school based curricula for preventing smoking in children and adolescents what's the evidence?
TRANSCRIPT
Welcome! School-based
programmes for preventing smoking in
children and adolescents:
What's the Evidence?You will be placed on hold until the webinar begins. The webinar will begin shortly, please remain on the
line.
What’s the evidence? Thomas, R., McLellan, J., & Perera, R. (2013). School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013 (4) Art. No.: CD001293. http://www.healthevidence.org/view-article.aspx?a=15727
Thomas, R. E., McLellan, J., & Perera, R. (2015). Effectiveness of school-based smoking prevention curricula: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 5(3). http://www.healthevidence.org/view-article.aspx?a=28703
• Use Q&A to post comments / questions during the webinar– ‘Send’ questions to All (not
privately to ‘Host’)
• Connection issues– Recommend using a wired
Internet connection (vs. wireless),
• WebEx 24/7 help line– 1-866-229-3239
Q&A
Participant Side Panel in WebExHousekeeping
The Health Evidence Team
Maureen Dobbins Scientific Director
Heather HussonManager
Susannah WatsonProject Coordinator
Robyn TraynorPublications Consultant
Students:Emily Belita(PhD candidate)
Jennifer YostAssistant Professor
Olivia MarquezResearch Coordinator
Kristin ReadResearch Coordinator
Yaso GowrinathanInformation Liaison
Emily SullyResearch Assistant
Bethel WoldemichaelResearch Assistant
Liz KamlerResearch Assistant
Zhi (Vivian) ChenResearch Assistant
What is www.healthevidence.org?
Evidence
Decision Making
inform
Why use www.healthevidence.org?
1. Saves you time2. Relevant & current evidence 3. Transparent process4. Supports for EIDM available 5. Easy to use
A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision
Making
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health (Fact Sheet). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf]
Stages in the process of Evidence-Informed Public Health
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Evidence-Informed Public Health. [http://www.nccmt.ca/eiph/index-eng.html]
Poll Question #1
Have you heard of PICO(S) before?
1.Yes2.No
Searchable Questions Think “PICOS”
1. Population (situation)
2. Intervention (exposure)
3. Comparison (other group)
4. Outcomes
5. Setting
How often do you use Systematic Reviews to inform a program/services?
A.AlwaysB.OftenC.SometimesD.NeverE.I don’t know what a systematic review is
Poll Question #2
Dr. Roger Thomas MD, Ph.D, CCFP, MRCGP is Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary.
Cochrane Collaboration Coordinator, University of Calgary.
Roger Thomas
ReviewThomas, R.E., McLellan, J., & Perera, R. (2013) School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001293.
Thomas, R. E., McLellan, J., & Perera, R. (2015). Effectiveness of school-based smoking prevention curricula: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 5(3).
Rationale • Are interventions in schools to prevent
children who have never smoked from starting to smoke effective?
• Which interventions are effective: Information? Social skills to refuse tobacco offers? Interventions to become socially more
competent?Social skills + Social competence?Multimodal programmes?
Rationale Which methods of programme delivery are more
effective? • Gender-specific• Peer-led programmes vs. those taught by
researchers or teachers• Booster sessions after programme
completion vs. no booster• Tobacco-focused interventions vs.
interventions focused on tobacco, alcohol, drugs and risky behaviours
Review FocusP Children (aged 5 to 12) and adolescents
(aged 13 to 18)I Interventions in schools intended to deter starting to use tobacco
C No intervention or school intervention
O Smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline
School-based interventions prevent children and adolescents from starting to smokeA.Strongly agreeB.AgreeC.NeutralD.DisagreeE.Strongly disagree
17
Poll Question #3
Outline1. Overview of included trials2. School interventions compared to no
intervention, baseline never smokers3. Examples of social skills and social
competence interventions 4. Conclusions for practice5. Conclusions for research
Overview of Trials• 133 C-RCTs, 1 RCT• 200 intervention arms• 428,293 participants from 25
countries• Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1): – 56 trials, 184,467 participants – Of these, 49 trials (73 arms) with
142,447 participants from 19 different countries provided analysable data
Overview of TrialsPure Prevention cohorts
• 26 USA• 4 each Netherlands, UK• 3 each from Canada, Germany, Italy.• 2 each China, Spain• 1 each Austria, Australia, Belgium, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden and Thailand
• This 4 continents, mostly USA and Europe
Overview of Trials• Change in Smoking Behaviour over
time (Group 2): Studies provided change data
• 16 trials, 57,577 participants, of which 15 trials (27 arms) with 45,555 participants provided analysable data
• 3 countries: 12 from USA, 2 India, 1 Canada
Overview of Trials• Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3): Studies
provided point prevalence data.• 1 RCT and 65 C-RCTs, 208,518 participants, of
which one RCT and 24 C-RCTs (39 arms) with 110,016 participants from 11 different countries provided usable data.
• 12 USA, 2 each Australia, Netherlands, UK• 1 each France, Germany, India, Mexico, Norway,
Romania and Sweden• The problem is: for baseline and follow-ups we
don’t know the percentages of never-smokers, smokers, quitters and triers
Risk of Bias
Risk of bias graph schools.svg
Results: Pure prevention cohort (49 C-RCTs, 73 arms): Follow-up <
1 yearCurriculum OR 95%CI p
All curricula 0.94 0.85, 1.05
Combined social competence & social influences
0.49 0.28, 0.87 0.01
Social influences 1.00 0.88, 1.13
Multimodal 0.89 0.73, 1.08
Results: Pure prevention cohort (49 C-RCTs, 73 arms): Follow-up ≥
1 yearCurriculum OR 95%CI p
All curricula 0.88 0.82, 0.96 0.002
Combined social competence & social influences
0.50 0.28, 0.87 0.01
Social competence 0.52 0.30, 0.88 0.002
Social influences 1.00 0.88, 1.13
Multimodal 0.89 0.73, 1.08
Data by Gender: Follow-up < 1 year (7 studies)
OR 95%CI pFemales 0.69 0.49, 0.96 0.04
Males 0.66 0.44, 0.98 0.04
No effect for follow-up ≥ 1 year
Adult-led curricula (56 studies)
OR 95%CI pAll curricula 0.88 0.81, 0.96 0.002Social competence 0.52 0.30, 0.88 0.02Social competence + social influences
0.47 0.26, 0.84 0.001
No effects for social influences or multimodal curricula
No effects for peer-led curricula
Curricula focussed on tobacco
OR 95%CI p
< 1 year (26 studies) 0.93 0.83, 1.04
≥ 1 year (42 studies) 0.88 0.80, 0.97 0.01
No effect of multi-focal curricula (tobacco, drugs, alcohol, other risky behaviours)
Effect of booster sessions after the
curriculumOR 95%CI p
< 1 year (36 studies) 0.94 0.85, 1.05
≥ 1 year (66 studies) 0.90 0.83, 0.97 0.10
Social competence & social influences < 1 year (2 studies)
0.50 0.26, 0.96 0.04
Social competence & social influences ≥ 1 year (3 studies)
0.51 0.27, 0.96 0.04
Spoth (2002): Example of combined social influences + social competence
interventionSocial competence intervention:
The Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth 10-14
•7 one-hour sessions for parents and children: – those for parents strengthened parental skills
in nurturing, setting limits and communication about substances;
– those for children strengthened prosocial and peer resistance skills
– 1 year later families were invited to participate in 4 x 1 hour booster sessions
Spoth (2002): Example of combined social influences + social competence
interventionSocial Influences Intervention:
Life Skills Training
•Homework and 15 x 45-min classes to – provide knowledge about substance abuse– promote youth skills in social resistance, self
management and general social skills – used coaching, facilitating, role modelling,
feedback and reinforcement
Resnicow (2008): Example of combined social influences + social competence
interventionLife Skills training ‘LST’
8 units in 8th and 8 in 9th grade
•Programme deliverer: Life orientation teachers, who teach mandatory LO health education course in schools
– general and substance-specific life skills, decision making
– stress management, affect management – assertive communication, resisting peer pressure– role plays, group activities, skills practice;
individual workbooks; educator’s manual
Resnicow (2008): Example of combined social influences + social competence
interventionSocial Competence "KEEP LEFT" Harm
Minimisation 8 units in 8th and 8 in 9th grade
•Decision-making for reducing physical, social and psychologic harms from tobacco and drug use– analysing context and cues for smoking, for
users, additional focus on addiction prevention, reducing intake and quitting
– individual workbooks, educator's manual
Implications for Practice Significant effects preventing smoking uptake compared with
controls •Pure Prevention cohorts studies which followed participants for more than one year, but not for shorter-term outcomes•Combined social competence and social influences interventions at all time points•Social competence interventions at longest follow-up
Implications for Research
• Further studies of social competence and combined social competence and social influences programmes to explore potential of these interventions
• Further research to design and test programmes that will be optimally effective for both genders
• Further research to identify factors that can be tailored to the requirements of different ethnic groups
• Studies need to follow-up participants > one year
Implications for Research
• Studies should clearly identify and follow separately students in different stages of their smoking career (never-smokers, experimenters, quitters, smokers of different frequencies and intensities), as composite change rates and point prevalence scores at baseline and follow-up make findings difficult to interpret
• Outcome measures should be standardised at trial design stage
• Studies are needed across all cultural areas of the world
• There is minimal information on the costs of designing and implementing these programmes. Economic evaluation is important, in view of the fact that many interventions have not proven their effectiveness
School-based interventions prevent children and adolescents from starting to smokeA.Strongly agreeB.AgreeC.NeutralD.DisagreeE.Strongly disagree
Poll Question #4
Poll Question #5Do you agree with the findings of this review?A.Strongly agreeB.AgreeC.NeutralD.DisagreeE.Strongly disagree
Questions?
A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision
Making
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health (Fact Sheet). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf]
Thank you!Contact us:
For a copy of the presentation please visit:http://www.healthevidence.org/webinars.aspx
Login with your Health Evidence username and password, or register if you aren’t a member yet.