Does adding a psychosocial cessation intervention to an existing life-skills and tobacco-prevention program influence the use of tobacco and supari among secondary school students?: Findings from a quasi-experimental trial in Mumbai, India

Abstract

INTRODUCTION This study aimed to test whether school-going adolescents who self-report tobacco and/or supari use are more likely to quit if a school-based psychosocial cessation intervention is added to an existing life-skills and tobaccoprevention program. METHODS A quasi-experimental trial with pre-test and post-test 20 weeks after the intervention was conducted with students from low-income families in 12 schools in Mumbai; six schools were randomly assigned to the intervention and the remaining to the comparison condition. Participants were students from grades 7, 8 and 9 who self-reported tobacco and/or supari use. Intervention schools received six sessions of LifeFirst, a psychosocial group-based tobacco cessation intervention program, in addition to SuperArmy, a school-wide lifeskills and tobacco-prevention program. Trained counselors facilitated the cessation intervention, which spanned five months. All students in comparison schools received only SuperArmy. The outcome measures were self-reported use of tobacco-only, supari-only, and tobacco plus supari in the past 30 days. RESULTS The number of all users decreased by 19.1% in the intervention and 18.7% in the comparison schools at post-test. Although this reduction was significant (p<0.001) within each group, the difference between intervention and comparison schools was not significant. Further segregation by type of product used showed that for tobacco-only users there was a non-significant increase of 1.7% in intervention schools, and a significant 26.2% increase (p<0.001) in the comparison group. Tobacco plus supari use declined in both groups; however, supari-only use fell by 14.8% in the intervention and 32.7% in the comparison schools (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS The combination of a cessation intervention along with the life-skills and tobacco-prevention program appear to have halted tobacco-only use in the intervention group. Future research needs to determine whether students are substituting supari for tobacco and to understand the psychological mechanisms underlying the cessation intervention and the interaction between cessation and prevention-only interventions.

Intervention to reduce adolescent hookah pipe use and satisfy basic psychological needs

“…It is therefore important to explore triggers and obstacles and plan ways to overcome them by developing skills such as assertion, decisionmaking, conflict management and so forth. This view was consistent with Chatterjee et al (2019) who asserts that identifying what may cause cravings and relapse is important as each person has different individual, environmental and emotional influencing factors. Understanding what may trigger cravings and relapse allows adolescents to manage and prevent it.…”

A Review of Intervention Strategies for Areca Nut Use Cessation

“…In another study using the LifeFirst program, a 20-week pre- and post-test quasi-experimental trial was conducted on school-going adolescents from 12 schools in Mumbai. 32 The school-based psychosocial cessation intervention program had six group sessions consisting of counseling to address barriers to quit and ways to overcome them. This intervention was added to an already existing life skills and tobacco prevention program (the components of which were awareness of harms, refusal skills, and becoming advocates for change).…”

“…One study also evaluated the feasibility of providing psychological intervention. 26 Two Indian studies 31,32 developed a school-based psychosocial cessation intervention plan to reduce AN intake among school children. Most studies demonstrated an increase in awareness related to the harms of AN, motivation to quit, and a reduction in AN use.…”

Behavioural interventions for tobacco cessation in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…In our review, there were nine cluster RCTs. [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 32 , 33 ] The number of clusters varied from 11 to 60. [ 25 , 33 ] Among these, four RCTs used geographical units such as low-income administrative blocks, community development blocks, villages and polling areas as clusters.…”

“…[ 19 , 25 , 27 , 33 ] Three studies used schools as clusters. [ 20 , 26 , 30 ] Other study settings were manufacturing worksite units and designated microscopy centres. [ 21 , 32 ]…”