Search

Objective We assessed the effectiveness of the Luoghi di Prevenzione-Prevention Grounds school-based smoking prevention programme. Methods We undertook a cluster randomized controlled trial of 989 students aged 14–15 years in 13 secondary schools located in Reggio Emilia, Italy. The intervention consisted of the “Smoking Prevention Tour” (SPT) out-of-school workshop, one in-depth lesson on one Smoking Prevention Tour topic, a life-skills peer-led intervention, and enforcement surveillance of school antismoking policy. Self-reported past 30-day smoking of ≥ 20 or 1–19 days of cigarette smoking (daily or frequent smoking, respectively) was recorded in 2 surveys administered immediately before and 18 months after the beginning of the programme. Analysis was by intention to treat. The effect of the intervention was evaluated using random effects logistic regression and propensity score-matching analyses. Results Past 30-day smoking and daily cigarette use at eighteen months follow-up were 31% and 46% lower, respectively, for intervention students compared to control students. Taking into account non-smokers at baseline only, daily smoking at eighteen months follow-up was 59% lower in intervention students than in controls. Past 30-day smoking in school areas was 62% lower in intervention students compared to controls. Conclusions The Luoghi di Prevenzione-Prevention Grounds programme was effective in reducing daily smokers and in reducing smoking in school areas.

We aimed to assess the effectiveness of ‘Paesaggi di Prevenzione’, a school-based prevention program delivered by trained teachers and designed to tackle smoking, alcohol misuse, dietary risks, and physical inactivity in adolescence. We evaluated the program between 2010 and 2013 with a two-arm, parallel-group, multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial in which schools were the units of randomization. We collected data on health-compromising behaviours using self-reported measurements of behaviour frequency administered before and after program implementation. We used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression models to estimate program effects on health-compromising behaviours. The analysis sample included 3410 middle school students and 1651 high school students. Among middle school students, mean age at baseline was 12 years (standard deviation [SD] 0.5 years), 51% were boys, and 41% had high socioeconomic status [SES] (defined as having at least one parent/guardian with university level education). In high school students, mean age at baseline was 14 years (SD 0.7 years), 56% were boys, and 31% had high SES. The program did not have effects on smoking, alcohol misuse, and physical activity. The program had iatrogenic effects in regard to some eating behaviours, resulting in (i) lower odds of fruit consumption among middle-school students (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68–0.99) and (ii) lower odds of having breakfast every day in high-school students at the post-intervention measurement (OR 0.76; 95%CI 0.58–0.99) but not at one-year follow-up (OR 0.94; 95%CI 0.69–1.28). Due to the possibility of unintended effects, we advise against disseminating ‘Paesaggi di Prevenzione’ in its present form. Trial registration ISRCTN00953701

The aim of this study was to investigate factors mediating the effects of Luoghi di Prevenzione (LdP) smoking prevention intervention based on social competence and social influence approaches, and characterized by peer-led school-based interventions, out-of-school workshops, school lessons, and by enforcing the school anti-smoking policy. Students aged 14-15 years in 13 secondary schools in Reggio Emilia, Italy (989 students) were randomly assigned to the LdP intervention or a control condition. The baseline and follow-up surveys were carried out before and 18 months after the intervention, respectively.The outcomes were cigarette daily and frequent smoking and smoking at school. Multilevel multiple mediation analyses were carried out in order to study effect mediation. The mediators were normative perception, positive and negative beliefs, refusal skills for smoking, social acceptability perception, risk perception, smoking knowledge and awareness about dangers of second-hand smoking.The intervention effects were explained by the social influence component through the mediator refusal skills for smoking. The programme also showed to significantly increase risk perception and smoking knowledge, even though these mediators had no effect on smoking. Moreover, LdP intervention directly reduced smoking in school areas. Future interventions should maintain and strengthen the LdP social influence component and the part regarding the school anti-smoking policy.

Objective To describe the design and present the baseline findings of the evaluation study of ‘Paesaggi di Prevenzione’, a school-based prevention program tackling smoking, alcohol misuse, dietary risks, and physical inactivity in 12- to 14-year-olds. Methods The program was implemented from January 2011 to April 2012 in Emilia-Romagna, Italy, and comprised classroom activities and school-wide policies. A two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial was designed. Schools were the units of randomization and were matched by socioeconomic status, size, and type. Results Data from 4700 middle school students and 2952 high school students were collected anonymously from October to December 2010. Past-30-day smoking prevalence was 1.9% among middle school students and 20.8% among high school students. Past-30-day prevalence of alcohol intoxication was 2.2% among middle school students and 11.4% among high school students. A total of 39.7% of middle school students and 48.0% of high school students drank sugar-sweetened beverages four or more times per week; 7.5% of middle school students and 7.1% of high school students had intense physical activity every day. Conclusions This study seems adequately powered and baseline variables appear evenly distributed between study groups. Findings are in line with those of the WHO Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study.

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have attracted considerable attention as a possible alternative to tobacco cigarettes, but uncertainties about their impact on health and indoor air quality as well as their commercial success without a clear regulatory framework are arousing concern. We have therefore tried to summarize the health-related implications of the use of e-cigarettes in order to help physicians and health professionals provide accurate information on this device. Given the lack of unequivocal scientific data on their toxicity and safety, we conclude that at the moment there is no reason to approve e-cigarettes as a safe alternative to tobacco smoke.

to evaluate differences in terms of smokers' attendance to National Health System (NHS) Stop-Smoking Services with a prevalent individual approach (SSSi), and to those with a prevalent group approach (SSSg). To identify predictive characteristics of success, in terms of quit rates at the end of treatment (QR0) and after 6 months (QR1), according to SSS type (SSSi/SSSg), treatment (individual/ group counseling with/without pharmacologic treatments), 5 SSS scores: type of structure (S), number and hours per week of SSS health professionals (P), SSS involvement in local tobacco control networks (N), and type of smokers' assessment (A); and 3 principal components of SSS characteristics.survey to 19 SSSs, and survey to smokers attending these SSSs, with a six month follow-up.1,276 smokers attending 19 SSSs (664 at 7 SSSi; 612 at 12 SSSg) in 9 months in the period 2008-2010.smokers' attendance to scheduled sessions; QR0; QR1.even though SSSi treated more smokers per month (12 vs. 8 in SSSg), SSSi scheduled fewer treatment sessions (7 vs. 9 sessions) in a wider treatment period (3 months vs. 2 in SSSg). SSSg recorded lower P and higher A scores. Four out of 5 smokers attending SSSg and 2/5 of smokers attending SSSi completed treatment protocols. Considering all smokers, QR1 in both types of SSS were around 36%. Smokers treated with pharmacotherapy, those more motivated and with high self-efficacy, and those non-living together with smokers were more likely to recorded higher QR1.the most relevant interventions in order to increase the number of smokers treated at SSS and to improve cessation rates among them were: for SSSi, increasing completion to treatment protocol; for SSSg, improving the P scores to increase the number of treated smokers; for all SSS, increasing the use of pharmacotherapy in combination with individual/group counseling to sustain abstinence.