Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

School-based programmes for preventing smoking

  1. Roger E Thomas1,*,
  2. Julie McLellan2,
  3. Rafael Perera2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group

Published Online: 30 APR 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 5 FEB 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001293.pub3


How to Cite

Thomas RE, McLellan J, Perera R. School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001293. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001293.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Calgary, Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

  2. 2

    University of Oxford, Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK

*Roger E Thomas, Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, UCMC, #1707-1632 14th Avenue, Calgary, Alberta, T2M 1N7, Canada. rthomas@ucalgary.ca.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 30 APR 2013

SEARCH

 

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Plain language summary

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

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 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.