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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bast, Lotus Sofie, Andersen, Susan, Glenstrup, Stine, Damsgaard, Mogens Trab, Andersen, Anette
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