4.6 Review

Exploring the association between school-based peer networks and smoking according to socioeconomic status and tobacco control context: a systematic review

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-12333-z

关键词

Systematic review; Socioeconomic status; Inequality; Smoking; Smoking legislation; Social network analysis; Narrative review

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK [514353]
  2. Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence
  3. British Heart Foundation [MR/KO232331/1]
  4. Cancer Research UK
  5. Economic and Social Research Council
  6. Medical Research Council
  7. Welsh Government
  8. Wellcome Trust under UK Clinical Research Collaboration
  9. Centre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health improvement - by Welsh Government through Health and Care Research Wales
  10. Medical Research Council [MC_PC_13027]
  11. MRC
  12. Scotland's Chief Scientist Office [MC_UU_12017/14/SPHSU14/MC_UU_00022/1, MC_UU_12017/11/SPHSU11/MC_UU_00022/3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to explore how social networks influence smoking habits differently in different contexts. The results showed that the relationship between socioeconomic status and smoking was not significant, and the impact of comprehensive smoking legislation on smoking was inconsistent. Further research is needed for a comprehensive understanding, and adaptation could be used to enhance intervention effectiveness.
Background: Whilst prevalence of youth smoking in middle and high income countries has decreased, inequality has prevailed. The introduction of legislation regulating tobacco use in public spaces varies across countries, impacting the tobacco control context. Thus reviewing our knowledge of how social networks may influence smoking differently within different contexts is required to facilitate the development of context-specific interventions. Methods: The search, conducted on 31st May 2019, included the following smoking-related terms; schools, adolescents, peers and social networks. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied throughout the title and abstract screening and full text screening. Quality assessment and synthesis followed. Studies were narratively synthesised to identify changes according to legislative context. This synthesis was conducted separately for findings relating to three categories: socioeconomic status; social selection and influence; and network position. Results: Thirty studies were included. Differences in the relationship between network characteristics and smoking according to socioeconomic status were measured in five out of fifteen studies in Europe. Results varied across studies, with differences in network characteristics and their association with smoking varying both between schools of a differing and those of a similar socioeconomic composition. For studies conducted both before and after the introduction of comprehensive smoking legislation, the evidence for selection processes was more consistent than influence, which varied according to reciprocity. Findings showed that isolates were more likely to smoke and in-degree and out-degree centrality were related to smoking both before and after the introduction of legislation. The relationship between popularity and smoking was contingent on school level smoking prevalence in studies conducted before the introduction of legislation, but not after. Conclusions: Overall, effects according to socioeconomic status were underreported in the included studies and no consistent evidence of change after the introduction of a comprehensive smoking ban was observed. Further network analyses are required using more recent data to obtain a comprehensive understanding of how network processes may influence smoking differently according to socioeconomic status, and how adaptation could be used to enhance intervention effectiveness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据