4.2 Article

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

期刊

CRITICAL PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 509-522

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2020.1856332

关键词

Adolescents; school; smoke-free policy; qualitative

资金

  1. European Commission Horizon2020 program [635056]
  2. Wellcome Trust [209519/Z/17/Z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While smoking is banned on school premises in most European countries, young people experience wide variation in implementation, leading to limitations in the understanding and application of smoke-free school policies.
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.

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

4.2
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