Background: The ‘Smoke-Free Class competition’ (SFC) is a school-based smoking prevention programme including commitment not to smoke, contract management and prizes as rewards broadly implemented in Europe. Objectives: To meta-analyse (randomised) controlled trials on the effects of SFC on current smoking at latest follow-up in adolescents. Methods: A systematic review of articles using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The study selection included randomised controlled trials and controlled trials with follow-up assessment that investigated the efficacy of SFC on current smoking in students participating in SFC compared to non-participating students. Independent extraction of articles was performed by both authors. Results: Of 24 records identified, five fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in three European countries (Finland, The Netherlands and Germany) and recruited 16,302 students altogether. A random effects meta-analysis of these five studies revealed a pooled risk ratio of 0.86 (95% CI 0.79–0.94; z = 3.44, p = 0.001) on current smoking at follow-up by participation in the competition. Conclusion: SFC appears to be an effective tool in school-based smoking prevention.

Keywords:
School-based intervention, Smoking prevention, Smoke-Free Class Competition, Adolescents, Incentives, Prizes
1.
Warren CW, Jones NR, Eriksen MP, Asma S: Patterns of global tobacco use in young people and implications for future chronic disease burden in adults. Lancet 2006;367:749–753.
2.
Ezzati M, Lopez AD: Estimates of global mortality attributable to smoking in 2000. Lancet 2003;362:847–852.
3.
Faggiano F, Vigna-Taglianti FD, Versino E, Zambon A, Borraccino A, Lemma P: School-based prevention for illicit drugs’ use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;2:CD003020.
4.
Flay BR: Approaches to substance use prevention utilizing school curriculum plus social environment change. Addict Behav 2000;25:861–885.
5.
Gottfredson DC, Wilson DB: Characteristics of effective school-based substance abuse prevention. Prev Sci 2003;4:27–38.
6.
Cuijpers P: Effective ingredients of school-based drug prevention programs: a systematic review. Addict Behav 2002;27:1009–1023.
7.
Flay BR: School-based smoking prevention programs with the promise of long-term effects. Tob Induc Dis 2009;5:6.
8.
Flay BR: The promise of long-term effectiveness of school-based smoking prevention programs: a critical review of reviews. Tob Induc Dis 2009;5:7.
9.
Peterson AV Jr, Kealey KA, Mann SL, Marek PM, Sarason IG: Hutchinson Smoking Prevention Project: long-term randomized trial in school-based tobacco use prevention – results on smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:1979–1991.
10.
Thomas R, Perera R: School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;3:CD001293.
11.
Tobler NS, Stratton HH: Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: a meta-analysis of the research. J Prim Prev 1997;18:71–128.
12.
Tobler NS, Roona MR, Ochshorn P, Marshall DG, Streke AV, Stackpole KM: School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. J Prim Prev 2000;20:275–336.
13.
Wiehe SE, Garrison MM, Christakis DA, Ebel BE, Rivara FP: A systematic review of school-based smoking prevention trials with long-term follow-up. J Adolesc Health 2005;36:162–169.
14.
Skara S, Sussman S: A review of 25 long-term adolescent tobacco and other drug use prevention program evaluations. Prev Med 2003;37:451–474.
15.
Skinner BF: The evolution of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav 1984;41:217–221.
16.
Kleinman KE, Saigh PA: The effects of the good behavior game on the conduct of regular education New York City high school students. Behav Modif 2011;35:95–105.
17.
Bandura A: Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1986.
18.
Bandura A: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 2001;52:1–26.
19.
Crano WD, Prislin R: Attitudes and persuasion. Annu Rev Psychol 2006;57:345–374.
20.
Stanger C, Budney AJ: Contingency management approaches for adolescent substance use disorders. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 2010;19:547–562.
21.
Institute for Therapy and Health Research: Smoke-free Class Competition. A European programme for smoking prevention in schools. Best practice guide. http://www.smokefreeclass.info/practice_guide.htm.
22.
StataCorp: Stata 11.1. College Station, StataCorp, 2009.
23.
Etter JF, Bouvier P: Some doubts about one of the largest smoking prevention programmes in Europe, the smokefree class competition. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60:757–759.
24.
Hanewinkel R, Wiborg G, Isensee B, Nebot M, Vartiainen E: ‘Smoke-Free Class Competition’: far-reaching conclusions based on weak data. Prev Med 2006;43:150–151.
25.
Hanewinkel R: ‘Be Smart – Don’t Start’. Ergebnisse des Nichtraucherwettbewerbs in Deutschland 1997–2007. Gesundheitswesen 2007;69:38–44.
26.
Hoeflmayr D, Hanewinkel R: Do school-based tobacco prevention programmes pay off? The cost-effectiveness of the ‘Smoke-Free Class Competition’. Public Health 2008;122:34–41.
27.
Hruba D, Zachovalova V, Matejova H, Dankova I: ‘Our class does not smoke’; the Czech version of the ‘smoke-free class competition’ programme. Cent Eur J Public Health 2007;15:163–166.
28.
Trofor A, Mihaltan F, Mihaicuta S, Lotrean L: Smoking cessation and prevention for young people – Romanian expertise. Pneumologia 2009;58:72–78.
29.
Hanewinkel R, Isensee B, Maruska K, Sargent JD, Morgenstern M: Denormalising smoking in the classroom: does it cause bullying? J Epidemiol Community Health 2010;64:202–208.
30.
Kairouz S, O’Loughlin J, Lague J: Adverse effects of a social contract smoking prevention program for children in Quebec, Canada. Tob Control 2009;18:474–478.
31.
Wiborg G, Hanewinkel R, Kliche KO: Verhütung des Einstiegs in das Rauchen durch die Kampagne ‘Be Smart – Don’t Start’: Eine Analyse nach Schularten. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2002;127:430–436.
32.
Crone MR, Reijneveld SA, Willemsen MC, van Leerdam FJ, Spruijt RD, Sing RA: Prevention of smoking in adolescents with lower education: a school based intervention study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:675–680.
33.
Schulze A, Mons U, Edler L, Pötschke-Langer M: Lack of sustainable prevention effect of the ‘Smoke-Free Class Competition’ on German pupils. Prev Med 2006;42:33–39.
34.
Vartiainen E, Saukko A, Paavola M, Vertio H: ‘No Smoking Class’ competitions in Finland: their value in delaying the onset of smoking in adolescence. Health Promot Int 1996;11:189–192.
35.
Wiborg G, Hanewinkel R: Effectiveness of the ‘Smoke-Free Class Competition’ in delaying the onset of smoking in adolescence. Prev Med 2002;35:241–249.
36.
Isensee B, Morgenstern M, Stoolmiller M, Maruska K, Sargent JD, Hanewinkel R: Effects of Smokefree Class Competition 1 year after the end of intervention: a cluster randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010, E-pub ahead of print.
37.
Schulze A, Pötschke-Langer M, Edler L, Mons U: Smoke-free Class Competition: a reply to the initiators of the program. Prev Med 2006;43:151–153.
38.
Flay BR, Biglan A, Boruch RF, Castro FG, Gottfredson D, Kellam S, Moscicki EK, Schinke S, Valentine JC, Ji P: Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prev Sci 2005;6:151–175.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.