Dataset Information

Diffusion of effects of the ASSIST school-based smoking prevention intervention to non-participating family members: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To investigate whether effects of the ASSIST (A Stop Smoking In Schools Trial) school-based smoking prevention intervention diffused from students to the people they lived with.

Design

Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized control trial (cRCT).

Setting

England and Wales.

Participants

A total of 10 730 students aged 12-13 years in 59 schools assigned using stratified block randomization to the control (29 schools, 5372 students) or intervention (30 schools, 5358 students) condition.

Intervention and comparator

The ASSIST intervention involves 2 days of off-site training of influential students to encourage their peers not to smoke during a 10-week period. The control group continued with their usual education.

Measurements

The outcomes were the proportion of students who self-reported living with a smoker and the smoking status of each resident family member/caregiver. Follow-up assessments were immediately after the intervention and at 1 and 2 years post-intervention.

Findings

The odds ratio (OR) for living with a smoker in the intervention compared with the control groups was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.72, 1.03] immediately after the intervention, OR = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.72, 0.97) at a 1-year follow-up and OR = 0.86 (95% CI = 0.75, 0.99) at 2-year follow-up. In a three-tier multi-level model with data from all three follow-ups, student-reported smoking by fathers (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.80, 1.00), brothers (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.67, 0.92) and sisters (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.69, 0.92) was lower in the intervention compared with control group. Subgroup analyses by baseline smoking status suggested that these effects were more consistent with prevention of uptake than prompting cessation.

Conclusions

A Stop Smoking In Schools Trial (ASSIST) school-based smoking prevention intervention may have reduced the prevalence of smoking in people who lived with ASSIST-trained students. This indirect transmission is consistent with the predictions of diffusion of innovations theory which underpins the design of ASSIST.

SUBMITTER: White J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7156286 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Implementation fidelity describes how well an intervention is implemented in the real-world setting. Assessing implementation fidelity is essential in the understanding of intervention results. In most studies, implementation fidelity is measured insufficiently, though, not taking into account the complexity of the concept nor the intervention. The objective of the present study was to develop an overall quantitative measure of implementation fidelity, to examine the degree of implementation fidelity and the association of implementation and effect of a randomized school-based smoking prevention trial-the X:IT study.A cluster-randomized trial testing is a multi-component intervention to prevent smoking among adolescents in 94 Danish elementary schools (51 intervention, 43 control schools). Participants were grade 7 pupils (mean age 12.5 years). Data was collected by electronic questionnaires among pupils at baseline (n = 4161), the first follow-up (n = 3764), and the second follow-up (n = 3269) and among school coordinators at intervention schools at the first and second follow-up (50 and 39 coordinators).The intervention included three components: (1) smoke-free school grounds, (2) smoke-free curriculum, and (3) parental involvement, contracts, and dialogues. Implementation fidelity was assessed by four domains: adherence, dose, quality of delivery, and participant responsiveness. These were combined into an overall school-wise implementation index. The association of implementation and smoking was examined by logistic regression analyses.One fourth of the schools was characterized as high implementers of the program (all three components) at both first (12 schools, 24.0 %) and second follow-up (11 schools, 28.2 %). Implementation fidelity was strongly associated with smoking at the first and second follow-up, e.g., the odds for smoking at schools with high implementation both years were OR = 0.44 (95 % CI 0.32 to 0.68).Using an overall measure based on several aspects of implementation fidelity, we showed a negative graded association between implementation and smoking. This study suggests that higher degrees of implementation will improve the effect of the X:IT intervention. Studying the association between implementation and effect is extremely important; only by doing so, we can distinguish the quality of the intervention from the success of the implementation.Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77415416.

Project description:BackgroundInvolving children in research studies requires obtaining parental permission. A school-based intervention to delay/prevent waterpipe use for 7th and 8th graders in Qatar was developed, and parental permission requested. Fifty three percent (2308/4314) of the parents returned permission forms; of those 19.5% of the total (840/4314) granted permission. This paper describes the challenges to obtaining parental permission. No research to date has described such challenges in the Arab world.MethodsA random sample of 40 schools in Doha, Qatar was selected for inclusion in the original intervention. Permission forms were distributed to parents for approval of their child's participation. The permission forms requested that parents indicate their reasons for non-permission if they declined. These were categorized into themes. In order to understand reasons for non-permission, interviews with parents were conducted. Phone numbers of parents were requested from the school administration; 12 of the 40 schools (30%) agreed to provide the contact information. A random sample of 28 parents from 12 schools was interviewed to reach data saturation. Thematic analysis was used to analyze their responses.ResultsReasons for non-permission documented in both the forms and interviews included: poor timing; lack of interest; the child not wanting to participate; and the child living in a smoke-free environment. Interviews provided information on important topics to include in the consent forms, parents' decision-making processes regarding their child's participation, and considerations for communicating with parents. Many parents also indicated that this was the first time they had been asked to give an informed consent for their child's participation in a study.ConclusionsResults indicate that more attention needs to be given to the informed parental consent process. Researchers should consider enhancing both the methods of communicating information as well the specific information provided. Before embarking on recruitment of children for studies, formative research on the parental consent process is suggested.