Effectiveness of a social influence approach and boosters to smoking prevention.

This paper presents the short-term and long-term results of a randomized smoking prevention trial. The purpose was to evaluate two smoking prevention programs, a social influence (SI) program and a SI program with an additional decision-making component (SI(DM)). Moreover, the contribution of boosters was assessed as well. Fifty-two schools were randomly assigned to the SI program, the SI(DM) program or a control group. Half of the treatment schools were randomly assigned to the booster condition; the other half did not receive boosters. Both programs consisted of five lessons, each lasting 45 min, and were given in weekly sessions in grades 8 and 9 of high schools in the Netherlands. The most successful program was the SI program with boosters which resulted in a significantly lower increase in smoking rates (5.6 and 9.7%, respectively) compared to the control group (12.6 and 14.9%, respectively) at both 12 and 18 months follow-up. The results suggest that boosters can be an effective tool for maintaining or increasing the effectiveness of smoking prevention programs. It is recommended that the SI program with the booster be implemented at the national level, since this intervention showed the greatest behavioral effects.

[1]  G. Kok,et al.  From determinants of smoking behaviour to the implications for a prevention programme , 1986 .

[2]  Peer perceptions of adolescent health behaviors. , 1992, The Journal of school health.

[3]  G. Botvin,et al.  Adolescent Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drug Abuse: Prevention Strategies, Empirical Findings, and Assessment Issues , 1992, Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics : JDBP.

[4]  H de Vries,et al.  The Utilization of Qualitative and Quantitative Data for Health Education Program Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation: A Spiral Approach , 1992, Health education quarterly.

[5]  Abernathy Tj,et al.  Preventing cigarette smoking among children: results of a four-year evaluation of the PAL program. , 1992 .

[6]  C. Perry,et al.  Predictors of adolescent smoking and implications for prevention. , 1987, MMWR supplements.

[7]  C. Perry,et al.  The measurement of substance use among adolescents: when is the 'bogus pipeline' method needed? , 1987, Addictive behaviors.

[8]  M. Mittelmark,et al.  Deterring the Onset of Smoking in Children: Knowledge of Immediate Physiological Effects and Coping with Peer Pressure, Media Pressure, and Parent Modeling1 , 1978 .

[9]  P. W. Bowman,et al.  PHS Public Health Service , 1963 .

[10]  N. Longford.  A fast scoring algorithm for maximum likelihood estimation in unbalanced mixed models with nested random effects , 1987 .

[11]  C. Malotte,et al.  The bogus pipeline revisited: the use of the threat of detection as a means of increasing self-reports of tobacco use. , 1985, The Journal of applied psychology.

[12]  R M Bell,et al.  Drug prevention in junior high: a multi-site longitudinal test. , 1990, Science.

[13]  G. Kok,et al.  A Dutch social influence smoking prevention approach for vocational school students , 1994 .

[14]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[15]  I. Janis,et al.  Decision Making--A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. , 1978 .

[16]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[17]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[18]  J. Elder,et al.  The long-term prevention of tobacco use among junior high school students: classroom and telephone interventions. , 1993, American journal of public health.

[19]  R. Akers,et al.  Are self-reports of adolescent deviance valid? Biochemical measures, randomized response, and the bogus pipeline in smoking behavior. , 1983 .

[20]  G. Botvin,et al.  A cognitive-behavioral approach to substance abuse prevention: one-year follow-up. , 1990, Addictive behaviors.

[21]  A Burke,et al.  High school smoking prevention: the relative efficacy of varied treatments and instructors. , 1983, Adolescence.

[22]  T. Glynn,et al.  Essential elements of school-based smoking prevention programs. , 1989, The Journal of school health.

[23]  C. Perry,et al.  The efficacy of peer leaders in drug abuse prevention. , 1986, The Journal of school health.

[24]  G. Parcel,et al.  The linkage approach applied to a school-based smoking prevention program in The Netherlands. , 1993, The Journal of school health.