Helping and harming: evaluating school tobacco programs and policies after 4 years in the COMPASS study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The school environment is an equitable avenue to change youth health behaviours; however, there is little guidance for school-based programming. Specifically, the types of interventions schools use to prevent smoking uptake and progression are unknown. This analysis explored changes in school-based tobacco control programs and policies and the impact on smoking status. Methods COMPASS is a prospective cohort study that collects hierarchical longitudinal data from students and the schools they attend in Canada. Two cohorts of grade 12 students from 38 schools were identified at baseline (Y1) and three years later (Y4). The prevalence of susceptibility to future smoking, ever smoking, and current smoking among cohorts were compared in Y1 and Y4 in control (no change in tobacco control programing or policies) and intervention schools (reported a change in tobacco control programming or policies at any time during the study). Results Between Y1 and Y4, 33/38 schools reported changing their tobacco control programming or policies; 19 schools made a single change over the study period. Changes to enforcement activities and cessation programming were most common and usually involved external support. Few interventions significantly impacted the prevalence of susceptible never-smokers or ever smokers. The prevalence of grade 12 current smokers significantly increased at 12 schools and decreased at 3 schools. Thirteen interventions resulted in significant increases in students' perceptions of support to resist or quit tobacco. Conclusions Many schools implemented new tobacco control programming over three years with support from external organizations; however, few interventions significantly improved the smoking status of students over the long-term. Nevertheless, schools increased awareness of the issue of smoking by making a change to tobacco control programs or policies, which may support the behaviour of future students. The COMPASS study provides the infrastructure to continually monitor and evaluate school-based activities designed to advance youth health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".