The effect of school smoke-free policies on smoking stigmatization: A European comparison study among adolescents

Do school-based smoking preventive interventions have unintended effects? Post hoc analysis of the Focus cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Public health interventions are designed to improve specific health-related outcomes; however, they may also produce negative side effects, such as substitution use, psychological or social harms. Knowledge about the unintended effects of school-based smoking preventive interventions is sparse. Hence, this study examined these potential unintended effects of the smoking-reducing intervention, Focus, among students in the vocational education and training setting.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial stratified by school type with 5 months follow-up.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Across Denmark, eight schools were randomised to the intervention group (n=844 students, response proportion 76%) and six schools to the control group (n=815 students, response proportion 75%). This study focused solely on students who smoked at baseline (N=491).

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention was developed systematically based on theory and a thoroughly mixed-methods needs assessment. Intervention components included a comprehensive school tobacco policy (smoke-free school hours) supported by a 3-day course for school staff and launched by an edutainment session for students; class-based lessons and a quit-and-win competition; and individual telephone smoking cessation support.

OUTCOMES

Alternative tobacco and nicotine products (regular use of smokeless tobacco, hookah and e-cigarettes), regular cannabis use, boredom and loneliness at school, stress and perceived stigmatisation among smokers.

RESULTS

We found no statistically significant unintended effects of the intervention. Nonetheless, insignificant findings indicated that students in the intervention group were less likely to be bored during school hours (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.10) and experience stress (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.10), but more likely to report feeling stigmatised compared with the control group (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, findings suggested no unintended effects of the Focus trial with respect to substitution use, psychological, nor group or social harms. Future research is encouraged to report potential harmful outcomes of smoking preventive interventions, and interventions should be aware of the possible stigmatisation of smokers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN16455577.

The great decline in adolescent risk behaviours: Unitary trend, separate trends, or cascade?

In many high-income countries, the proportion of adolescents who smoke, drink, or engage in other risk behaviours has declined markedly over the past 25 years. We illustrate this behavioural shift by collating and presenting previously published data (1990-2019) on smoking, alcohol use, cannabis use, early sexual initiation and juvenile crime in Australia, England, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the USA, also providing European averages where comparable data are available. Then we explore empirical evidence for and against hypothesised causes of these declines. Specifically, we explore whether the declines across risk behaviours can be considered 1) a 'unitary trend' caused by common underlying drivers; 2) separate trends with behaviour-specific causes; or 3) the result of a 'cascade' effect, with declines in one risk behaviour causing declines in others. We find the unitary trend hypothesis has theoretical and empirical support, and there is international evidence that decreasing unstructured face-to-face time with friends is a common underlying driver. Additionally, evidence suggests that behaviour-specific factors have played a role in the decline of tobacco smoking (e.g. decreasing adolescent approval of smoking, increasing strength of tobacco control policies) and drinking (e.g. more restrictive parental rules and attitudes toward adolescent drinking, decreasing ease of access to alcohol). Finally, declining tobacco and alcohol use may have suppressed adolescent cannabis use (and perhaps other risk behaviours), but evidence for such a cascade is equivocal. We conclude that the causal factors behind the great decline in adolescent risk behaviours are multiple. While broad contextual changes appear to have reduced the opportunities for risk behaviours in general, behaviour-specific factors have also played an important role in smoking and drinking declines, and 'knock-on' effect from these behavioural domains to others are possible. Many hypothesised explanations remain to be tested empirically.

A Person-Centered Approach to Moralization-The Case of Vaping

Using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation is a controversial topic among health experts. Evidence suggests that vaping might have been moralized among the general public. Despite the detrimental consequences of moralizing health behaviors on social cohesion and health, some argue for using moralization strategically to prevent and combat vaping. We aim to add to the body of literature showing the dangers of moralization in health by proposing a person-centered approach to the moralization of anti-vaping attitudes. Our cross-sectional survey explores the moralization of anti-vaping attitudes and its predictors on a convenience sample of 348 Romanian never-vapers, before the final vote to severely restrict vaping. By fitting a hierarchical regression model on our data, we found support for a unique contribution of negative prototypes (β = 0.13) and opinions of vapers (β = 0.08) in predicting moralization, with significant contributions of piggybacking on moralized self-control, on moralized attitudes toward smoking and on sanctity/degradation, disgust, anger, harm to children, and gender. Together, these variables explained 56% of the variance of the moralization of anti-vaping attitudes. Our findings add to our knowledge of motivated moralization and advise against using moralization in health, suggesting that people may weaponize it to legitimize group dislike.

[The association between school tobacco policies and the perceived smoking prevalence of adolescents]

BACKGROUND

In the German context, there is hardly any quantitative data about the implementation of school tobacco polices that include the perspective of both teachers and students. The aim of the study is to investigate the associations between implemented school tobacco policies and the perceived prevalence of smoking at the level of school staff and adolescents.

METHODS

The repeated cross-sectional study (2013 and 2017) is based on pooled responses of 13- to 17-year-old adolescents (N = 2393) and school staff (N = 85) from 25 schools located in the West German metropolitan region of Hanover. In linear regression models, average marginal effects (AMEs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI95%) and robust standard errors for perceived tobacco prevalence are reported separately for school tobacco policies assessed by teachers and students (scale 0-6). All models were controlled for sociodemographic, school-, and smoking-specific covariates.

RESULTS

On average, adolescents perceive a smoking prevalence of 30% ([Formula: see text]; s: 24.0) for their school. A comprehensive school tobacco policy is consistently associated with lower school smoking prevalence both from the point of view of teachers (AME: -3.54 CI95% -6.49 to -0.58) and students (AME: -1.69 CI95% -2.52 to -0.86). The number of smoking friends (e.g., "most of them are smokers" +14%: AME: 14.13 CI95% 10.46 to 17.80) and the type of school are the most relevant determinants of a high school smoking prevalence. School types with a nonacademic track report a 15% (AME: 15.03 CI95% 10.13 to 19.93) higher prevalence compared to grammar schools.

DISCUSSION

Progressive school tobacco control policies should focus more on school types with nonacademic tracks, certain groups at risk, and those schools that do not strictly enforce school tobacco policies.