3. Findings of the assessment Table 1: Evidence Table ASSIST Study design Outcome Main findings Results Evidence Include? Details measures Grading Reason for exclusion NICE, Not specific The guidance is based on a ++ Review/ Summary of the Include – 2010 Guidelines change in recommendations series of evidence rievews prevalence (refer to full and evidence statements – guidance for refer to the full guideline and detail) NICE website for details Consider offering evidence based peer-led interventions designed to prevent smoking uptake such as ASSIST 2. Campbell Cluster Smoking in Intervention has OR of being a smoker in Evidence Sample R et, al Randomised the past the potential, if intervention group compared Grading size not (2008) Trial week; implemented on a with control schools was 0.75 + achieved; immediately population basis, (95% CI 0.55-1.01) effect size ASSIST 127/233 schools post to lead to a immediately after the of invited to intervention; reduction in intervention (n=9349 borderline School age participate; 113 1 year and 2 adolescent students), 0.77 (0.59-0.99) significance children went forward of year follow up smoking at 1-year follow-up trial 66 prevelanece of (n=9147), and 0.85 Include
3. Findings of the assessment Table 1: Evidence Table ASSIST Study Details design Outcome measures Main findings Results Evidence Grading Include? Reason for exclusion NICE, 2010 Review/ Guidelines Not specific – change in prevalence Summary of the recommendations (refer to full guidance for detail) Consider offering evidence based peer-led interventions designed to prevent smoking uptake such as ASSIST The guidance is based on a series of evidence rievews and evidence statements – refer to the full guideline and NICE website for details ++ Include 2. Campbell R et, al (2008) ASSIST School age children Cluster Randomised Trial 127/233 schools invited to participate; 113 went forward of 66 Smoking in the past week; immediately post intervention; 1 year and 2 year follow up Intervention has the potential, if implemented on a population basis, to lead to a reduction in adolescent smoking prevelanece of OR of being a smoker in intervention group compared with control schools was 0.75 (95% CI 0.55-1.01) immediately after the intervention (n=9349 students), 0.77 (0.59-0.99) at 1-year follow-up (n=9147), and 0.85 Evidence Grading + Sample size not achieved; effect size of borderline significance Include trial
Initiative%20Assesment%20Report%20ASSIST%20Final.docx