Students' Beliefs About and Perceived Effectiveness of a Tobacco-Free Campus Policy

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.

Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-)private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Smoke-free policies are essential to protect people against tobacco smoke exposure. To successfully implement smoke-free policies that go beyond enclosed public places and workplaces, public support is important. We undertook a comprehensive systematic review of levels and determinants of public support for indoor (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, six electronic databases were searched for studies (published between 1 January 2004 and 19 January 2022) reporting support for (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies in representative samples of at least 400 respondents aged 16 years and above. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of individual reports using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The primary outcome was proportion support for smoke-free policies, grouped according to location covered. Three-level meta-analyses, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed.

Findings

14,749 records were screened, of which 107 were included; 42 had low risk of bias and 65 were at moderate risk. 99 studies were included in the meta-analyses, reporting 326 measures of support from 896,016 individuals across 33 different countries. Support was pooled for indoor private areas (e.g., private cars, homes: 73%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 66-79), indoor semi-private areas (e.g., multi-unit housing: 70%, 95% CI: 48-86), outdoor hospitality areas (e.g., café and restaurant terraces: 50%, 95% CI: 43-56), outdoor non-hospitality areas (e.g., school grounds, playgrounds, parks, beaches: 69%, 95% CI: 64-73), outdoor semi-private areas (e.g., shared gardens: 67%, 95% CI: 53-79) and outdoor private areas (e.g., private balconies: 41%, 95% CI: 18-69). Subcategories showed highest support for smoke-free cars with children (86%, 95% CI: 81-89), playgrounds (80%, 95% CI: 74-86) and school grounds (76%, 95% CI: 69-83). Non-smokers and ex-smokers were more in favour of smoke-free policies compared to smokers. Support generally increased over time, and following implementation of each smoke-free policy.

Interpretation

Our findings suggested that public support for novel smoke-free policies is high, especially in places frequented by children. Governments should be reassured about public support for implementation of novel smoke-free policies.

Funding

Dutch Heart Foundation, Lung Foundation Netherlands, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation and Netherlands Thrombosis Foundation.

Non-compliance with university tobacco-free policies: A qualitative exploration

INTRODUCTION

Though university smoke-free and tobacco-free campus policies have been proliferating across the US, compliance and enforcement remain challenges. This study examined perceptions and behaviors of employees and students who used tobacco products on tobacco-free campuses, to better understand policy non-compliance.

METHODS

Students (n=56) and employees (n=20) from two tobacco-free 4-year public universities in Southern California who self-reported using tobacco products on campus participated in focus groups, stratified by university and student or employee (faculty and staff) status, to discuss attitudes toward campus tobacco policies and on-campus smoking. Focus group discussions were transcribed and analyzed after structured coding and subcoding.

RESULTS

Participants were generally aware that smoking and vaping were not allowed on campus, though few could correctly identify their campus as tobacco-free. Attitudes toward the policy varied by subgroup and by campus, with students and employees at different universities expressing varying levels of support. Non-compliance was a unique interaction of individual, institutional, and interpersonal factors including a desire to smoke or vape to reduce stress, lack of formal enforcement or penalty for violating the policy, and efforts to smoke or vape in ways that reduce harm to others as a way of rationalizing non-compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes toward university tobacco-free policies are campus- and constituency-specific, with similarities in individual, institutional, and interpersonal factors underlying non-compliance. Interventions to increase compliance should address individual, institutional, and interpersonal influences on non-compliance through efforts tailored to specific campus constituencies based on their particular knowledge and attitudes towards tobacco-free policies.

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.

How do colleges communicate about E-cigarettes? The presentation of risk, policy, and cessation resources on college websites

ObjectivesWe examine colleges' current practices for communicating about e-cigarettes in terms of risk, campus policy, and cessation resources based on the American College Health Association (ACHA)'s and other tobacco-free campus policy guidelines. Methods: Websites of 581 universities prohibiting e-cigarette use on campus were analyzed. The relationship between the presence of e-cigarette information and campus characteristics was examined. Results: There was a lack of e-cigarette risk information. Health and other risks of e-cigarette use were rarely or never mentioned. One fifth did not specify e-cigarettes to be prohibited. While many colleges were promoting the health benefit of a tobacco-free policy, the financial/professional benefits were rarely mentioned. Less than half mentioned on-campus tobacco cessation resources and less than one third listed off-campus resources. A few campus characteristics (e.g., the U.S. census region of campus, campus housing, funding type) were associated with presence of e-cigarette information on websites. Conclusion: Our findings suggest the need for colleges to make e-cigarette risk, policy, and cessation information more accessible via official college websites for students and other campus members. This may increase students' support for vape-free policy and assist successful adoption of complete tobacco-free policies on campus.

The Effects of Self vs. Group Affirmation and Message Framing on College Students' Vape-Free Campus Policy Support

A growing number of American colleges and universities have become vape-free campuses in response to the high e-cigarette use prevalence among young adults. However, little is known about communication or social-psychological factors associated with campus members' support for a tobacco policy prohibiting e-cigarette use on the campus (vape-free policy support). The present study explores the main and interaction effects of affirmation and message framing on the vape-free policy support among college students who vary in their vaping status. We conducted a computer-based experiment with a two (affirmation: self vs. group) by two (message framing: gain vs. loss) by two (vaping status: vapers vs. non-vapers) between-subjects design. Our analysis indicated that self-affirmation is associated with a higher level of vape-free policy support than group-affirmation. The main effects of message framing as well as two-way interactions between framing and affirmation were not statistically significant. A notable finding was the three-way interaction effect among affirmation, framing, and vaping status. For vapers, the level of policy support was the highest when they were self-affirmed and exposed to a gain-framed message. For non-vapers, the level of policy support was the highest when they were self-affirmed and exposed to a loss-framed message. Our findings suggest that colleges may use varied approaches in communicating a vape-free campus policy based on the target students' vaping status, and the group-pride or collective identity appeals may not be effective in promoting such policy.

Evaluating a tobacco-free university policy: A repeated cross-sectional survey of faculty and staff in Lebanon

INTRODUCTION

A growing body of research has evaluated the effect of university tobacco-free policies on faculty and staff, however, none of these studies has been carried out in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. This study evaluates changes in faculty and staff attitudes, perceptions and smoking behavior, at 1 year post adoption of a tobacco-free policy in a medium-sized university in Lebanon and the region.

METHODS

Two cross-sectional surveys were conducted in 2017 and 2018: baseline and at 1 year post policy implementation. A random sample of 625 and 624 participants took part in the 2017 and 2018 studies, respectively.

RESULTS

Faculty and staff had a positive attitude towards the policy at the two time points. The belief that there should be exceptions to the policy significantly decreased from 79% to 59% (p=0.002) among all smokers, particularly those with lower educational attainment (81% to 57%, p=0.007). Perception of compliance among peer smokers increased from 73% to 87% (p=0.009). The proportion of smokers did not significantly change at 1 year post policy implementation, however, 44% of smokers with lower educational attainment, compared to only 7% of those with higher educational attainment (p<0.001), reported a decrease in their smoking behavior outside campus.

CONCLUSIONS

The policy had a positive effect on the attitude, behavior and perception of policy benefits among smokers with lower educational attainment, who constitute the majority of smokers. Findings from this study inform and support future efforts to develop university and workplace tobacco-free policies.

The attitudes and behaviors of students, staff and faculty towards smoke-free and tobacco-free campus policies in North American universities: A narrative review

INTRODUCTION

In Canada, a series of recent public health policies and interventions have successfully led to a decline in national tobacco use rates. However, tobacco use among young adults remains high and the tobacco industry continues to place a strong marketing emphasis towards young adults on university campuses. In response, many universities across Canada are beginning to adopt smoke-free or tobacco-free campus policies. While the effectiveness of smoke-free and tobaccofree campus policies has been demonstrated in several countries, little is known about the attitudinal responses of university students, faculty and staff towards these policies. As such, we conducted a review of the literature to summarize the findings of studies conducted in North America regarding the attitudes and beliefs of campus community members towards smoke-free or tobacco-free campus policies.

METHODS

Using a pre-defined search strategy and Boolean string, we searched three databases for published articles pertaining to the research question. Only primary and peer-reviewed articles of studies conducted on North American university campuses were eligible for inclusion. Studies included for review were those published in English within the last five years. All studies included in the review contained outcome measurements related to the attitudes and behaviors of faculty, staff and students towards smoke-free and/or tobacco-free campus policies.

RESULTS

A total of 11 articles were included for analysis and result synthesis. Recent research indicates that individuals' attitudes and beliefs towards smoke-free or tobacco-free campus policies are influenced by social norms, smoking status, secondhand smoke exposure, and sociodemographics.

CONCLUSIONS

This literature review provides timely information for universities in the process of developing or implementing a smoke-free campus policy. The attitudes and beliefs of university students, faculty and staff can determine success and compliance to newly implemented smoke-free campus policies.

Development and evaluation of smoke-free or tobacco-free policies in university settings: a systematic scoping review

We conducted a systematic scoping review to map the available evidence on smoke-free or tobacco-free (SF/TF) university policies globally. We specifically looked at (i) how policies were developed and communicated and (ii) what indicators were used to evaluate their impact. We searched for peer-reviewed literature, published up to January 2020, across 10 multi-disciplinary databases. We followed a duplicate, independent data selection, and charting process. We inductively categorized the studies according to the research design and objective of 'process' and 'impact evaluation'. We identified 75 unique studies across 23 countries conducted between 1993 and 2019. Most studies were conducted in the United States (46/75, 61.3%), were based on quantitative research design and focused on impact evaluations; a third (n = 28) reported both process and impact evaluations (37.3%). Community engagement and multi-channel communication strategies were mostly used to disseminate SF/TF policies. The impact was determined by a wide range of indicators for knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to policies. There is a mature, relevant body of literature describing the development and evaluation of SF/TF policies in universities. Future reviews could quantify the impact of the bans and may consider process indicators as moderating factors to explain the potential heterogeneity of results.

Smoking behaviours and attitudes towards campus-wide tobacco control policies among staff and students: a cross-sectional survey at the University of Birmingham

Background

Tobacco control policies have potential to be an effective strategy for the reduction of smoking prevalence and secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in tertiary educational settings worldwide. The aims of this study were to collect baseline data among staff and students, to measure smoking behaviours and attitudes towards introduction of campus-wide tobacco control policies within a UK higher education setting.

Methods

Cross-sectional study using data collected by web-based questionnaire administered to employed staff and enrolled students (undergraduate/postgraduate) at the University of Birmingham from May 2016 to April 2017. Information was obtained regarding demographic characteristics, tobacco usage patterns and attitudes towards a revised campus tobacco control policy using a 21-item survey tool. Logistic regression analyses were used to explore associations between participant characteristics and support for smoke-free or tobacco-free campus policy options, evaluated by crude and adjusted Odds Radios (OR) after controlling for confounding factors (significance level: P < 0.05).

Results

A total of 934 survey responses were received, of whom 780 participants provided complete information on staff or student status and were included in the present analysis. Current smoking prevalence was 14% (N = 109; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.6–16.6). Overall, 66.3% (95% CI: 62.9–69.7) of participants supported a smoke-free campus; 68.5% (95% CI: 65.2–71.8) endorsed restrictions for tobacco sales and just under half of respondents (47.3%; 95% CI: 43.8–50.9) supported a ban for electronic cigarettes/vaping device use on campus. Smoking status was an independent predictor of support for tobacco control, with the lowest level of support for a smoke-free campus among daily (adjusted OR 0.02; 95% CI: 0.01–0.05) and intermittent smokers (adjusted OR 0.06; 95% CI: 0.02–0.16).

Conclusions

Overall, the majority of staff and students participating in this baseline survey supported implementation of a smoke-free or comprehensive tobacco-free campus policy. These findings may inform the development and future implementation of a revised tobacco control policy at the university which reflects contemporary attitudes and considers a broad range of implementation issues, including behaviour change and environmental adaptations.