Exploring Multilevel Workplace Tobacco Control Interventions: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Background: The workplace provides a unique opportunity to intervene on tobacco use, by implementing multilevel interventions engaging diverse employees. Using the social ecological model (SEM), this scoping review aimed to synthesize descriptions of multilevel workplace tobacco control programs to create a health equity informed framework for intervention planning. Methods: Multiple databases were searched for articles published from January 2010 to December 2020 meeting inclusion criteria (i.e., discussed multilevel tobacco cessation interventions that intervene, target, or incorporate two or more levels of influence, and one of the levels must be the workplace). Articles were screened by two independent researchers and included if they discussed multilevel tobacco cessation interventions that intervened, targeted, or incorporated two or more levels of influence. To integrate the extracted information into the SEM, we utilized the McLeroy et al. model and definitions to describe potential multilevel interventions and their determinants. Results: Nine articles were included in this review. No studies intervened across all five levels (individual, interpersonal, institutional, community, and policy), and the most common levels of intervention were individual (e.g., individual counseling), interpersonal (e.g., group therapy), and institutional (e.g., interventions during work hours). Participation rates varied by key social determinants of health (SDOHs) such as age, gender, education and income. Barriers including cost and sustainability influenced successful implementation, while leadership endorsement and accessibility facilitated successful implementation. Discussion/Application to Practice: Multilevel interventions targeting at least two SEM levels may reduce persistent health inequities if they address how SDOHs influence individual health behaviors. Employee characteristics impacted the success of tobacco cessation interventions, but more research is needed to understand the barriers and facilitators related to workplace characteristics.

The (De)normalisation of Smoking Among Apprentices: Plurality of Settings, Norms and Vulnerability Levels

“…Our study also calls for encouraging interventions in workplaces (Parkinson et al 2022), especially involving apprenticeship teachers who seem to play an important role with apprentices. As other authors have already suggested, it also confirms the need to encourage family-based smoking education and cessation programs (Legleye et al, 2023).…”

Smoking cessation interventions and implementations across multiple settings in Japan: A scoping review and supplemental survey

“…It provides a systematized approach to identifying barriers and facilitators (context of implementation settings), implementation strategies (packages of implementation interventions to address barriers in the context of implementation success), and implementation outcomes (process outcomes of implementation, which indicate implementation success) [14]. To the best of our knowledge, few studies have focused on smoking cessation interventions with an implementation science perspective worldwide, with research being conducted primarily in hospital settings [15][16][17][18][19] and a few in non-hospital settings [20][21][22][23], and no reviews have covered settings such as hospitals, communities, workplaces, and schools. Since the implementation of smoking cessation interventions varies globally, and even within countries despite the existence of global and national tobacco control policies [24], there is a need for studies focusing on implementation in a wide range of settings in a speci c country.…”

Smoking cessation interventions and implementations across multiple settings in Japan: a scoping review and supplemental survey

“…It provides a systematized approach to identifying barriers and facilitators (context of implementation settings), implementation strategies (packages of implementation interventions to address barriers in the context of implementation success), and implementation outcomes (process outcomes of implementation, which indicate implementation success) [13]. To the best of our knowledge, few studies have focused on smoking cessation interventions with an implementation science perspective worldwide, with research being conducted primarily in hospital settings [14][15][16][17][18] and a few in nonhospital settings [19][20][21][22], and no reviews have covered settings such as hospitals, communities, workplaces, and schools. Since the implementation of smoking cessation interventions varies globally, and even within countries despite the existence of global and national tobacco control policies [23], there is a need for studies focusing on implementation in a wide range of settings in a specific country.…”