Dataset Information

Informing population-specific smoking policy development for college campuses: An observational study.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTIONIn Canada, young adults have the highest smoking rates among all other population groups and specifically college students are at a higher risk. To implement effective policies that can prevent smoking and increase cessation, a population-specific approach is recommended.METHODSSmoking and non-smoking young adults enrolled in a college program were recruited. Participants who did not smoke were asked to complete questionnaires about their demographics, college experience and the college environment. Additionally, they completed The Perceived Stress Scale and The Center for Epidemiologic Studies – Depression Scale. Students who were current smokers completed the same questionnaires with the addition of one questionnaire about their smoking behaviors. Percentages, means and standard deviations were used to describe the variables of interest and a chi-squared analysis was performed, when possible, to test the difference in response frequency between smoking and non-smoking participants.RESULTSDifferences were observed between smoking (n=65) and non-smoking students (n=214). Specifically, smokers were more likely to have a family member that smoked and to participate in binge drinking. Both groups indicated that they are unaware of campus smoking regulations; however smokers were more opposed to implementing smoke-free policies.CONCLUSIONSCollege students are unaware of campus smoking regulations. The descriptive information and differences observed between smoking and non-smoking students in this study should be taken into consideration when developing future smoking regulations/policies on college campuses.

SUBMITTER: Fitzgeorge L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7205144 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundColleges in the United States are determining how to operate safely amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.ObjectiveTo examine the clinical outcomes, cost, and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation strategies on college campuses.DesignThe Clinical and Economic Analysis of COVID-19 interventions (CEACOV) model, a dynamic microsimulation model, was used to examine alternative mitigation strategies. The CEACOV model tracks infections accrued by students and faculty, accounting for community transmissions.Data sourcesData from published literature were used to obtain parameters related to COVID-19 and contact-hours.Target populationUndergraduate students and faculty at U.S. colleges.Time horizonOne semester (105 days).PerspectiveModified societal.InterventionCOVID-19 mitigation strategies, including social distancing, masks, and routine laboratory screening.Outcome measuresInfections among students and faculty per 5000 students and per 1000 faculty, isolation days, tests, costs, cost per infection prevented, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).Results of base-case analysisAmong students, mitigation strategies reduced COVID-19 cases from 3746 with no mitigation to 493 with extensive social distancing and masks, and further to 151 when laboratory testing was added among asymptomatic persons every 3 days. Among faculty, these values were 164, 28, and 25 cases, respectively. Costs ranged from about $0.4 million for minimal social distancing to about $0.9 million to $2.1 million for strategies involving laboratory testing ($10 per test), depending on testing frequency. Extensive social distancing with masks cost $170 per infection prevented ($49 200 per QALY) compared with masks alone. Adding routine laboratory testing increased cost per infection prevented to between $2010 and $17 210 (cost per QALY gained, $811 400 to $2 804 600).Results of sensitivity analysisResults were most sensitive to test costs.LimitationData are from multiple sources.ConclusionExtensive social distancing with a mandatory mask-wearing policy can prevent most COVID-19 cases on college campuses and is very cost-effective. Routine laboratory testing would prevent 96% of infections and require low-cost tests to be economically attractive.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic poses an existential threat to many US residential colleges: either they open their doors to students in September or they risk serious financial consequences. To define SARS-CoV-2 screening performance standards that would permit the safe return of students to campus for the Fall 2020 semester. Decision and cost-effectiveness analysis linked to a compartmental epidemic model to evaluate campus screening using tests of varying frequency (daily-weekly), sensitivity (70%-99%), specificity (98%-99.7%), and cost ($10-$50/test). Reproductive numbers Rt = {1.5, 2.5, 3.5} defined three epidemic scenarios, with additional infections imported via exogenous shocks. We generally adhered to US government guidance for parameterization data. A hypothetical cohort of 5000 college-age, uninfected students. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Cumulative tests, infections, and costs; daily isolation dormitory census; incremental cost-effectiveness; and budget impact. All measured over an 80-day, abbreviated semester. With Rt = 2.5, daily screening with a 70% sensitive, 98% specific test produces 85 cumulative student infections and isolation dormitory daily census averaging 108 (88% false positives). Screening every 2 (7) days nets 135 (3662) cumulative infections and daily isolation census 66 (252) with 73% (4%) false positives. Across all scenarios, test frequency exerts more influence on outcomes than test sensitivity. Cost-effectiveness analysis selects screening every {2, 1, 7} days with a 70% sensitive test as the preferred strategy for Rt = {2.5, 3.5, 1.5}, implying a screening cost of {$470, $920, $120} per student per semester. Conclusions & Relevance: Rapid, inexpensive and frequently conducted screening (even if only 70% sensitive) would be cost-effective and produce a modest number of COVID-19 infections. While the optimal screening frequency hinges on the success of behavioral interventions to reduce the base severity of transmission (Rt), this could permit the safe return of student to campus.

Project description:As college campuses reopened in fall 2020, we saw a large-scale experiment unfold on the efficacy of various strategies to contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Traditional individual surveillance testing via nasal swabs and/or saliva is among the measures that colleges are pursuing to reduce the spread of the virus on campus. Additionally, some colleges are testing wastewater on their campuses for signs of infection, which can provide an early warning signal for campuses to locate COVID-positive individuals. However, a representation of wastewater surveillance has not yet been incorporated into epidemiological models for college campuses, nor has the efficacy of wastewater screening been evaluated relative to traditional individual surveillance testing, within the structure of these models. Here, we implement a new model component for wastewater surveillance within an established epidemiological model for college campuses. We use a hypothetical residential university to evaluate the efficacy of wastewater surveillance for maintaining low infection rates. We find that wastewater sampling with a 1-day lag to initiate individual screening tests, plus completing the subsequent tests within a 4-day period can keep overall infections within 5% of the infection rates seen with traditional individual surveillance testing. Our results also indicate that wastewater surveillance can effectively reduce the number of false positive cases by identifying subpopulations for surveillance testing where infectious individuals are more likely to be found. Through a Monte Carlo risk analysis, we find that surveillance testing that relies solely on wastewater sampling can be fragile against scenarios with high viral reproductive numbers and high rates of infection of campus community members by outside sources. These results point to the practical importance of additional surveillance measures to limit the spread of the virus on campus and the necessity of a proactive response to the initial signs of outbreak.

Dataset Information

Informing population-specific smoking policy development for college campuses: An observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets