Cited by 57Smoking Behavior and CessationSchool Health and Nursing EducationSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

School policies for preventing smoking among young people

Open access
Coppo, Alessandro, Galanti, Maria Rosaria, Giordano, Livia, Buscemi, Daria, Bremberg, Sven, Faggiano, Fabrizio·2014·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: School tobacco policies (STPs) might prove to be a promising strategy to prevent smoking initiation among adolescents, as there is evidence that the school environment can influence young people to smoke. STPs are cheap, relatively easy to implement and have a wide reach, but it is not clear whether this approach is effective in preventing smoking uptake. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of policies aiming to prevent smoking initiation among students by regulating smoking in schools. SEARCH METHODS: We searched seven electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC. We also searched the grey literature and ongoing trials resources. The most recent search was performed in May 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cluster-randomised controlled trials (c-RCTs) in which primary and secondary schools were randomised to receive different levels of smoking policy or no intervention. Non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-after studies would also have been eligible. Cross-sectional studies were not formally included but we describe their findings and use them to generate hypotheses to inform future research. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review, and present a narrative synthesis, as the studies are too limited in quality to undertake a formal meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We found only one study which was eligible for inclusion in the review. It was judged to be at high risk of bias. The study compared two 'middle schools' from two different regions in China. The experimental conditions included the introduction of a tobacco policy, environmental changes, and communication activities, while the control condition was no intervention. After a year's follow-up the study found no differences in smoking prevalence between intervention and control schools. We also described 24 observational studies, the results of which we considered for hypothesis generation. In these, policy exposure was mainly described using face-to-face interviews with school staff members, and the outcome evaluation was performed using self-administered questionnaires. Most studies reported no differences in students' smoking prevalence between schools with formal STPs when compared with schools without policies. In the majority of studies in schools with highly enforced policies, smoking bans extended to outdoor spaces, involving teachers and including sanctions for transgressions, with assistance to quit for smokers plus support by prevention programmes, there was no significant difference in smoking prevalence when compared to schools adopting weaker or no policies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite a comprehensive literature search, and rigorous evaluation of studies, we found no evidence to support STPs. The absence of reliable evidence for the effectiveness of STPs is a concern in public health. We need well-designed randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies to evaluate the effectiveness of school tobacco policies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd009990.pub2

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is no difference in smoking prevalence between intervention and control schools in a review of school policies aiming to prevent smoking initiation.

    “The review suggests no difference in smoking prevalence between intervention and control schools.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coppo, A., Galanti, M. R., Giordano, L., Buscemi, D., Bremberg, S., & Faggiano, F.
Affiliations
  • Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” (IT)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria San Giovanni Battista (IT)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-24
Volume
2016
Issue
2
Pages
CD009990-CD009990
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1585044676
Cited by
57
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
school tobacco policies, smoking prevention, adolescent smoking initiation, school smoking bans, tobacco control, smoking prevalence, policy effectiveness, school environment, China, observational studies
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Adolescent, China, Health Policy, Humans, School Health Services, Schools, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Observational Studies as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review