Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27229464›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

Effect of a sport-for-health intervention (SmokeFree Sports) on smoking-related intentions and cognitions among 9-10 year old primary school children: a controlled trial.

Ciara E McGee, Joanne Trigwell, Stuart J Fairclough, Rebecca C Murphy, Lorna Porcellato, Michael Ussher, Lawrence Foweather

Abstract readControlled Clinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ciara E McGeeCentre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Henry Cotton Campus, 15-21 Webster Street, Liverpool, L3 2AT, UK. c.e.mcgee@ljmu.ac.uk.
Joanne TrigwellCentre for Health Promotion Research, Leeds Beckett University, Calverley Building, City Campus, Leeds, LS1 3HE, UK.
Stuart J FaircloughDepartment of Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, St. Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK.
Rebecca C MurphyPhysical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, 62 Great Crosshall Street, Liverpool, L3 2AT, UK.
Lorna PorcellatoCentre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Henry Cotton Campus, 15-21 Webster Street, Liverpool, L3 2AT, UK.
Michael UssherPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK.
Lawrence FoweatherPhysical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, 62 Great Crosshall Street, Liverpool, L3 2AT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreventing children from smoking is a public health priority. This study evaluated the effects of a sport-for-health smoking prevention programme (SmokeFree Sports) on smoking-related intentions and cognitions among primary school children from deprived communities.

methodsA non-randomised-controlled trial targeted 9-10 year old children from Merseyside, North-West England. 32 primary schools received a programme of sport-for-health activities over 7 months; 11 comparison schools followed usual routines. Data were collected pre-intervention (T0), and at 8 months (T1) and one year post-intervention (T2). Smoking-related intentions and cognitions were assessed using an online questionnaire. Intervention effects were analysed using multi-level modelling (school, student), adjusted for baseline values and potential confounders. Mixed-sex focus groups (n = 18) were conducted at T1.

results961 children completed all assessments and were included in the final analyses. There were no significant differences between the two study groups for non-smoking intentions (T1: β = 0.02, 95 % CI = -0.08-0.12; T2: β = 0.08, 95 % CI = -0.02-0.17) or for cigarette refusal self-efficacy (T1: β = 0.28, 95 % CI = -0.11-0.67; T2: β = 0.23, 95 % CI = -0.07-0.52). At T1 there was a positive intervention effect for cigarette refusal self-efficacy in girls (β = 0.72, 95 % CI = 0.21-1.23). Intervention participants were more likely to 'definitely' believe that: 'it is not safe to smoke for a year or two as long as you quit after that' (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI = 1.07-1.33), 'it is difficult to quit smoking once started' (RR = 1.56, 95 % CI = 1.38-1.76), 'smoke from other peoples' cigarettes is harmful' (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI = 1.20-2.08), 'smoking affects sports performance' (RR = 1.73, 95 % CI = 1.59-1.88) and 'smoking makes 'no difference' to weight' (RR = 2.13, 95 % CI = 1.86-2.44). At T2, significant between-group differences remained just for 'smoking affects sports performance' (RR = 1.57, 95 % CI = 1.43-1.72). Focus groups showed that SFS made children determined to remain smoke free and that the interactive activities aided children's understanding of smoking harms.

conclusionSFS demonstrated short-term positive effects on smoking attitudes among children, and cigarette refusal self-efficacy among girls. Although no effects were observed for non-smoking intentions, children said that SFS made them more determined not to smoke. Most children had strong intentions not to smoke; therefore, smoking prevention programmes should perhaps target early adolescents, who are closer to the age of smoking onset.

Indexed as

IntentionSmoking PreventionSportsChildChild Health ServicesEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleSchool Health ServicesSchoolsStudentsSurveys and QuestionnairesChildrenInterventionPreventionSchool-basedSmoking

Identifiers

PMID27229464
PMCPMC4882812

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.