, persistence of passive smoking around campuses, and limited uptake of on-campus cessation support services provided to smokers.

DISCUSSION

The various mediating and moderating variables identified in the literature have made it possible to propose a model of the potential influence of SF/TF policy on campus users, based on the theory of planned behavior. Based on this review, we provide health professionals and higher education institutions wishing to implement a SF/TF campus policy with a set of indicators that can serve to assess the impact of a SF/TF campus policy (attitudes, acceptability, beliefs, norms, exposure to passive smoking and pollution, changes in smoking behavior).

CONCLUSION

Based on scientific evidence, the implementation of SF/TF campus policies in France is an important measure to help combat smoking in young adults.

Use of a Living Lab Approach to Implement a Smoke-Free Campus Policy

While universities have increasingly become tobacco-/smoke-free, to our knowledge, no campus has reported 100% policy compliance. Innovative approaches to encourage compliance and ongoing data collection are needed. This paper describes actions undertaken, framed within a Living Lab (LL) approach, to implement smoke-free campus policies in an Irish university. The action research comprised student-collected data on observed smoking on campus to evaluate adherence and compliance, first to a smoke-free zones policy (June 2016-March 2018), and then to a smoke-free campus policy (March 2019-February 2020). From June 2016-February 2020, 2909 smokers were observed. Adherence, defined as the average reduction in number of observed smokers from baseline in May 2016, reduced by 79% from 5.7 to 4.9 . Compliance, defined as the proportion of smokers who complied when reminded of the policy, was 90% (2610/2909). Additional activities included development of a broader health promotion programme; identification of a pattern of 'social smoking'; and promoting increased awareness of the environmental harms of tobacco. Ongoing policy implementation is essential for smoke-free policies and should include data collection and evaluation. Actions framed within the characteristics of a LL achieved fewer observed smokers. A LL approach is recommended to encourage policy adherence and compliance.

Campus Smoking Policies and Smoking-Related Twitter Posts Originating From California Public Universities: Retrospective Study

Background

The number of colleges and universities with smoke- or tobacco-free campus policies has been increasing. The effects of campus smoking policies on overall sentiment, particularly among young adult populations, are more difficult to assess owing to the changing tobacco and e-cigarette product landscape and differential attitudes toward policy implementation and enforcement.

Objective

The goal of the study was to retrospectively assess the campus climate toward tobacco use by comparing tweets from California universities with and those without smoke- or tobacco-free campus policies.

Methods

Geolocated Twitter posts from 2015 were collected using the Twitter public application programming interface in combination with cloud computing services on Amazon Web Services. Posts were filtered for tobacco products and behavior-related keywords. A total of 42,877,339 posts were collected from 2015, with 2837 originating from a University of California or California State University system campus, and 758 of these manually verified as being about smoking. Chi-square tests were conducted to determine if there were significant differences in tweet user sentiments between campuses that were smoke- or tobacco-free (all University of California campuses and California State University, Fullerton) compared to those that were not. A separate content analysis of tweets included in chi-square tests was conducted to identify major themes by campus smoking policy status.

Results

The percentage of positive sentiment tweets toward tobacco use was higher on campuses without a smoke- or tobacco-free campus policy than on campuses with a smoke- or tobacco-free campus policy (76.7% vs 66.4%, P=.03). Higher positive sentiment on campuses without a smoke- or tobacco-free campus policy may have been driven by general comments about one’s own smoking behavior and comments about smoking as a general behavior. Positive sentiment tweets originating from campuses without a smoke- or tobacco-free policy had greater variation in tweet type, which may have also contributed to differences in sentiment among universities.

Conclusions

Our study introduces preliminary data suggesting that campus smoke- and tobacco-free policies are associated with a reduction in positive sentiment toward smoking. However, continued expressions and intentions to smoke and reports of one’s own smoking among Twitter users suggest a need for more research to better understand the dynamics between implementation of smoke- and tobacco-free policies and resulting tobacco behavioral sentiment.