Advokasi Penerapan Kawasan Tanpa Rokok di Sekolah

Abstract

Latar Belakang. Jumlah perokok pasif di Indonesia mencapai 75% atau 96,9 juta orang. Sebanyak 66,2% pelajar terpapar rokok di ruang publik tertutup. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan telah menerbitkan Permendikbud 64/2015 tentang Kawasan Tanpa Rokok (KTR) di Lingkungan Sekolah. Masih perlu optimalisasi pelaksanaan KTR di sekolah.Tujuan. untuk melihat bagaimana peran siswa dalam proses advokasi dalam mengimplementasikan KTR di sekolahMetode. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif kualitatif dengan desain studi kasus yang dilakukan di suatu SMP di Kabupaten Bogor. Terdapat 7 informan yang terlibat. Teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah Focus Group Discussion (FGD) dan wawancara mendalam dengan melihat proses advokasi menggunakan Kerangka Advokasi “A”.Hasil. Siswa berperan sebagai pelaksana KTR di sekolah dengan mengadvokasi guru untuk menjadi fasilitator siswa, pimpinan sekolah sebagai pembuat kebijakan, dan pedagang toko di sekitar sekolah. Siswa mengidentifikasi permasalahan yang dirasakan, merumuskan strategi, menganalisis target dan melakukan advokasi. Kesepakatan yang terbentuk diantaranya pelaksanaan KTR sesuai kemampuan dan kondisi sekolah, pemasangan plang KTR, menjalankan satgas KTR, sosialisasi bahaya merokok dan advokasi kepada warung di sekitar sekolah untuk menurunkan spanduk iklan rokok.Kesimpulan. Siswa bisa menjadi agen perubahan untuk implementasi KTR di sekolah dengan adanya fasilitasi dan dukungan dari guru dan kepala sekolah. ABSTRACTBackground. Passive smokers in Indonesia reaches 75% or 96.9 million people. 66.2% students are exposed to cigarette in closed public spaces. Ministry of Education and Culture issued Permendikbud 64/2015 concerning KTR in the School Environment. implementation of KTR in schools still need optimization.Objective to see how the role of students in the advocacy process in implementing schools as smoke-free areas.Method. This research is a qualitative descriptive research with case study design conducted in a Junior High School of Bogor Regency. There were 7 informants. The data collection technique used Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and in-depth interviews by looking at the advocacy process using the "A" Advocacy Framework. Results. Students act as implementers of KTR in schools by advocating teachers to become student facilitators, school leaders as policy makers, and shop traders around the school. Students identify perceived problems, formulate strategies, analyze targets and conduct advocacy. The agreement formed include implementation of KTR according to the school’s ability and condition, installing KTR signs, applying KTR task-force and advocating stalls around schools to put down cigarette advertising bannersConclusion. Students can become agents of change for the implementation of KTR in schools with facilitation and support from teachers and principals.

Adolescent’s Peer and Family Influence in Smoking Relapse

“…Although the results mean that the study cannot draw clear conclusions about correlations between the influence of family and peers on the incidence of smoking relapse, several suggestions emerged showing the influence of family and peers on smoking. The Minister of Health in Indonesia has designated schools as one of the antismoking zones (Ulfa & Damayanti, 2021). Compliance with all school members in this regulation will also help smokers and smokers who experience relapse to stop smoking and prevent smoking among adolescents.…”

Policy Advocacy Communication Model for Preventing Smoking Among Teenagers in Bener Meriah Regency School Environment

“…Schools are denied from carrying out all shapes of promoting or advancements related to cigarettes for all exercises inside the school. Information and demeanors regarding the threats of smoking and the presence of KTR directions have to be known since they impact the victory of the approach [5]. The usage of the KTR arrangement seems to have an impact on diminishing the extent of smokers each day [6].…”

“…The investigation comes about appears that the smoking behavior of understudies in schools that don't have a No-Smoking Area arrangement is higher (57.9%) than understudies in schools that have a No-Smoking Zone arrangement (36.1%). Smoking-Free Zones could be an approach that requires execution from each approach partner so that its objectives can be realized [5].…”