Suchergebnisse

Hintergrund: Für Deutschland sind kaum Daten zur Implementierung schulischer Tabakkontrolle bekannt, die sowohl die Perspektive von Lehrer- als auch von Schüler*innen einbeziehen. Ziel der Studie ist es, den Zusammenhang zwischen implementierter schulischer Tabakkontrollpolitik und der wahrgenommenen Raucherprävalenz auf den Ebenen des Schulpersonals und der Jugendlichen zu untersuchen. Methoden: Die wiederholte Querschnittsstudie (2013 und 2017) basiert auf gepoolten Angaben von 13- bis 17-jährigen Jugendlichen (N = 2393) und Schulpersonal (N = 85) aus 25 Schulen in der westdeutschen Metropolregion Hannover. In linearen Regressionsmodellen werden durchschnittlich marginale Effekte (AMEs) mit 95 %-Konfidenzintervallen (KI95 %) und robuste Standardfehler für die wahrgenommenen Tabakprävalenzen getrennt für die von Lehrer- und Schüler*innen bewertete schulische Tabakkontrollpolitik (Skala 0–6) unter Kontrolle soziodemografischer, schul- und rauchspezifischer Variablen berichtet. Ergebnisse: Die Jugendlichen nehmen durchschnittlich eine Raucherprävalenz von 30 % (x¯¯¯=30,2 ; s: 24,0) für ihre Schule wahr. Eine strikte schulische Tabakkontrolle ist konsistent mit einer geringeren schulischen Raucherprävalenz assoziiert, sowohl aus Sicht von Lehrer- (AME: −3,54 KI95 % −6,49 bis −0,58) als auch der Schüler*innen (AME: −1,69 KI95 % −2,52 bis −0,86). Die Anzahl rauchender Freunde (z. B. "die meisten" +14 %: AME: 14,13 KI95 % 10,46–17,80) und der Schultyp sind die relevantesten Determinanten für eine hohe schulische Raucherprävalenz. Nichtgymnasiale Schulformen berichten eine 15 % (AME: 15,03 KI95 % 10,13–19,93) höhere Raucherprävalenz im Vergleich zu Gymnasien. Diskussion: Progressive schulische Tabakkontrollpolitiken sollten den Fokus auf nichtgymnasiale Schulformen, Risikogruppen und jene Schulen legen, die Tabakkontrolle nicht strikt durchsetzen. ; Publikationsfond MLU

School tobacco policies (STPs) are a crucial strategy to reduce adolescents smoking. Existing studies have investigated STPs predominantly from a school-related 'insider' view. Yet, little is known about barriers that are not identified from the 'schools' perspective', such as perceptions of local stakeholders. Forty-six expert interviews from seven European cities with stakeholders at the local level (e.g. representatives of regional health departments, youth protection and the field of addiction prevention) were included. The analysis of the expert interviews revealed different barriers that should be considered during the implementation of STPs. These barriers can be subsumed under the following: (i) Barriers regarding STP legislature (e.g. inconsistencies, partial bans), (ii) collaboration and cooperation problems between institutions and schools, (iii) low priority of smoking prevention and school smoking bans, (iv) insufficient human resources and (v) resistance among smoking students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our findings on the expert's perspective indicate a need to enhance and implement comprehensive school smoking bans. Furthermore, collaboration and cooperation between schools and external institutions should be fostered and strengthened, and adequate human resources should be provided.

School tobacco policies (STPs) are a crucial strategy to reduce adolescents smoking. Existing studies have investigated STPs predominantly from a school-related 'insider' view. Yet, little is known about barriers that are not identified from the 'schools' perspective', such as perceptions of local stakeholders. Forty-six expert interviews from seven European cities with stakeholders at the local level (e.g. representatives of regional health departments, youth protection and the field of addiction prevention) were included. The analysis of the expert interviews revealed different barriers that should be considered during the implementation of STPs. These barriers can be subsumed under the following: (i) Barriers regarding STP legislature (e.g. inconsistencies, partial bans), (ii) collaboration and cooperation problems between institutions and schools, (iii) low priority of smoking prevention and school smoking bans, (iv) insufficient human resources and (v) resistance among smoking students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our findings on the expert's perspective indicate a need to enhance and implement comprehensive school smoking bans. Furthermore, collaboration and cooperation between schools and external institutions should be fostered and strengthened, and adequate human resources should be provided.

Background: Advocacy, resources and intersubjective reasonable arguments are known as factors that contribute to smoke-free (SF) adoption and implementation in Chinese and Anglo-Saxon places. Less is known about how the implementation of smoking bans differs across European places. The aim of this qualitative comparative study is to identify and classify the SF policy implementation processes and types undertaken at the local level in seven European cities according to the views of local bureaucrats and sub-national stakeholders. Method: Semi-structured expert interviews (n = 56) with local decision makers and stakeholders were conducted as qualitative part of the comparative SILNE-R project in Belgium (Namur), Finland (Tampere), Germany (Hanover), the Republic of Ireland (Dublin), the Netherlands (Amersfoort), Italy (Latina), and Portugal (Coimbra). Qualitative interviews were analyzed using the framework analysis. Results: Implementation of SF environments predominantly focuses on indoor bans or youth-related settings. Progressive-hungry (Dublin), moderate-rational (Tampere), upper-saturated (Hanover, Amersfoort), and lower saturated (Namur, Coimbra, Latina) implementation types can be distinguished. These four types differ with regards to their engagement in enhancing SF places as well as along their level of perceived tobacco de-normalization and public smoking visibility. In all municipalities SF environments are adopted at national levels, but are differently implemented at the local level due national policy environments, enforcement strategies and the level of collaboration. Major mechanisms to expand SF regulations were found to be scientific evidence, public support, and the child protection frame. However, counter-mechanisms of closure occur if data on declining prevalence and new youth addiction trends trigger low prioritization. Conclusions: This study found four SF implementation types two mechanisms of progressive expansion and defensive closure. Development and enhancement of smoking bans requires a suitable national policy environment and indirect national-level support of self-governed local initiatives. Future SF policies can be enhanced by laws pertaining to places frequented by minors.