involves community partners and reducing risk factors and building multivariate overall effects for SES (before parents; theoretical basis includes protective factors; emphasise and after intervention). Social Learning Theory, Problem cooperative learning activities, Behaviour Theory and Social and skills building methods; Author’s conclusion of SES impact Development Theory. The findings suggest the programme was equally effective for students regardless of SES variables used SES free/reduced lunch status Study analysis - RCT Details Method Results Comments prevention Mercken 2012 Author, year Data sources General population impact Internal validity Campbell 2008 (from Mercken 2012) RCT A Stop Smoking in Schools At 1-year follow-up, the odds ratio of being A slightly larger proportion of (ASSIST) a smoker in intervention compared with students in control schools control group was 0·77 (95% CI came from less affluent Age (years) At backgrounds and did not have Participant selection 12-13 a family car than did those in 2-year follow-up, the corresponding odds Schools were randomly assigned to intervention schools Saliva ratio of 0·85 (0·72–1·01) was not significant the control group to continue their Setting cotinine levels obtained which (p=0·067) which suggests an attenuation of usual smoking education (29 schools minimised reporting bias. 59 secondary schools in England & this intervention effect over time. For the with 5372 adolescents) and Wales high-risk group (occasional, experimental, Results may depend on the intervention group (30 schools with or ex-smokers at baseline), the odds ratios SES indicator used. 5358 adolescents) by stratified block at 1-year follow-up of 0·75 (0·56–0·99) and Study design randomization. at 2-year follow-up of 0·85 (0·70–1·02). External validity RCT In a multi-level model using data Results are specific to Participant characteristics from all three follow-ups (immediately after interventions Objective Not reported the intervention (N = 10047), after 1 year (N = 9909) and after 2 years (N = 9666))
involves community partners and parents; theoretical basis includes Social Learning Theory, Problem Behaviour Theory and Social Development Theory. SES variables used free/reduced lunch status Study analysis - RCT reducing risk factors and building protective factors; emphasise cooperative learning activities, and skills building methods; multivariate overall effects for SES (before and after intervention). Author’s conclusion of SES impact The findings suggest the programme was equally effective for students regardless of SES Details Method Results Comments prevention Mercken 2012 Author, year Campbell 2008 (from Mercken 2012) Age (years) 12-13 Setting 59 secondary schools in England & Wales Study design RCT Objective Data sources RCT A Stop Smoking in Schools (ASSIST) Participant selection Schools were randomly assigned to the control group to continue their usual smoking education (29 schools with 5372 adolescents) and intervention group (30 schools with 5358 adolescents) by stratified block randomization. Participant characteristics Not reported General population impact At 1-year follow-up, the odds ratio of being a smoker in intervention compared with control group was 0·77 (95% CI At 2-year follow-up, the corresponding odds ratio of 0·85 (0·72–1·01) was not significant (p=0·067) which suggests an attenuation of this intervention effect over time. For the high-risk group (occasional, experimental, or ex-smokers at baseline), the odds ratios at 1-year follow-up of 0·75 (0·56–0·99) and at 2-year follow-up of 0·85 (0·70–1·02). In a multi-level model using data from all three follow-ups (immediately after the intervention (N = 10047), after 1 year (N = 9909) and after 2 years (N = 9666)) Internal validity A slightly larger proportion of students in control schools came from less affluent backgrounds and did not have a family car than did those in intervention schools Saliva cotinine levels obtained which minimised reporting bias. Results may depend on the SES indicator used. External validity Results are specific to interventions