The Diffusion of Smoking: Association Between School Tobacco Policies and the Diffusion of Adolescent Smoking in 38 Schools in 6 Countries.

Social network research has evidenced the role of peer effects in the adoption of behaviours. Little is known, however, about whether policies affect how behaviours are shared in a network. To contribute to this literature, we apply the concept of diffusion centrality to school tobacco policies and adolescent smoking. Diffusion centrality is a measure of centrality which refers to a person's ability to diffuse a given property-in our case, smoking-related behaviours. We hypothesized that stronger school tobacco policies are associated with less diffusion centrality of smoking on school premises and of smoking in general. A whole network study was carried out in 2013 and 2016 among adolescents (n = 18,805) in 38 schools located in six European cities. Overall, diffusion centrality of smoking in general and of smoking on school premises significantly decreased over time. Diffusion centrality of smoking significantly decreased both in schools where the policy strengthened or softened over time, but for diffusion of smoking on school premises, this decrease was only significant in schools where it strengthened. Finally, stronger school tobacco policies were associated with lower diffusion centrality of smoking on school premises and of smoking in general, though to a lesser extent. With such policies, smoking may, therefore, become less prevalent, less popular, and less clustered, thereby lowering the risk of it spreading within networks in, and even outside the school.

School tobacco policies and adolescent smoking in six European cities in 2013 and 2016: A school-level longitudinal study.

Assessment of the effectiveness of school tobacco policies (STPs) in reducing adolescent smoking remains inconclusive. Previous studies took insufficient account of different dimensions of STPs, the different views of students and staff, and policy changes over time. This study assessed how a multidimensional STP, as perceived by students and staff, was associated with adolescent smoking over time in six European cities. The SILNE and SILNE-R surveys were conducted among students (n = 18,502) and staff (n = 438) in 38 schools in 2013 and 2016. Three dimensions (comprehensiveness, enforcement, and communication) were assessed and we calculated total STP scores. Multilevel logistic regressions estimated associations of STPs with adolescent smoking on and just outside school premises and with weekly smoking. Further analyses estimated associations between 2013 and 2016 STP changes and smoking outcomes in 2016, controlling for STP and smoking prevalence in 2013. On average, there were few increases in STP scores over time. Greater STP enforcement, as perceived by students, was associated with lower odds of weekly smoking (OR:0.93, 95%CI:0.89-0.97) and of smoking on school premises (OR:0.80, 95%CI:0.72-0.90). Higher total STP scores were associated with lower odds of smoking on school premises (OR:0.76, 95%CI:0.67-0.86), but not of smoking just outside premises or smoking weekly. Greater increases in STP scores over time were associated with lower odds of smoking on school premises in 2016 (OR:0.65, 95%CI:0.47-0.89). Well-enforced STPs may help reduce adolescent smoking at school. Schools should be supported in adopting comprehensive policies that also extend to the surroundings of their premises.

Economic Evaluation of Five Tobacco Control Policies Across Seven European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Economic evaluations of tobacco control policies targeting adolescents are scarce. Few take into account real-world, large-scale implementation costs; few compare cost-effectiveness of different policies across different countries. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of five tobacco control policies (nonschool bans, including bans on sales to minors, bans on smoking in public places, bans on advertising at points-of-sale, school smoke-free bans, and school education programs), implemented in 2016 in Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness estimates were calculated per country and per policy, from the State perspective. Costs were collected by combining quantitative questionnaires with semi-structured interviews on how policies were implemented in each setting, in real practice. Short-term effectiveness was based on the literature, and long-term effectiveness was modeled using the DYNAMO-HIA tool. Discount rates of 3.5% were used for costs and effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses considered 1%-50% short-term effectiveness estimates, highest cost estimates, and undiscounted effectiveness. FINDINGS: Nonschool bans cost up to €253.23 per healthy life year, school smoking bans up to €91.87 per healthy life year, and school education programs up to €481.35 per healthy life year. Cost-effectiveness depended on the costs of implementation, short-term effectiveness, initial smoking rates, dimension of the target population, and weight of smoking in overall mortality and morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: All five policies were highly cost-effective in all countries according to the World Health Organization thresholds for public health interventions. Cost-effectiveness was preserved even when using the highest costs and most conservative effectiveness estimates. IMPLICATIONS: Economic evaluations using real-world data on tobacco control policies implemented at a large scale are scarce, especially considering nonschool bans targeting adolescents. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of five tobacco control policies implemented in 2016 in Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. This study shows that all five policies were highly cost-effective considering the World Health Organization threshold, even when considering the highest costs and most conservative effectiveness estimates.

The Association Between Smoke-Free School Policies and Adolescents' Perceived Antismoking Norms: Moderation by School Connectedness.

INTRODUCTION: Many European schools implement smoke-free school policies (SFSPs). SFSPs may decrease adolescent smoking by causing adolescents to perceive stronger antismoking norms, yet there exists no quantitative evidence that indicates for which norms and for whom such effects may occur. This study therefore assessed to what extent adolescents' perceived antismoking norms among best friends, teachers, and society at large were associated with SFSPs, and whether these associations were moderated by adolescents' level of school connectedness. AIMS AND METHODS: Survey data were collected in 2016/2017 on 10,653 adolescents aged 14-16 years old and 315 staff members in 55 schools from seven European cities. Associations of adolescent-perceived SFSPs and staff-reported SFSPs with best friend, teacher, and societal antismoking norms were estimated in multilevel logistic regression models, adjusted for demographics and school-level smoking prevalence. We tested for interaction between school connectedness and SFSPs. RESULTS: Adolescent-perceived SFSPs were positively associated with antismoking norms by teachers (odds ratio [OR]: 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.85), were negatively associated with antismoking norms by best friends (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67-0.99), but were not significantly associated with antismoking norms by society at large (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.74-1.02). All interaction tests between adolescent-perceived SFSPs and school connectedness were nonsignificant. Staff-reported SFSPs were not associated with any norm and showed no significant interaction with school connectedness. CONCLUSIONS: We found that SFSPs are associated with adolescents' perception of more antismoking norms by teachers, but less antismoking norms by best friends, irrespective of adolescents' level of school connectedness. IMPLICATIONS: Smoke-free school policies, just as many other tobacco control policies, are assumed to foster adolescents' perception of antismoking norms. Still, current evidence does not demonstrate which antismoking norms may be influenced by SFSPs and whether this influence is equal for adolescents with different levels of school connectedness. This study suggests that SFSPs foster adolescents' perception of antismoking norms by teachers, but may concurrently lead to the perception of less antismoking norms by best friends, irrespective of adolescents' school connectedness. SFSPs may therefore need to be complemented with interventions that target antismoking norms in adolescent peer groups.

Cost of youth tobacco-control policies in seven European countries.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco-control policies have been suggested to reduce smoking among adolescents. However, there is limited evidence on the real-world costs of implementation in different settings. In this study, we aimed at estimating the costs of school smoking bans, school prevention programmes and non-school bans (smoking bans in non-educational public settings, bans on sales to minors and bans on point-of-sale advertising), implemented in Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Portugal, for 2016. METHODS: We retrospectively collected costs related to the inspection, monitoring and sanctioning activities related to bans and educational activities related to smoking prevention programmes. We used an 'ingredients-based' approach, identifying each resource used, quantity and unit value for one full year, under the state perspective. Costs were measured at national, regional, local and school-level and were informed by data on how these activities were performed in reality. RESULTS: Purchasing power parities adjusted-costs varied between €0.02 and €0.74 (average €0.24) per person (pp) for bans implemented outside schools. Mean costs of school smoking bans ranged from €3.31 to €34.76 (average €20.60), and mean costs of school educational programmes from €0.75 to €4.65 (average €2.92). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to estimate costs of health policies as implemented in different settings. Costs of the tobacco control policies evaluated here depend mainly on the number of person-hours allocated to their implementation, and on the scale of intervention. Non-school bans presented the lowest costs, and the implementation of all policies cost up to €36 pp for 1 year.

The effect of school smoke-free policies on smoking stigmatization: A European comparison study among adolescents.

The increasing denormalization of smoking by tobacco control policies and a normative smoke-free climate may shift power towards adolescent non-smokers. It is unclear, however, how common stigmatization of smokers is among adolescents or how stigmatization relates to the denormalization of smoking in their school and social environment. This paper aims to measure (1) whether stigmatization among European adolescents varies according to smoking status and socioeconomic position (SES), and (2) whether stigmatization is greater in school environments in which smoking is denormalized (i.e. those with low smoking rates and strong school tobacco policies). Data on 12,991 adolescents were collected in 55 schools in seven European countries (SILNE R-survey, 2016/17). We applied Stuber's adapted scale of perceived stereotyping and discrimination towards smokers to smoking status and five variables indicating a power shift towards non-smokers: the school's tobacco control policy (STP) score, the percentage of adolescents in the school who smoke, parents' level of education, students' academic performance, and the percentage of their friends who smoke. Multilevel regressions were applied to the global score for perceived stigmatization. Discrimination against smokers and stereotyping of smokers were frequently reported. Smokers reported less 'perceived stigmatization of smoking' than non-smokers (Beta = -0.146, p < 0.001). High-SES students reported stereotyping and discrimination more frequently than lower-SES students. The perception of stigmatization was lower among students whose academic performance was poor (Beta = -0.070, p < 0.001) and among those who had friends who smoked (Beta = -0.141, p < 0.001). Stigmatization was lower in schools with greater exposure to smoking and was not associated with the school's STP score. Perceived stigmatization of smoking is common among European adolescents. Smokers themselves, however, perceive stigmatization less often than non-smokers. Strong school tobacco policies do not increase stigmatization, but a social environment that is permissive of smoking decreases perceived stigmatization.

Where do teens smoke? Smoking locations of adolescents in Europe in relation to smoking bans in bars, schools and homes.

This study aimed to assess where European adolescents smoke. Data of 2,140 13-19-year-olds from 55 secondary schools in seven European cities was analysed using multilevel logistic regression analyses. Adolescents most often reported regularly smoking in 'other public locations (e.g., streets and parks)' (69%) and friends' homes (50%). Adolescents were less likely to smoke in bars, at school or at home when exposed to strong smoking bans at these locations. Bans on smoking in bars or at home were associated with regular smoking in other public locations, suggesting that smoking may have displaced towards these locations.