Pilot trial and process evaluation of a multilevel smoking prevention intervention in further education settings

Abstract

Background Preventing smoking uptake among young people is a public health priority. Further education (FE) settings provide access to the majority of 16- to 18-year-olds, but few evaluations of smoking prevention interventions have been reported in this context to date. Objectives To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of implementing and trialling a new multilevel smoking prevention intervention in FE settings. Design Pilot cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation. Setting Six UK FE institutions. Participants FE students aged 16–18 years. Intervention ‘The Filter FE’ intervention. Staff working on Action on Smoking and Health Wales’ ‘The Filter’ youth project applied existing staff training, social media and youth work resources in three intervention settings, compared with three control sites with usual practice. The intervention aimed to prevent smoking uptake by restricting the sale of tobacco to under-18s in local shops, implementing tobacco-free campus policies, training FE staff to deliver smoke-free messages, publicising The Filter youth project’s online advice and support services, and providing educational youth work activities. Main outcome measures (1) The primary outcome assessed was the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and trialling the intervention. (2) Qualitative process data were analysed to explore student, staff and intervention team experiences of implementing and trialling the intervention. (3) Primary, secondary and intermediate (process) outcomes and economic evaluation methods were piloted. Data sources New students at participating FE settings were surveyed in September 2014 and followed up in September 2015. Qualitative process data were collected via interviews with FE college managers (n = 5) and the intervention team (n = 6); focus groups with students (n = 11) and staff (n = 5); and observations of intervention settings. Other data sources were semistructured observations of intervention delivery, intervention team records, ‘mystery shopper’ audits of local shops and college policy documents. Results The intervention was not delivered as planned at any of the three intervention settings, with no implementation of some community- and college-level components, and low fidelity of the social media component across sites. Staff training reached 28 staff and youth work activities were attended by 190 students across the three sites (< 10% of all eligible staff and students), with low levels of acceptability reported. Implementation was limited by various factors, such as uncertainty about the value of smoking prevention activities in FE colleges, intervention management weaknesses and high turnover of intervention staff. It was feasible to recruit, randomise and retain FE settings. Prevalence of weekly smoking at baseline was 20.6% and was 17.2% at follow-up, with low levels of missing data for all pilot outcomes. Limitations Only 17% of eligible students participated in baseline and follow-up surveys; the representativeness of student and staff focus groups is uncertain. Conclusions In this study, FE settings were not a supportive environment for smoking prevention activities because of their non-interventionist institutional cultures promoting personal responsibility. Weaknesses in intervention management and staff turnover also limited implementation. Managers accept randomisation but methodological work is required to improve student recruitment and retention rates if trials are to be conducted in FE settings. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19563136. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 5, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. It was also funded by the Big Lottery Fund.

Understanding further education as a context for public health intervention: qualitative findings from a study process evaluation

“…Six FE institutions in Wales were stratified and matched by size (Table 1 ) and randomized to receive The Filter FE intervention or continue with usual practice. 20 Data were collected from focus groups in the three intervention institutions and manager interviews at both intervention and control institutions. Focus groups facilitated interaction between participants, allowing us to collect rich data from a large number of participants 22 ; interviews (rather than focus groups) were conducted with FE managers for pragmatic reasons.…”

“…Focus groups in the three intervention settings explored participants’ views of the intervention, and their perceptions and experiences of smoking in a FE context (Table 2 ). Eleven student focus groups were conducted ( n = 69 participants, range 2–13 per group) using convenience samples of participants recruited via friendship or tutorial groups (for institution recruitment, see 20 ). They lasted approximately 45 minutes and included full- and part-time students on academic and vocational courses.…”

“…Nearly half (44%) of regular smokers start to smoke between 16 and 19 years. 19 The Filter FE was a multicomponent smoking prevention intervention 20 targeting 16–18 year-olds in FE settings (Box 2 ). Developed in collaboration with ASH Wales, it adapted an existing programme called The Filter , 21 working at community, institutional and individual levels to prevent uptake of smoking in this population (on-line appendix, logic model).…”

“…The full evaluation is reported elsewhere. 20 We limit our discussion here to the institutional elements of the intervention as these generated most discussion by students and staff and offered greatest insight into FE context. The institutional elements aimed to: (i) implement campus-wide tobacco-free policies and (ii) provide staff training to deliver smoking prevention messages to students.…”

“…The institutional elements aimed to: (i) implement campus-wide tobacco-free policies and (ii) provide staff training to deliver smoking prevention messages to students. 20 We used the data generated to explore how young people were viewed in FE and how this affected intervention acceptability.…”