The attitudes and behaviors of students, staff and faculty towards smoke-free and tobacco-free campus policies in North American universities: A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In Canada, a series of recent public health policies and interventions have successfully led to a decline in national tobacco use rates. However, tobacco use among young adults remains high and the tobacco industry continues to place a strong marketing emphasis towards young adults on university campuses. In response, many universities across Canada are beginning to adopt smoke-free or tobacco-free campus policies. While the effectiveness of smoke-free and tobaccofree campus policies has been demonstrated in several countries, little is known about the attitudinal responses of university students, faculty and staff towards these policies. As such, we conducted a review of the literature to summarize the findings of studies conducted in North America regarding the attitudes and beliefs of campus community members towards smoke-free or tobacco-free campus policies. METHODS: Using a pre-defined search strategy and Boolean string, we searched three databases for published articles pertaining to the research question. Only primary and peer-reviewed articles of studies conducted on North American university campuses were eligible for inclusion. Studies included for review were those published in English within the last five years. All studies included in the review contained outcome measurements related to the attitudes and behaviors of faculty, staff and students towards smoke-free and/or tobacco-free campus policies. RESULTS: A total of 11 articles were included for analysis and result synthesis. Recent research indicates that individuals' attitudes and beliefs towards smoke-free or tobacco-free campus policies are influenced by social norms, smoking status, secondhand smoke exposure, and sociodemographics. CONCLUSIONS: This literature review provides timely information for universities in the process of developing or implementing a smoke-free campus policy. The attitudes and beliefs of university students, faculty and staff can determine success and compliance to newly implemented smoke-free campus policies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".