A Tobacco-Free Campus Ambassador Program and Policy Compliance

Ickes, Melinda J.; Rayens, Mary Kay; Wiggins, Amanda; Hahn, Ellen J.

doi:10.1080/07448481.2014.990972

Cited by 29 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While researchers have documented ways to increase compliance with tobacco-free campus policies [ 10 , 11 , 12 ], there is less information about best practices in communicating tobacco-free policies to the campus community. How policies are framed—that is, how they are linked and organized with other social and cultural themes—can change how they are viewed and supported in the political process [ 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Experiment Assessing Punitive versus Wellness Framing of a Tobacco-Free Campus Policy on Students’ Perceived Level of University Support

Lee

Purcell

Chaney

2017

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to examine how different ways of describing a hypothetical tobacco-free campus policy would impact college students’ perceived level of support from the college. In the spring of 2016, we randomized 1885 undergraduate students in a required course to three message conditions in an online survey: control (no message), wellness (emphasizing promoting health and quitting support), and punitive (emphasizing consequences for violating the policy). The dependent variable was perceived organizational support. We selected items previously shown to be relevant for college students (alpha = 0.92 in our data). Given significant non-normality, we used non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests with pairwise comparisons to examine differences in perceived organizational support across the three conditions. We examined results by smoking status and if the participant correctly reported the message they received. We found no significant difference in perceived organizational support among students exposed to different tobacco-free campus policy announcements (p = 0.75). We also found no significant difference among smokers (p = 0.66). However, among smokers who correctly reported the message they received, we found significantly lower perceived university support (p = 0.01). Messages about tobacco-free campus policies should focus on the role of policy in supporting a healthy environment instead of punitive enforcement. Campus administrators should use caution when using message frames focusing on consequences of violating newly adopted policies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Experiment Assessing Punitive versus Wellness Framing of a Tobacco-Free Campus Policy on Students’ Perceived Level of University Support

Lee

Purcell

Chaney

2017

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Strategies have been implemented to improve compliance, including awareness campaigns 17,20 and Tobacco-free Ambassador Programs. 21,22 Although there are promising interventions to improve tobacco-free policy compliance, there is a lack of research on the predominant enforcement methods selected across campuses, particularly with varying types of tobacco policies (eg, designated smoking areas versus tobacco-free policies). In addition, there is a lack of knowledge on why various enforcement methods are selected or a comparison of outcomes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The carrot and the stick? Strategies to improve compliance with college campus tobacco policies

Fallin‐Bennett

Roditis

Glantz

2016

Journal of American College Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Tobacco-free policies are being rapidly adopted nationwide, yet compliance with these policies remains a challenge. This study explored college campus key informants’ experiences with tobacco policies, and their perceived benefits, drawbacks, and outcomes. Participants The sample for this study was 68 key informants representing 16 different California universities with varying tobacco policies (no smoking indoors and within 20 feet of entrances, designated smoking areas, 100% smoke-free, and 100% tobacco-free). Methods Qualitative, descriptive study. Semistructured interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. Results Strategies to improve compliance ranged from a social approach to a heavy focus on punitive enforcement. Key informants from campuses using a social approach alone reported barriers to improving compliance, including a perceived lack of efficacy of the approach. However, these campuses found it challenging to incorporate enforcement through campus police or security. Conclusions College campus decision makers should explore using a combined approach (social approach as well as formal enforcement), with enforcement primarily the responsibility of nonpolice university channels (eg, Student Affairs, employee supervisors).

show abstract

“…Although previous international research indicates that those who attend sporting events in smoke-free stadiums tend to comply with the policy [17,19,20], enforcement for those who do not comply is important to protect others from second-hand smoke exposure. The soft, friendly, informational enforcement approach found in this study, and that of Healthy Stadia [11], is also a method of enforcement used at smoke-free universities in the United States [25][26][27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Adoption, Implementation, and Impact of Smoke-Free Policies among Gaelic Athletic Association Clubs in Ireland: A Qualitative Study

Seitz

Lawless

Cahill

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) is a major stakeholder in promoting smoke-free policies in Ireland. Several GAA clubs have adopted smoke-free policies, and there is a growing interest among other GAA clubs to also become smoke-free. As such, the purpose of this study is to explore the process of how GAA clubs adopt, implement, and enforce smoke-free policies in order to discover best practices that other clubs could replicate. Representatives from 15 smoke-free clubs were interviewed regarding how their club became smoke-free. Interview data were analyzed, in which four major themes emerged: (1) process (planning a smoke-free policy, communicating the policy to the community, providing smoking cessation resources), (2) barriers (opinions and behaviors of club members who smoke, bars connected to club houses, policy exceptions, visitors and umpires who were unaware of the policy), (3) enforcement (community-based style of enforcement, non-confrontational approach, non-enforcement), and (4) impact (observation of policy compliance and decrease in cigarette litter). The study’s findings indicate a general ease of becoming smoke-free with minimal barriers. As such, the GAA should urge each club to become smoke-free and to use the effective methods used by current smoke-free clubs for communicating and enforcing smoke-free policies.

show abstract

A Tobacco-Free Campus Ambassador Program and Policy Compliance

Cited by 29 publications

References 25 publications

An Experiment Assessing Punitive versus Wellness Framing of a Tobacco-Free Campus Policy on Students’ Perceived Level of University Support

An Experiment Assessing Punitive versus Wellness Framing of a Tobacco-Free Campus Policy on Students’ Perceived Level of University Support

The carrot and the stick? Strategies to improve compliance with college campus tobacco policies

The Adoption, Implementation, and Impact of Smoke-Free Policies among Gaelic Athletic Association Clubs in Ireland: A Qualitative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About