Background and AimsTo assess prevalence and predictors of e‐cigarettes/cigarettes patterns of use in adolescents in England.DesignProspective study with 24‐month follow‐up of e‐cigarette/cigarette ever/regular use with data from an intervention evaluation.SettingForty‐five schools in England (Staffordshire and Yorkshire).ParticipantsA total of 3210 adolescents who, at baseline, were aged 13–14 years and had never used e‐cigarettes/cigarettes.MeasurementsBased on e‐cigarette/cigarette ever use at follow‐up, six groups were created: (a) never user, (b) e‐cigarette only, (c) cigarette only, (d) dual use—order of use unclear, (e) dual use—e‐cigarettes used first and (f) dual use—cigarettes used first. Baseline measures were: gender, ethnicity, socio‐economic status, impulsivity, family plus friend smoking and smoking‐related beliefs (attitude and perceived behavioural control).FindingsIn groups (a) to (f), there were 71.5, 13.3, 3.3, 5.7, 2.9 and 3.4% adolescents, respectively. Among groups using cigarettes, regular smoking was more prevalent in group (f) (dual use—cigarettes used first) [17.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 10.4, 24.8] than in groups (c), (d) and (e) combined (7.3%, 95% CI = 4.7, 9.9). Among groups using e‐cigarettes, regular use was less prevalent in group (b) (e‐cigarette only) (1.9%, 95% CI = 0.6, 3.2) than in groups (d), (e) and (f) combined (12.2%, 95% CI = 8.9, 15.5). Higher impulsivity plus friends and family smoking were predictive of being in groups (b) to (f) compared with group (a) (never users). Males were more likely to be in group (b) compared to group (a); females were more likely to be in groups (c) to (f) compared to group (a).ConclusionsRegular use of e‐cigarettes/cigarettes varies across groups defined by ever use of e‐cigarettes/cigarettes. Interventions targeted at tackling impulsivity or adolescents whose friends and family members smoke may represent fruitful avenues for future research.

Objective: Forming implementation intentions (if–then plans) about how to refuse cigarette offers plus antismoking messages was tested for reducing adolescent smoking. Method: Cluster randomized controlled trial with schools randomized (1:1) to receive implementation intention intervention and messages targeting not smoking (intervention) or completing homework (control). Adolescents (11–12 years at baseline) formed implementation intentions and read messages on 8 occasions over 4 years meaning masking treatment allocation was not possible. Outcomes were: follow-up (48 months) ever smoking, any smoking in last 30 days, regular smoking, and breath carbon monoxide levels. Analyses excluded baseline ever smokers, controlled for clustering by schools and examined effects of controlling for demographic variables. Economic evaluation (incremental cost effectiveness ratio; ICER) was conducted. Trial is registered (ISRCTN27596806). Results: Schools were randomly allocated (September–October 2012) to intervention ( n = 25) or control ( n = 23). At follow-up, among 6,155 baseline never smokers from 45 retained schools, ever smoking was significantly lower (RR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.71, 0.97], p = .016) in intervention (29.3%) compared with control (35.8%) and remained so controlling for demographics. Similar patterns observed for any smoking in last 30 days. Less consistent effects were observed for regular smoking and breath carbon monoxide levels. Economic analysis yielded an ICER of $134 per ever smoker avoided at age 15–16 years. Conclusions: This pragmatic trial supports the use of repeated implementation intentions about how to refuse the offer of a cigarette plus antismoking messages as an effective and cost-effective intervention to reduce smoking initiation in adolescents.

Aims: To discover the reasons behind invited families’ lack of engagement with a family-based childhood obesity programme in a deprived area. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 10 families who were invited to join the programme, but declined to engage. There were two distinct subgroups of participants: those who had no interest in attending the programme and those who showed initial interest yet did not continue attending. The two subgroups were analyzed separately using inductive thematic analysis, and then compared. Results: Analysis identified eight themes overall. For both groups, when the service was perceived to be not needed (‘I didn’t see how that would help’), the families disengaged with it. For both groups, this perception was partly related to the perceived appearance of their children: either that they were not obese (‘I didn’t think my son was overweight’) or that they were growing into their size. There was also a similarity in both groups that they perceived that they were already following healthy lifestyles. In addition, several of the themes arising from the families who had no initial interest were related to the impact of the letter that parents received detailing the result of their child being weighed and measured at school. This angered parents (‘I was disgusted’), and there was a feeling that the approach was too generic. Conclusion: This study identified a number of potential reasons behind why families may decline to engage with a childhood obesity programme in a deprived area. Across all families, if the programme was perceived as not needed, they would disengage. For those who did not engage at all, the initial communication of the child’s body mass index (BMI) is crucial. Recommendations include taking a more personal and tailored approach for the initial communication and shifting the focus of the programmes onto healthier lifestyles.

No abstract

R (2019)Students' experiences of a facial morphing intervention designed to encourage safer drinking. Psychology and Health.