RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Adolescent smoking is associated with significant health and social risks. Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions based on behavior change theories in preventing adolescent smoking uptake. However, evidence from the theory-based perspective of evaluation is limited, especially for how such complex interventions work, and how they work when implemented in different contextual settings. METHOD: A comparative qualitative analysis was conducted to explore various influences on behavior change among participants taking part in two smoking prevention interventions in Northern Ireland and Bogotá. Twenty-seven focus groups were conducted in 12 schools (6 in Northern Ireland and 6 in Bogota, n = 195 pupils participated; aged 11-15 years). The Theoretical Domains Framework guided a content analysis of the data. RESULTS: We found similarities across settings in terms of knowledge, skills, and beliefs related to smoking or vaping behavior change, as well as differences in contextual resources and social influence. Different environmental resources included availability to purchase tobacco products in the neighborhoods and previous information about tobacco risk. Participants in both interventions perceived behavioral change outcomes related to personal skills and intention to not smoke or vape. CONCLUSION: These findings have highlighted how both individual factors and contextual resources influence behavior change for smoking prevention in practice. Local contextual factors and social influences affecting pupils should be taken into account in the implementation and evaluation of health behavior change interventions. In particular, this study supports using social and contextual influence strategies in interventions to reduce the onset of adolescent smoking and vaping.
RESUMEN
This proof of concept study harnesses novel transdisciplinary insights to contrast two school-based smoking prevention interventions among adolescents in the UK and Colombia. We compare schools in these locations because smoking rates and norms are different, in order to better understand social norms based mechanisms of action related to smoking. We aim to: (1) improve the measurement of social norms for smoking behaviors in adolescents and reveal how they spread in schools; (2) to better characterize the mechanisms of action of smoking prevention interventions in schools, learning lessons for future intervention research. The A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial (ASSIST) intervention harnesses peer influence, while the Dead Cool intervention uses classroom pedagogy. Both interventions were originally developed in the UK but culturally adapted for a Colombian setting. In a before and after design, we will obtain psychosocial, friendship, and behavioral data (e.g., attitudes and intentions toward smoking and vaping) from ~300 students in three schools for each intervention in the UK and the same number in Colombia (i.e., ~1,200 participants in total). Pre-intervention, participants take part in a Rule Following task, and in Coordination Games that allow us to assess their judgments about the social appropriateness of a range of smoking-related and unrelated behaviors, and elicit individual sensitivity to social norms. After the interventions, these behavioral economic experiments are repeated, so we can assess how social norms related to smoking have changed, how sensitivity to classroom and school year group norms have changed and how individual changes are related to changes among friends. This Game Theoretic approach allows us to estimate proxies for norms and norm sensitivity parameters and to test for the influence of individual student attributes and their social networks within a Markov Chain Monte Carlo modeling framework. We identify hypothesized mechanisms by triangulating results with qualitative data from participants. The MECHANISMS study is innovative in the interplay of Game Theory and longitudinal social network analytical approaches, and in its transdisciplinary research approach. This study will help us to better understand the mechanisms of smoking prevention interventions in high and middle income settings.