From a teacher and school leader perspective: What happened with smoking rules and practices during a three-year smoking preventive intervention? – Findings from the X:IT II study

Abstract

BackgroundSchool-based smoking preventive interventions are most effective if they consist of multiple components; one of them being strict anti-smoking rules, i.e., no smoking by anyone at any location during school hours. However, there is a lack of in-depth knowledge about how smoking practices and rules about smoking actually change over time. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine how smoking practices changed during a three-year period in which a smoking preventive intervention with strict anti-smoking rules was implemented at schools. MethodsWe used data from 46 Danish schools that were enrolled in the evaluation of the X:IT II study – a smoking preventive intervention with three main components: one of them being strict anti-smoking rules. We collected questionnaire data among school employees at four timepoints from the autumn of 2017 until April 2020. The questionnaire covered topics regarding students’ and employees’ tobacco patterns at the school, control with smoking, and aspects of the intervention delivery. ResultsOver time, student smoking rules got stricter; from three out of four at baseline to almost all schools having rules about no student smoking during school hours three years later. Employee smoking rules also changed, although not as much as student rules. Overall, smoking at school grounds seemed to decline – however, student smoking at other locations increased, hence, violating the rule about no smoking during school hours. Enforcement of smoking rules also increased over time. ConclusionAlthough implementing and enforcing new rules in a school setting may be difficult, it seemed that most schools in the X:IT II study changed their rules and smoking practices for both students and employees over the three-year intervention period. It seemed, however, that students relocated their smoking to other places than the school or just outside school grounds. Implications of these findings are important to consider in future interventions, i.e., students leaving school during school hours to smoke and the physical separation between those who smoke and those who do not.