CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121Smoking Behavior and CessationSchool Health and Nursing EducationSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

School‐based programmes for preventing smoking

Thomas, Roger E., McLellan, Julie, Perera, Rafael·2013·Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal
DOI 10.1002/ebch.1937
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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, PsyclNFO, 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. Plain language summary: Can programmes delivered in school prevent young people from starting to smoke? Increasing numbers of young people are smoking in developing and poorer countries. Programmes to prevent them starting to smoke have been delivered in schools over the past 40 years. We wanted to find out if they are effective. We identified 49 randomised controlled trials (over 140,000 school children) of interventions aiming to prevent children who had never smoked from becoming smokers. At longer than one year, there was a significant effect of the interventions in preventing young people from starting smoking. Programmes that used a social competence approach and those that combined a social competence with a social influence approach were found to be more effective than other programmes. However, at one year or less there was no overall effect, except for programmes which taught young people to be socially competent and to resist social influences. A smaller group of trials reported on the smoking status of all people in the class, whether or not they smoked at the start of the study. In these trials with follow‐up of one year or less there was an overall small but significant effect favouring the controls. This continued after a year; for trials with follow‐up longer than one year, those in the intervention groups smoked more than those in the control groups. When trials at low risk of bias from randomisation, or from losing participants, were examined separately, the conclusions remained the same. Programmes led by adults may be more effective than those led by young people. There is no evidence that delivering extra sessions makes the intervention more effective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ebch.1937

Cites

617 of 617 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?

  • Only-information or social influence interventions have no impact on smoking initiation among youth.

    “while there is no impact of only-information or social influence interventions.”

    From Interventions for Adolescent Substance Abuse: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (2016) · cites this paper as [32]

  • Pure prevention programs have an overall significant effect on reducing smoking initiation among youth (RR: .88; 95% CI: .82-.96).

    “suggested that pure prevention program (where never-smokers at baseline were followed and the number of remaining never-smokers at the various follow-up intervals was ascertained), and combined social competence and social influences curricula have an overall significant effect on reducing smoking initiation (relative risk [RR]: .88; 95% CI: .82–.96 and RR: .49; 95% CI: .28–.87, respectively)”

    From Interventions for Adolescent Substance Abuse: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (2016) · cites this paper as [32]

  • Combined social competence and social influences curricula have an overall significant effect on reducing smoking initiation among youth (RR: .49; 95% CI: .28-.87).

    “suggested that pure prevention program (where never-smokers at baseline were followed and the number of remaining never-smokers at the various follow-up intervals was ascertained), and combined social competence and social influences curricula have an overall significant effect on reducing smoking initiation (relative risk [RR]: .88; 95% CI: .82–.96 and RR: .49; 95% CI: .28–.87, respectively)”

    From Interventions for Adolescent Substance Abuse: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (2016) · cites this paper as [32]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 619 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Thomas, R. E., McLellan, J., & Perera, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Thomas, Roger E.
ORCID
Venue
Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
1616-2040
ISSN
1557-6272 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/ebch.1937
OpenAlex
W2395167431
Cited by
120
References
619
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 17 d)
Locations
Evidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal (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-based intervention, smoking prevention, youth tobacco use, smoking onset, smoking cessation interventions, booster sessions, gender differences, intervention effectiveness, smoking prevalence, school-based health education, tobacco control, tobacco advertising regulation, tobacco marketing regulation

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