Mirte A G Kuipers1, Rosaline de Korte1, Victoria Eugenia Soto2, Matthias Richter3, Irene Moor3, Arja H Rimpelä4, Julian Perelman5, Bruno Federico6, Anton E Kunst1, Vincent Lorant2. 1. Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Institute of Health and Society, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Medical Faculty, Institute of Medical Sociology (IMS), Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany. 4. School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Department of Adolescent Psychiatry, Pitkäniemi Hospital, Nokia, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. 5. National School of Public Health, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. 6. Department of Human Sciences, Society and Health, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Cassino, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies on the effects of school smoking policies are inconclusive and there is no research on whether the effects of school policies vary by educational level. We examined the association between school smoking policies and smoking behaviour among adolescents aged 14-17 years in Europe and assessed educational inequalities in these associations. METHODS: Data on 10,325 adolescents from 50 schools in six European cities were obtained from the 2013 SILNE survey. We measured student perceived policy, staff reported policy and its three subscales: regulations, communication and sanctions. The association between school policies and smoking outcomes (daily smoking and smoking on school premises) was adjusted for individual characteristics and for parental smoking. We tested interaction between school policies and educational level. RESULTS: Daily smoking was not associated with school smoking policies (eg, OR total policy=1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16 and OR student perceived policy=1.04, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.10). Smoking on school premises was less prevalent in schools with stronger staff reported total policy (OR=0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96). Other policy variables were also negatively associated with smoking on school premises, but not significantly (eg, OR student perceived policy=0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02). Associations between policy and smoking on school premises tended to be stronger in those with a low educational level, but none of the interactions tested were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that school smoking policies may not have a direct effect on daily smoking but may reduce smoking on the school premises. We found no clear evidence for the effects of school policies to differ by educational level. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND: Studies on the effects of school smoking policies are inconclusive and there is no research on whether the effects of school policies vary by educational level. We examined the association between school smoking policies and smoking behaviour among adolescents aged 14-17 years in Europe and assessed educational inequalities in these associations. METHODS: Data on 10,325 adolescents from 50 schools in six European cities were obtained from the 2013 SILNE survey. We measured student perceived policy, staff reported policy and its three subscales: regulations, communication and sanctions. The association between school policies and smoking outcomes (daily smoking and smoking on school premises) was adjusted for individual characteristics and for parental smoking. We tested interaction between school policies and educational level. RESULTS: Daily smoking was not associated with school smoking policies (eg, OR total policy=1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16 and OR student perceived policy=1.04, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.10). Smoking on school premises was less prevalent in schools with stronger staff reported total policy (OR=0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96). Other policy variables were also negatively associated with smoking on school premises, but not significantly (eg, OR student perceived policy=0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02). Associations between policy and smoking on school premises tended to be stronger in those with a low educational level, but none of the interactions tested were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that school smoking policies may not have a direct effect on daily smoking but may reduce smoking on the school premises. We found no clear evidence for the effects of school policies to differ by educational level. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Keywords:
ADOLESCENTS CG; PUBLIC HEALTH; SMOKING; SOCIAL CLASS; SOCIAL INEQUALITIES
Authors: Teresa Leão; Julian Perelman; Luke Clancy; Martin Mlinarić; Jaana M Kinnunen; Paulien A W Nuyts; Nora Mélard; Arja Rimpelä; Vincent Lorant; Anton E Kunst Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Teresa Leão; Julian Perelman; Luke Clancy; Laura Hoffmann; Jaana M Kinnunen; Nora Mélard; Paulien A W Nuyts; Matthias Richter; Arja Rimpelä; Vincent Lorant; Anton E Kunst Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Michael Schreuders; Bas van den Putte; Martin Mlinarić; Nora Mélard; Julian Perelman; Matthias Richter; Arja Rimpela; Mirte A G Kuipers; Vincent Lorant; Anton E Kunst Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Stine Glenstrup; Lotus Sofie Bast; Dina Danielsen; Anette Andersen; Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andrea D Rozema; Marieke Hiemstra; Jolanda J P Mathijssen; Maria W J Jansen; Hans J A M van Oers Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 3.390