Smoking Mental and Behavioural Disorders Mental and behavioural disorders due to use of tobacco
Conditions
Interventions
Students in grade 7, 8 and 9 at 51 intervention schools receive the X:IT intervention program during the school years 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13, whereas students at 43 control schools do not receiv
Sponsors
Centre for Intervention Research in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (Denmark)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: All students at participating schools enrolled in grade 7 at baseline (August 2010)
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. Schools not run by municipalities 2. Schools for children with special needs
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Frequency of smokers at grade seven, eight and nine measured at baseline, 1,2 and 3 follow-up by student self-reported questionnaires 1.1. Measures of smoking will be supplemented by analyses of number of cigarettes smoked and age at debut 1.2. Frequency of smoking will be analyzed at individual, class and school level | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Intermediate outcomes of the intervention: 1. Individual outcomes: 1.1. Enhanced self-efficacy for smoking 1.2. Increased knowledge about smoking 1.3. Change in norms and attitudes towards smoking 1.4. Performed smoke-free dialogue with parents 2. Group level outcomes 2.1. Increase probability of smoke-free environments at home and at schools 2.2. Changed norms and attitudes against smoking at schools 2.3. Reduce availability of tobacco 2.4. Increase probability of not being exposed to smoking students, teachers and parents Analyses in the project will have a special focus on subgroup analyses especially gender and socioeconomic position. 3. Sustainability 3.1. At second follow-up it will be measured whether participation in Project X:IT has initiated environmental changes and capacity building by questionnaires to project coordinators at schools and in municipalities. Furthermore, we will measure whether the project continues at intervention schools and is initiated at control schools. 4. Differences in frequency of drunkenness and marijuana use between intervention and control schools 5. Differences in students? wellbeing between intervention and control schools | — |
Countries
Denmark
Outcome results
None listed