Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15847695›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2005

Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial [ISRCTN55572965].

Fenella Starkey, Laurence Moore, Rona Campbell, Mark Sidaway, Michael Bloor, ASSIST

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Tobacco cessation interventions for young people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. School-based programmes for preventing smoking.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Reducing smoking in adolescents: cost-effectiveness results from the cluster randomized ASSIST (A Stop Smoking In Schools Trial).Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2012
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Fenella StarkeyDepartment of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK. F.Starkey@bris.ac.uk
Laurence Moore
Rona Campbell
Mark Sidaway
Michael Bloor
ASSIST
Cardiff University · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, no school-based intervention has been proven to be effective in preventing adolescent smoking, despite continuing concern about smoking levels amongst young people in the United Kingdom. Although formal teacher-led smoking prevention interventions are considered unlikely to be effective, peer-led approaches to reducing smoking have been proposed as potentially valuable. METHODS/

designASSIST (A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial) is a comprehensive, large-scale evaluation to rigorously test whether peer supporters in Year 8 (age 11-12) can be recruited and trained to effect a reduction in smoking uptake among their fellow students. The evaluation is employing a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) design with secondary school as the unit of randomisation, and is being undertaken in 59 schools in South East Wales and the West of England. Embedded within the trial are an economic evaluation of the intervention costs, a process evaluation to provide detailed information on how the intervention was delivered and received, and an analysis of social networks to consider whether such a peer group intervention could work amongst schoolchildren in this age group. Schools were randomised to either continue with normal smoking education (n = 29 schools, 5562 students), or to do so and additionally receive the ASSIST intervention (n = 30 schools, 5481 students). No schools withdrew once the trial had started, and the intervention was successfully implemented in all 30 schools, with excellent participation rates from the peer supporters. The primary outcome is regular (weekly) smoking, validated by salivary cotinine, and this outcome has been obtained for 94.4%, 91.0% and 95.6% of eligible students at baseline, immediate post-intervention, and one-year follow-up respectively. DISCUSSION: Comprehensive evaluations of complex public health interventions of this scale and nature are rare in the United Kingdom. This paper demonstrates the feasibility of conducting cluster RCTs of complex public health interventions in schools, and how the rigour of such designs can be maximised both by thorough implementation of the protocol and by broadening the scope of questions addressed in the trial by including additional evaluative components.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsPeer GroupSmoking PreventionAdolescentChildCluster AnalysisCosts and Cost AnalysisEnglandFemaleHealth EducationHealth PromotionHumansMalePrevalenceProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15847695
PMCPMC1097740
OpenAlexW2089628479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.