Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking rates in adolescents are rising. Helping young people to avoid starting smoking is a widely endorsed goal of public health, but there is uncertainty about how to do this. Schools provide a route for communicating with a large proportion of young people, and school-based programmes for smoking prevention have been widely developed and evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions in schools to prevent children (aged 5 to12) and adolescents (aged 13 to18) starting smoking. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Controlled Trials and Tobacco Review group registers, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psyclnfo, ERIC, CINAHL, Health Star, Dissertation Abstracts and studies identified in the bibliographies of articles. Individual MEDLINE searches were made for 133 authors who had undertaken randomised controlled trials in this area. SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: those in which individual students, classes, schools, or school districts were randomised to the intervention or control groups and followed for at least six months. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: Children (aged 5 to12) or adolescents (aged 13 to18) in school settings. Types of interventions: Classroom programmes or curricula, including those with associated family and community interventions, intended to deter use of tobacco. We included programmes or curricula that provided information, those that used social influences approaches, those that taught generic social competence, and those that included interventions beyond the school into the community. We included programmes with a drug or alcohol focus if outcomes for tobacco use were reported. Types of outcome measures: Prevalence of non-smoking at follow-up among those not smoking at baseline. We did not require biochemical validation of self-reported tobacco use for study inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed whether identified citations were randomised controlled trials. We assessed the quality of design and execution, and abstracted outcome data. Because of the marked heterogeneity of design and outcomes, we did not perform a meta-analysis. We synthesised the data using narrative systematic review. We grouped studies by intervention method (information; social competence; social influences; combined social influences/social competence and multi-modal programmes). Within each category, we placed them into three groups according to validity using quality criteria for reported study design. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 76 randomised controlled trials identified, we classified 16 as category one (most valid). There were no category one studies of information giving alone. There were fifteen category one studies of social influences interventions. Of these, eight showed some positive effect of intervention on smoking prevalence, and seven failed to detect an effect on smoking prevalence. The largest and most rigorous study, the Hutchinson Smoking Prevention Project, found no long-term effect of an intensive 8-year programme on smoking behaviour. There was a lack of high quality evidence about the effectiveness of combinations of social influences and social competence approaches. There was limited evidence about the effectiveness of multi-modal approaches including community initiatives. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no rigorous test of the effects of information giving about smoking. There are well-conducted randomised controlled trials to test the effects of social influences interventions: in half of the group of best quality studies those in the intervention group smoke less than those in the control, but many studies showed no effect of the intervention. There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effectiveness of combinations of social influences and social competence interventions, and of multi-modal programmes that include community interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".