Mass media interventions for preventing smoking in young people

Brinn, Malcolm P; Carson, Kristin; Esterman, Adrian; Chang, Anne B.; Smith, Brian J.

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001006.pub2

Cited by 101 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 122 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study is motivated by the fact that information spreading in a population even though complex, has a great number of applications. Mass media (television, radio, newspapers, billboards, and booklets) have been used as a way of delivering preventive health messages as they have the potential to influence people's behavior [2], and deter them from risky behavior or from taking precautionary measures in relation to a disease outbreak, as concurrent presentation of objective information about the diseases can mitigate its severity [3]. There is a causal relationship between the mass media health education campaign and the increase in the demand for health services during a disease outbreak.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Media coverage of health-related events has become so important that several surveillance systems now rely on active trolling of internet news media to detect emerging disease threats [7,8]. It is a relatively inexpensive way of exposing the population to information regarding their health [2] and has the potential to reach a large proportion of the population, particularly groups that may be difficult to access through more traditional approaches [5,9,[9][10][11]. For instance, mass media campaigns based on communication for behavioral impact and social change have been shown to be an effective intervention for smoking cessation in adults [12][13][14][15][16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dynamics of an Infectious Disease Where Media Coverage Influences Transmission

Tchuenche

Bauch

2012

ISRN Biomathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is significant current interest in the application of media/psychosocial effects to problems in epidemiology. News reporting has the potential to reach and to modify the knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of a large proportion of the community. A susceptible-infected-hospitalized-recovered model with vital dynamics, where media coverage of disease incidence and disease prevalence can influence people to reduce their contact rates is formulated. The media function is incorporated into the model using an exponentially decreasing function. Qualitative analysis of the model reveals that the disease-free equilibrium is locally asymptotically stable when a certain threshold is less than unity. Numerical results show the potential short-term beneficial effect of media coverage.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of an Infectious Disease Where Media Coverage Influences Transmission

Tchuenche

Bauch

2012

ISRN Biomathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[20][21][22][23][24] The reviews suggest that the following smoking prevention methods and approaches are effective: reducing the illicit sale of tobacco products to under-18s; [20][21][22][23] initiating tobacco-free policies and environmental change; 22 age-appropriate, interactive educational messages delivered via intensive, long-term mass media campaigns; 21 and social competency and skills development interventions to support young people to resist peer influence. Systematic reviews also consistently find that 'multilevel' interventions, which address both individual and environmental determinants of behaviour simultaneously, are most effective for improving young people's health outcomes.…”

Section: Effective Smoking Prevention Methods and Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pilot trial and process evaluation of a multilevel smoking prevention intervention in further education settings

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Preventing smoking uptake among young people is a public health priority. Further education (FE) settings provide access to the majority of 16- to 18-year-olds, but few evaluations of smoking prevention interventions have been reported in this context to date. Objectives To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of implementing and trialling a new multilevel smoking prevention intervention in FE settings. Design Pilot cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation. Setting Six UK FE institutions. Participants FE students aged 16–18 years. Intervention ‘The Filter FE’ intervention. Staff working on Action on Smoking and Health Wales’ ‘The Filter’ youth project applied existing staff training, social media and youth work resources in three intervention settings, compared with three control sites with usual practice. The intervention aimed to prevent smoking uptake by restricting the sale of tobacco to under-18s in local shops, implementing tobacco-free campus policies, training FE staff to deliver smoke-free messages, publicising The Filter youth project’s online advice and support services, and providing educational youth work activities. Main outcome measures (1) The primary outcome assessed was the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and trialling the intervention. (2) Qualitative process data were analysed to explore student, staff and intervention team experiences of implementing and trialling the intervention. (3) Primary, secondary and intermediate (process) outcomes and economic evaluation methods were piloted. Data sources New students at participating FE settings were surveyed in September 2014 and followed up in September 2015. Qualitative process data were collected via interviews with FE college managers (n = 5) and the intervention team (n = 6); focus groups with students (n = 11) and staff (n = 5); and observations of intervention settings. Other data sources were semistructured observations of intervention delivery, intervention team records, ‘mystery shopper’ audits of local shops and college policy documents. Results The intervention was not delivered as planned at any of the three intervention settings, with no implementation of some community- and college-level components, and low fidelity of the social media component across sites. Staff training reached 28 staff and youth work activities were attended by 190 students across the three sites (< 10% of all eligible staff and students), with low levels of acceptability reported. Implementation was limited by various factors, such as uncertainty about the value of smoking prevention activities in FE colleges, intervention management weaknesses and high turnover of intervention staff. It was feasible to recruit, randomise and retain FE settings. Prevalence of weekly smoking at baseline was 20.6% and was 17.2% at follow-up, with low levels of missing data for all pilot outcomes. Limitations Only 17% of eligible students participated in baseline and follow-up surveys; the representativeness of student and staff focus groups is uncertain. Conclusions In this study, FE settings were not a supportive environment for smoking prevention activities because of their non-interventionist institutional cultures promoting personal responsibility. Weaknesses in intervention management and staff turnover also limited implementation. Managers accept randomisation but methodological work is required to improve student recruitment and retention rates if trials are to be conducted in FE settings. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19563136. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 5, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. It was also funded by the Big Lottery Fund.

show abstract

“…Some interventions listed actually increase tobacco use and need to be modified or eliminated to minimize their effects on smoking. [61][62][63][64][65][66][67] Each of the interventions in the table has been evaluated for its effectiveness in preventing (or promoting) consumption of tobacco by youth. Conclusions about program or policy effectiveness have been reached using the widely accepted evidence hierarchies, with randomized trials purported to provide the strongest evidence.…”

Section: How Can We Apply These Recommendations To Generate Stronger mentioning

confidence: 99%