Student perceptions of smoke-free school policies in Europe – a critical discourse analysis

Abstract

Smoke-Free School Policies (SFSP) are primarily designed to ensure educational spaces remain free of second-hand smoke, whilst contributing to a reduction in adolescent smoking by challenging the practice per se. Evidence regarding the latter goal is inconclusive, however, with most studies suggesting SFSPs are ineffective in reducing smoking prevalence. A dearth of qualitative research limits our understanding of why this inefficacy persists and how it might be addressed. This paper addresses this lacuna through a critical discursive analysis of data from 56 focus groups, generated with adolescents across 17 schools in seven European cities. It reveals that, while smoking is banned on school premises in most European countries, young people experience wide variation in implementation. Despite this, participants framed SFSPs in remarkably similar ways. Among young people most likely to smoke, representations of SFSPs often undermined their efficacy, leading to the displacement of smoking (outside the school grounds) rather than a reduction in prevalence. We argue that, policy effectiveness could be improved if schools worked collaboratively with students to develop positive collective beliefs and understandings about SFSPs, but caution realism about the potentially limited power of schools to reduce adolescent smoking prevalence.

When smoking is the smallest problem: A qualitative study of smoking prevention in Danish vocational schools

“…However, this study highlights similar processes and tensions to those identified in other secondary school research (e.g. Hewer et al, 2022;Schreuders et al, 2019), especially the first dilemma described earlier. For instance, a recent study conducted in 17 secondary schools across Europe similarly found that students' personal freedom and right to choose were important factors influencing smoking during school hours despite the existence of anti-smoking regulations (Hewer et al, 2022).…”

“…Hewer et al, 2022;Schreuders et al, 2019), especially the first dilemma described earlier. For instance, a recent study conducted in 17 secondary schools across Europe similarly found that students' personal freedom and right to choose were important factors influencing smoking during school hours despite the existence of anti-smoking regulations (Hewer et al, 2022). In line with findings from other studies (Glenstrup et al, 2021;Hewer et al, 2022;Kjeld et al, 2023), in this study, introduction of the SFSH policy displaced rather than diminished smoking.…”

“…For instance, a recent study conducted in 17 secondary schools across Europe similarly found that students’ personal freedom and right to choose were important factors influencing smoking during school hours despite the existence of anti-smoking regulations (Hewer et al, 2022). In line with findings from other studies (Glenstrup et al, 2021; Hewer et al, 2022; Kjeld et al, 2023), in this study, introduction of the SFSH policy displaced rather than diminished smoking. While a different study in the Netherlands suggested that smoking was not perceived as a pressing issue for schools to deal with (Schreuders et al, 2019), in this study, teachers and students both saw merit in smoking regulations because the students’ future workplaces were also generally smokefree.…”

Assessing the Policy of Non-Smoking Areas in Schools in Indonesia: A Mixed Methods Study

“…The implementation of smoke-free zones in educational institutions in Muaro Jambi Regency lacks proper socialization and preparedness of schools to enforce the regional policy. In Denmark, vocational schools have successfully implemented smoke-free zone policies by conducting workshops for staff and managers, equipping and promoting the implementation of smoke-free zones (Azagba et al, 2016;Hewer et al, 2022). When school leaders actively support and advocate for the policy, it sets a positive example for the entire school community, including staff, students, and visitors.…”

“…Strategies to enhance the effectiveness of the smoke-free campus policy include stricter enforcement by university authorities, intensified promotion to raise awareness about the policy, and providing counseling or smoking cessation clinics to assist with quitting (Mohmad and Ismail, 2021). In Europe, the effectiveness of smoke-free zone policies can be improved if schools collaborate with students to develop positive collective beliefs and understanding about the policy (Hewer et al, 2022). The failure of smoke-free zone policies in the Netherlands is attributed to the belief that adolescent smoking is not an urgent issue to be addressed by schools; this difference suggests that school staff in the Netherlands still perceive teenage smoking as a relatively acceptable behavior (Schreuders et al, 2019).…”