Cargando…
Assessing Differences in the Implementation of Smoke-Free Contracts—A Cross-Sectional Analysis from the School Randomized Controlled Trial X:IT
Objective: The X:IT study is a school-based smoking preventive intervention that has previously been evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) with good effects. However, the actual effect for participating students depends on the individual implementation. The aim of this study was to...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33672151 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042163 |
_version_ | 1783659473761468416 |
---|---|
author | Bast, Lotus Sofie Andersen, Susan Glenstrup, Stine Damsgaard, Mogens Trab Andersen, Anette |
author_facet | Bast, Lotus Sofie Andersen, Susan Glenstrup, Stine Damsgaard, Mogens Trab Andersen, Anette |
author_sort | Bast, Lotus Sofie |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective: The X:IT study is a school-based smoking preventive intervention that has previously been evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) with good effects. However, the actual effect for participating students depends on the individual implementation. The aim of this study was to examine the implementation of smoke-free contract, which is one of the three main intervention components. Specifically, we examined whether it was implemented equally across family occupational social class (OSC), separately for boys and girls, the joint effect of OSC and gender, and the participants’ own reasons for not signing a contract. Results: Overall, the smoke-free contract was well implemented; 81.8% of pupils (total N = 2.015) signed a contract (girls 85.1, boys 78.6%). We found a social gradient among girls; more than 90% were in OSC group I vs. 75% in group VI. Among boys, however, we found no difference across OSC. Boys in all the OSC groups had about half the odds (i.e., medium OSC boys: OR = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.32–0.72) of having a smoke-free contract compared to girls from a high OSC. Conclusion: future interventions should include initiatives to involve families from all OSC groups and allow for different preferences among boys and girls. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7926470 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79264702021-03-04 Assessing Differences in the Implementation of Smoke-Free Contracts—A Cross-Sectional Analysis from the School Randomized Controlled Trial X:IT Bast, Lotus Sofie Andersen, Susan Glenstrup, Stine Damsgaard, Mogens Trab Andersen, Anette Int J Environ Res Public Health Brief Report Objective: The X:IT study is a school-based smoking preventive intervention that has previously been evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) with good effects. However, the actual effect for participating students depends on the individual implementation. The aim of this study was to examine the implementation of smoke-free contract, which is one of the three main intervention components. Specifically, we examined whether it was implemented equally across family occupational social class (OSC), separately for boys and girls, the joint effect of OSC and gender, and the participants’ own reasons for not signing a contract. Results: Overall, the smoke-free contract was well implemented; 81.8% of pupils (total N = 2.015) signed a contract (girls 85.1, boys 78.6%). We found a social gradient among girls; more than 90% were in OSC group I vs. 75% in group VI. Among boys, however, we found no difference across OSC. Boys in all the OSC groups had about half the odds (i.e., medium OSC boys: OR = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.32–0.72) of having a smoke-free contract compared to girls from a high OSC. Conclusion: future interventions should include initiatives to involve families from all OSC groups and allow for different preferences among boys and girls. MDPI 2021-02-23 2021-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7926470/ /pubmed/33672151 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042163 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Brief Report Bast, Lotus Sofie Andersen, Susan Glenstrup, Stine Damsgaard, Mogens Trab Andersen, Anette Assessing Differences in the Implementation of Smoke-Free Contracts—A Cross-Sectional Analysis from the School Randomized Controlled Trial X:IT |
title | Assessing Differences in the Implementation of Smoke-Free Contracts—A Cross-Sectional Analysis from the School Randomized Controlled Trial X:IT |
title_full | Assessing Differences in the Implementation of Smoke-Free Contracts—A Cross-Sectional Analysis from the School Randomized Controlled Trial X:IT |
title_fullStr | Assessing Differences in the Implementation of Smoke-Free Contracts—A Cross-Sectional Analysis from the School Randomized Controlled Trial X:IT |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessing Differences in the Implementation of Smoke-Free Contracts—A Cross-Sectional Analysis from the School Randomized Controlled Trial X:IT |
title_short | Assessing Differences in the Implementation of Smoke-Free Contracts—A Cross-Sectional Analysis from the School Randomized Controlled Trial X:IT |
title_sort | assessing differences in the implementation of smoke-free contracts—a cross-sectional analysis from the school randomized controlled trial x:it |
topic | Brief Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33672151 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042163 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bastlotussofie assessingdifferencesintheimplementationofsmokefreecontractsacrosssectionalanalysisfromtheschoolrandomizedcontrolledtrialxit AT andersensusan assessingdifferencesintheimplementationofsmokefreecontractsacrosssectionalanalysisfromtheschoolrandomizedcontrolledtrialxit AT glenstrupstine assessingdifferencesintheimplementationofsmokefreecontractsacrosssectionalanalysisfromtheschoolrandomizedcontrolledtrialxit AT damsgaardmogenstrab assessingdifferencesintheimplementationofsmokefreecontractsacrosssectionalanalysisfromtheschoolrandomizedcontrolledtrialxit AT andersenanette assessingdifferencesintheimplementationofsmokefreecontractsacrosssectionalanalysisfromtheschoolrandomizedcontrolledtrialxit |