Relationship between smoking and mental health in educational settings with high smoking rates: a cohort study among Danish youth.

BACKGROUND: Smoking and poor mental health in youth represent important public health priorities. This study aimed to (i) compare tobacco-related behaviors and mental health in two educational settings with high smoking rates: vocational education and training (VET) schools and preparatory basic education (PBE) schools, and (ii) examine associations between smoking at school start and mental health 5 months later. METHODS: Data were obtained from baseline (N = 1843) and follow-up (N = 1039) assessments conducted as part of a school-based trial in two rounds (baseline in August 2018 and August 2019). Students' characteristics were presented by adjusted prevalences. Logistic regression analyses assessed associations between smoking and measures of mental health: school-related well-being, overall loneliness, and stress. RESULTS: More PBE students than VET students reported daily smoking (40% vs. 27%), nicotine dependence, perceived benefits of smoking (e.g., stress reduction: 41% vs. 33%), low smoking-related self-efficacy (e.g., ability to resist smoking if offered by a friend: 20% vs. 32%), school-related loneliness, and low school connectedness (25% vs. 11%). Daily smokers at VET and PBE schools had lower odds of school-related loneliness (AOR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.74) and higher odds of stress (AOR = 2.75, 95% CI: 2.00-3.80). Smoking was associated with better classmate relations in VET schools but not in PBE schools. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that students in PBE schools constitute a more vulnerable group in terms of smoking and mental health compared with students in VET schools. Smoking seemed to prevent loneliness in school but was associated with heightened stress levels.

Do school-based smoking preventive interventions have unintended effects? Post hoc analysis of the Focus cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Public health interventions are designed to improve specific health-related outcomes; however, they may also produce negative side effects, such as substitution use, psychological or social harms. Knowledge about the unintended effects of school-based smoking preventive interventions is sparse. Hence, this study examined these potential unintended effects of the smoking-reducing intervention, Focus, among students in the vocational education and training setting. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial stratified by school type with 5 months follow-up. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Across Denmark, eight schools were randomised to the intervention group (n=844 students, response proportion 76%) and six schools to the control group (n=815 students, response proportion 75%). This study focused solely on students who smoked at baseline (N=491). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was developed systematically based on theory and a thoroughly mixed-methods needs assessment. Intervention components included a comprehensive school tobacco policy (smoke-free school hours) supported by a 3-day course for school staff and launched by an edutainment session for students; class-based lessons and a quit-and-win competition; and individual telephone smoking cessation support. OUTCOMES: Alternative tobacco and nicotine products (regular use of smokeless tobacco, hookah and e-cigarettes), regular cannabis use, boredom and loneliness at school, stress and perceived stigmatisation among smokers. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant unintended effects of the intervention. Nonetheless, insignificant findings indicated that students in the intervention group were less likely to be bored during school hours (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.10) and experience stress (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.10), but more likely to report feeling stigmatised compared with the control group (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.40). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, findings suggested no unintended effects of the Focus trial with respect to substitution use, psychological, nor group or social harms. Future research is encouraged to report potential harmful outcomes of smoking preventive interventions, and interventions should be aware of the possible stigmatisation of smokers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16455577.

Context matters in smoking prevention: evaluating smoke-free school hours in Danish vocational schools.

Youth is a crucial period for smoking preventive interventions. School-based interventions targeting the policy level and the sociocultural processes of smoking show promising effects in reducing smoking uptake and prevalence. This study presents findings from the qualitative process evaluation of a smoking preventive intervention, Focus, in the vocational school (VET) setting. Specifically, the study focused on contextual factors affecting the implementation of smoke-free school hours (SFSH). Participant observations and focus groups were conducted in four VETs during the implementation period October-December 2018. The data encompass participant observation field notes (n = 21 school days), student focus groups (n = 8) (aged 16-20), teacher focus groups (n = 5) and semi-structured individual interviews with VET leaders (n = 3). The study found that SFSH was not clearly communicated to students due to the educational structure and chaotic rhythm of the school days, ambivalent attitudes among teachers toward enforcement of smoking rules and lack of clear managerial support. The interplay of these factors counteracted the implementation of SFSH in the VET context. The presented contextual factors are important when interpreting the effectiveness of the Focus intervention and for informing future preventive efforts aiming to reduce smoking among youth in high risk of smoking cigarettes.

Youth represents a crucial period for smoking prevention. School-based interventions show promising effects in this respect. This study presents findings from the qualitative process evaluation of a smoking preventive intervention, Focus, in the vocational school (VET) setting. The aim was to examine the role of context in the implementation process. The data consist of participant observation field notes (n = 21 school days), focus groups (n = 8 with students and n =  5 with teachers) and semi-structured individual interviews with VET leaders (n = 3). The study found that smoke-free school hours was not clearly communicated to students due to several contextual factors, namely an unclear structure and purpose of the school day, ambivalent attitudes among teachers toward smoking rules and lack of managerial support. These factors are important when interpreting the effectiveness of the Focus intervention and for informing future smoking preventive efforts among youth in high risk of smoking cigarettes.

Effectiveness of the multi-component intervention 'Focus' on reducing smoking among students in the vocational education setting: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Social inequality in smoking remains an important public health issue. Upper secondary schools offering vocational education and training (VET) comprise more students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and have higher smoking prevalence than general high schools. This study examined the effects of a school-based multi-component intervention on students' smoking. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants were schools offering VET basic courses or preparatory basic education in Denmark, and their students. Schools were stratified by subject area and eight schools were randomly allocated to intervention (1,160 invited students; 844 analyzed) and six schools to control (1,093 invited students; 815 analyzed). The intervention program comprised smoke-free school hours, class-based activities, and access to smoking cessation support. The control group was encouraged to continue with normal practice. Primary outcomes were daily cigarette consumption and daily smoking status at student level. Secondary outcomes were determinants expected to impact smoking behavior. Outcomes were assessed in students at five-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention-to-treat and per protocol (i.e., whether the intervention was delivered as intended), adjusted for covariates measured at baseline. Moreover, subgroup analyses defined by school type, gender, age, and smoking status at baseline were performed. Multilevel regression models were used to account for the cluster design. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations. Participants and the research team were not blinded to allocation. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses showed no intervention effect on daily cigarette consumption and daily smoking. Pre-planned subgroup analyses showed statistically significant reduction in daily smoking among girls compared with their counterparts in the control group (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.98). Per-protocol analysis suggested that schools with full intervention had higher benefits compared with the control group (daily smoking: OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.19, 1.02), while no marked differences were seen among schools with partial intervention. CONCLUSION: This study was among the first to test whether a complex, multicomponent intervention could reduce smoking in schools with high smoking risk. Results showed no overall effects. There is a great need to develop programs for this target group and it is important that they are fully implemented if an effect is to be achieved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16455577 , date of registration 14/06/2018.

Changes in Cigarette Smoking and Smokeless Tobacco Use During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Lockdown Period Among Youth and Young Adults in Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: Cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (snus and nicotine pouches) are prevalent among youth and young adults in Denmark. Here, we examined the extent of changes in the use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco during the first Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown in March and April 2020 in Denmark as well as reasons for changed behavior. AIMS AND METHODS: This study used data from a nationwide survey conducted among 15- to 29-year-olds from January to March 2021 including 13 530 respondents (response rate = 36.0%). Logistic regression analyses assessed the associations between sociodemographic characteristics and the odds of initiating or increasing as well as trying to stop or decreasing cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use. RESULTS: The prevalence of cigarette smoking was 17.8% and 10.5% reported using smokeless tobacco. Around 40% of those currently smoking cigarettes reported smoke on par during the COVID-19 lockdown as before, 24.5% started to smoke or increased their smoking, and 27.4% tried to stop or smoked less. Approximately 37% used smokeless tobacco on the same level as, before the COVID-19 lockdown, 38.8% initiated or used more, and 14.1% tried to stop or used less. Females were more prone to initiate smokeless tobacco use and increase their level of smoking during the lockdown, and younger participants smoked less. More females compared with males changed their smoking behaviors because of their mood, and more younger participants did so because of fewer social gatherings. CONCLUSION: Although most youths and young adults' tobacco behaviors remained the same during the COVID-19 lockdown, many also increased or decreased their behaviors-especially females and younger participants. IMPLICATIONS: This study enables the possibility of detecting new tendencies in smoking and the use of smokeless tobacco among subgroups of the population during the COVID-19 lockdown. This knowledge is crucial for identifying which groups of youths are vulnerable to increasing their tobacco use in other pandemic situations and which groups call for special attention after the lockdown period. Future efforts may focus on vulnerable groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as females, and there is a need to monitor closely whether youth tobacco use changes as society becomes more normalized.

Trends in Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes among Danish Adolescents, 2002-2018: Exclusive and Dual Use.

Many young adolescents experiment with substance use which can have substantial health implications later in life. This study examined trends in substance use among Danish adolescents from 2002 to 2018, including exclusive and dual current use of alcohol and cigarettes. Data on 13- and 15-year-olds (N = 15,295) from five comparable cross-sectional Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) surveys were used. Cochran-Armitage test for trend assessed the development in substance use patterns over time. Overall, a decreasing trend in current use of alcohol and cigarettes was found among Danish adolescents during the 16-year study period: from 71.7% in 2002 to 51.6% in 2018. In 2018, most adolescents (41.8%) currently used alcohol exclusively, 8.6% had a dual current use of cigarettes and alcohol, and 1.3% smoked cigarettes exclusively. Trends in alcohol use differed according to age groups, while no gender-specific trends in substance use were found. Findings suggest that a significant prevention potential in adolescent substance use remains, and future initiatives may focus on dual use of substances as well as tailored efforts to specific subgroups in high risk of using substances.

Socio-economic differences in smoking among adolescents in a school-based smoking intervention: The X:IT II study.

Aims: Socio-economic inequalities in health behaviour may be influenced by health interventions. We examined whether the X:IT II intervention, aiming at preventing smoking in adolescence, was equally effective among students from different occupational social classes (OSC). Methods: We used data from the multi-component school-based smoking preventive intervention X:IT II, targeting 13- to 15-year-olds in Denmark. The intervention was tested in 46 schools with 2307 eligible students at baseline (response rate=86.6%) and had three main intervention components: smoke-free school time, smoke-free curriculum and parental involvement. We used a difference-in-difference design and estimated the change in current smoking after the first year of implementation in high versus low OSC. Analyses were based on available cases (N=1190) and imputation of missing data at follow-up (N=1967). Results: We found that 1% of the students from high OSC and 4.9% from low OSC were smokers at baseline (imputed data), and 8.2% of the students from high OSC and 12.2% from low OSC were smokers at follow-up. Difference-in-difference estimates were close to zero, indicating no differential trajectory. Conclusions: As intended, the X:IT II intervention, designed to apply equally to students from all socio-economic groups, did not seem to create different trajectories in current smoking among adolescents in high and low socio-economic groups. To diminish social inequality in health, future studies should carefully consider the ability to affect all socio-economic groups equally, or even to appeal mainly to participants from lower socio-economic groups, as they are often the ones most in need of intervention.

Gender differences in attitudes towards a school-based smoking prevention intervention.

AIMS: There are well-known gender differences in smoking, including the pattern of use and the effectiveness of smoking prevention programs. However, little is known about the differences between boys and girls in their attitudes towards smoking prevention interventions. This study explores gender differences in attitudes towards a school-based intervention to prevent smoking. METHODS: We used data from the X:IT II intervention study conducted in 46 Danish elementary schools. RESULTS: Compared to boys, girls were more positive towards smoke-free school time, both concerning rules for teachers smoking (odds ratio (OR) = 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.35-2.12) and for students smoking (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.13-1.76). No difference was observed in students signing the smoke-free agreement. However, a larger proportion of girls reported that the agreement was a good occasion to talk about smoking with their parents (OR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.13-1.76). Girls were also more positive towards the smoke-free curriculum (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.19-1.94). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that girls were, overall, more positive towards the components of the smoking preventive intervention. Our findings highlight the importance of considering differences in intervention preferences for boys and girls in future health prevention initiatives.

Friend or foe? Postdivorce hostility among recently divorced individuals.

High levels of hostility often occur during and postdivorce and may significantly affect the quality of life, parent-child relationships, and social functioning of divorcees. Moreover, hostility may predict aggressive and violent behavior. This study sought to (a) compare average general hostility levels of a large sample of Danish divorcees to the norms of the general adult Danish population, (b) compare general hostility levels between male and female divorcees, and (c) investigate the explanatory value of various sociodemographic and divorce-related factors on postdivorce general hostility and whether these factors differ across gender. Cross-sectional baseline data (N = 1,856) from a larger randomized controlled trial study was used in this study. Normative data from a general sample of Danish adults (N = 2,040) was used for comparisons of hostility levels between our study sample and the Danish background population. This study found that male and female divorcees did not report significantly different hostility levels. However, participants reported significantly higher hostility levels postdivorce than the comparative Danish norm sample. Significant predictors of postdivorce hostility were lower age, lower educational level, infidelity as a reason for divorce, higher degree of postdivorce conflict, worse communication with the former spouse, the former spouse as the initiator of the divorce, and new partner status with neither divorcees having a new partner, or only the former spouse having a new partner. The predictive strength of the factors did not differ across gender. The findings may be especially relevant for interventions targeting problematic outcomes postdivorce (e.g., preventing aggressive behavior).