ObjectiveStudies in other countries have shown that school tobacco control policy has potential to prevent smoking uptake in adolescents. Since no Canadian research has studied this association, we assessed the statistical link between school tobacco policy and smoking status in Ontario elementary and secondary schools.MethodsWe conducted secondary analysis of data collected using the School Smoking Profile, a cross-sectional, self-report questionnaire. School policy variables were formed from five survey items concerning students’ perceptions of school tobacco control policy. Smoking status was determined through self-report measures which had been validated by carbon monoxide testing. Logistic regression models used school policy variables to explain smoking status in elementary and secondary schools, controlling for school location, school size, and student’s grade level.ResultsThe smoking policy variables, rules and enforcement, explained smoking status after controlling for other variables. In elementary schools, perceptions of stronger enforcement reduced the odds of being a smoker (OR=0.39, CI99=0.34-0.44). In secondary schools, enforcement lost its protective effect (OR=1.05, CI99=1.00-1.10). In addition, student perceptions that rules were strong were indicative of increased smoking in secondary schools (OR=1.32, CI99=1.27-1.37).DiscussionStrong enforcement of school tobacco control policy appears to be effective in elementary schools but is not as helpful in secondary schools. Secondary school policymakers should consider modifying their sanctions to avoid alienating smokers. Supported by: Ontario Tobacco Research Unit through a Graduate Studentship for Research in Tobacco Control, Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council Grant #828-1999-1019 and the Sociobehavioural Cancer Research Network (SCRN). The SCRN is operated by the Canadian Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute of Canada’s Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation.
Authors
Reitsma AH; Manske S
Journal
Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 214–218