The risk of smoking in relation to engagement with a school-based smoking intervention
Health promotion interventions cannot work if people do not engage with them. The aim of this study was to examine whether disengagement from an adolescent smoking prevention and cessation intervention was an independent risk factor for regular smoking 1 and 2 years later. The data were taken from a cluster randomised controlled trial, in the West Midlands, UK, based on the transtheoretical or stages of change model. In this trial, 8352 13-14-year old school pupils enrolled, and the data in this report were based on the 7413 and 6782 pupils present at 1 and 2 years follow-ups, respectively. The intervention group undertook three sessions using an interactive computer programme. At the end of the programme, pupils recorded their responses to it. Pupils were classed as engaged if they thought the intervention was both useful and interesting; all others were classed as disengaged. Random effects logistic regression related the number of times engaged to regular smoking at 1 and 2 years follow-up, adjusted for school absences and 11 potential confounders. The majority of pupils were engaged by the intervention. For participants using the intervention three times but not engaging once, the odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for smoking at 1 and 2 years relative to the controls were 1.83 (1.41-2.39) and 1.70 (1.38-2.11). For those engaging three times, they were 0.79 (0.60-1.03) and 0.96 (0.75-1.21). There was no interaction with baseline intention to smoke, classified by stage of change, but there was a borderline significant interaction with baseline smoking status, with disengagement acting as a stronger risk factor among baseline never-smokers. We conclude that disengagement from interventions is a risk factor for smoking independently of experimentation with cigarettes. The best explanation is that disengagement from school, an established risk factor for smoking, generalises to disengagement from didactic school-based health promotion programmes.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 4 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:4:p:869-882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.