Targeting School Tobacco Policy: Lessons From the Acadiana Coalition of Teens Against Tobacco (ACTT)

Abstract

This case study examines the comparative effect of no-use school tobacco policies and restricted-use tobacco policies on teacher and student smoking behaviors and attitudes. Data from teachers (n = 1,041) and ninth-grade students (n = 4,763) at 20 schools in five districts in southern Louisiana were available. No significant difference was observed between teacher smoking (11% vs. 13%, p = .42) or student smoking (24.6% vs. 25.2%, p = .75) at no-use versus restricted-use policy schools. The proportion of teachers smoking on campus at no-use or restricted-use schools was not significantly different. Teachers at restricted-use schools were however less concerned about students seeing teachers smoke and less supportive of a no-use policy than teachers at no-use schools. Tobacco use policies are often not promoted, and enforcement of policies impacting teachers is complex. Changing social norms for smoking at high schools through policy promotion and enforcement is understudied.

Anti-tobacco policy in schools: upcoming preventive strategy or prevention myth? A review of 31 studies

“…Five of these studies16 24 30 35 37 suggested a 20% to 60% decreased probability of tobacco use among students in schools with strict bans, supported by three studies that presented an increased risk with more liberal attitudes, especially concerning smoking by teachers 11 19 40. However, other studies failed to detect clear relationships between smoking bans per se and students’ behaviour,12 18 32 38 while one study suggested an association in the opposite direction (higher likelihood of smoking progression) if the students perceived the presence of strict bans 36…”

“…However, the majority of the studies adopted a complex descriptive approach of the exposure under study, with policy components differently aggregated into larger dimensions. The most frequently encountered dimensions were: comprehensiveness or strength,10 12 13 15 25 29 enforcement,10 14–16 19–25 31 33 34 36 39 dissemination, communication and participation,14 22 31 34 38 degree of formality,16–18 25 34 38 emphasis or orientation 13–15 29…”

“…Comprehensiveness or strength of the policy was analysed in six studies,10 12 13 15 25 29 conceptualised in different ways from complex multidimensional indexes10 to simple statements on target groups included in the bans or restrictions 15. Studies were largely inconsistent, with some not observing any association between policy comprehensiveness and students’ behaviour 10 15.…”

Smoking behaviours of adolescents, influenced by smoking of teachers, family and friends

“…This result was confirmed in a previous study (Wiium et al 2006). However, teachers reported smoking on campus at no-use policy schools that students received a mixed message (Boris et al 2008). Another study showed that school personnel smoking contributed to health risk behaviours among Finnish adolescents (Virtanen et al 2009).…”

A School-Based Environmental Intervention to Reduce Smoking among High School Students: The Acadiana Coalition of Teens against Tobacco (ACTT)

“…A possible confounding variable was school district smoking policy [32]. At the time of the study, four of the five participating school districts had a “restricted” smoking policy, i.e.…”