BackgroundImplementation 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.MethodsA 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).Intervention: 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.ResultsOne 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).ConclusionsUsing 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.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN77415416

Background The X:IT intervention, conducted in 2010 to 2013, showed overall smoking preventive effect. However, parts of the intervention appeared less appealing to children from families with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, the intervention components were modified and an evaluation of the amended intervention X:IT II is needed to show the effect of this revised intervention and whether children from different social backgrounds benefits equally from the current intervention. Methods Main intervention components are smoke free schools, a curricular component, and parental involvement (smoke free agreements and talks about tobacco). Components have been revised from the first version; 1) previously, schools should be smoke free on the school ground and were encouraged to hide smoking so that it wasn’t visible to pupils from the school ground. Now they are encouraged to tighten the rules so that no pupils or teachers smoke during the school day, no matter where they are; 2) the specifically developed educational material (Up in Smoke) has been revised so that all materials are online and all texts has a ARI; 3) the parental involvement is now targeted multiple groups of parents, e.g. parents that are smokers, and parents of children that smoke. Language used is simpler and the website for parents presents very specific examples. X:IT is implemented in 46 Danish public schools from fall 2017 until summer 2020. Data is collected through electronic questionnaires to students and coordinators four times (fall 2017, spring/summer 2018, 2019 and 2020). Further, qualitative interviews and observations are conducted. Discussion Prevalence of smoking among Danish adolescents is high compared to other Nordic countries and there is social inequality in smoking, leaving individuals from the lowest social backgrounds at higher risk. Although there has been an overall decline in smoking among Danish adolescents over the last decades, a recent levelling of this development indicates an urgent need for smoking prevention in Denmark. The X:IT intervention has the potential to prevent uptake of smoking among adolescents. However, there is a particular need for evaluating the effectiveness of the revised X:IT intervention, X:IT II, with focus on the effect across socioeconomic groups of adolescents. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN31292019 , date of registration 24/10/2017. Retrospectively registered.

Students at intervention schools had a lower risk of smoking after a year of intervention in year 7. This multi-component intervention involving educational, parental and context-related intervention components seems to be efficient in lowering or postponing smoking uptake in Danish adolescents.

BackgroundAdolescent smoking is still highly prevalent in Denmark. One in four 13-year olds indicates that they have tried to smoke, and one in four 15-year olds answer that they smoke regularly. Smoking is more prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in Denmark as well as in most Western countries. Previous school-based programs to prevent smoking have shown contrasting results internationally. In Denmark, previous programs have shown limited or no effect. This indicates a need for developing a well-designed, comprehensive, and multi-component intervention aimed at Danish schools with careful implementation and thorough evaluation.This paper describes X:IT, a study including 1) the development of a 3-year school-based multi-component intervention and 2) the randomized trial investigating the effect of the intervention. The study aims at reducing the prevalence of smoking among 13 to 15-year olds by 25%.Methods/DesignThe X:IT study is based on the Theory of Triadic Influences. The theory organizes factors influencing adolescent smoking into three streams: cultural environment, social situation, and personal factors. We added a fourth stream, the community aspects. The X:IT program comprises three main components: 1) smoke-free school premises, 2) parental involvement including smoke-free dialogues and smoke-free contracts between students and parents, and 3) a curricular component. The study encompasses process- and effect-evaluations as well as health economic analyses. Ninety-four schools in 17 municipalities were randomly allocated to the intervention (51 schools) or control (43 schools) group. At baseline in September 2010, 4,468 year 7 students were eligible of which 4,167 answered the baseline questionnaire (response rate = 93.3%).DiscussionThe X:IT study is a large, randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of an intervention, based on components proven to be efficient in other Nordic settings. The X:IT study directs students, their parents, and smoking prevention policies at the schools. These elements have proven to be effective tools in preventing smoking among adolescents. Program implementation is thoroughly evaluated to be able to add to the current knowledge of the importance of implementation. X:IT creates the basis for thorough effect and process evaluation, focusing on various social groups.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN77415416.

Aim: To examine trends in socioeconomic differences in daily smoking among 15-year-old Danes between 1991–2014, using occupational social class as indicator of socioeconomic status. Methods: The study included 15-year-olds participating in seven Danish Health Behaviour in School-aged Children studies between 1991–2014, n = 8,641. The analyses focused on absolute socioeconomic differences (prevalence difference between low and high occupational social class) and relative socioeconomic differences communicated by odds ratio for daily smoking. Results: The prevalence of daily smoking declined from 18.6% in 1991 to 4.5% in 2014. Across all surveys, the prevalence was 8.9% in high, 12.8% in middle and 16.5% in low occupational social classes ( p < 0.0001). The absolute socioeconomic differences increased from 1991 to 2006 and declined thereafter. Across all survey years, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for daily smoking was 1.40 (1.19–1.65) in middle and 1.90 (1.56-2.32) in low versus high occupational social classes. The statistical interaction between occupational social class and survey year was significant ( p = 0.0404), suggesting increasing relative socioeconomic differences from 1991 to 2014. Conclusions: There was a substantial decline in daily smoking among 15-year-olds between 1991–2014 in all occupational social class groups. The prevalence of daily smoking was highest in the low occupational social class during the entire period. The absolute socioeconomic differences in daily smoking increased between 1991–2006 and declined thereafter. The relative socioeconomic differences increased over 1991–2014. Studies of change in socioeconomic differences over time should address both absolute and relative socioeconomic differences as they may result in different conclusions and because important improvement in prevalence patterns may be disguised by exclusive focus on changes in relative socioeconomic differences.