Brandi S Niemeier1, Christopher B Chapp, Whitney B Henley. 1. a Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Coaching, College of Education and Professional Studies , University of Wisconsin-Whitewater , Whitewater , Wisconsin.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tobacco-control policy proposals are usually met with opposition on college campuses. Research to understand students' viewpoints about health-related policy proposals and messaging strategies, however, does not exist. This study investigated students' perceptions about a smoke-free policy proposal to help understand their positions of support and opposition and to inform the development of effective messaging strategies. PARTICIPANTS: In January 2012, 1,266 undergraduate students from a midwestern university completed an online questionnaire about smoke-free campus policies. METHODS: Responses were coded and analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software and chi-square, independent-samples t tests, and binary logistic models. RESULTS: Most students who supported a smoke-free policy considered environmental or aesthetic conditions, whereas most opponents used personal freedom frames of thought. Supporters viewed smoking policies in personal terms, and opponents suggested means-ends policy reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, points of reference and emotions about proposed policies provided insight about participants' perspectives to help inform effective policy advocacy efforts.
OBJECTIVE:Tobacco-control policy proposals are usually met with opposition on college campuses. Research to understand students' viewpoints about health-related policy proposals and messaging strategies, however, does not exist. This study investigated students' perceptions about a smoke-free policy proposal to help understand their positions of support and opposition and to inform the development of effective messaging strategies. PARTICIPANTS: In January 2012, 1,266 undergraduate students from a midwestern university completed an online questionnaire about smoke-free campus policies. METHODS: Responses were coded and analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software and chi-square, independent-samples t tests, and binary logistic models. RESULTS: Most students who supported a smoke-free policy considered environmental or aesthetic conditions, whereas most opponents used personal freedom frames of thought. Supporters viewed smoking policies in personal terms, and opponents suggested means-ends policy reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, points of reference and emotions about proposed policies provided insight about participants' perspectives to help inform effective policy advocacy efforts.
Entities:
Keywords:
administration; community health; health education; other drugs; tobacco policy; tobacco-free campus