Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36869343›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2023

Perceptions of friendship, peers and influence on adolescent smoking according to tobacco control context: a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative research.

H J Littlecott, G F Moore, R E Evans, G J Melendez-Torres, M McCann, H Reed, M Mann, F Dobbie, S Jennings, C Donaldson and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

H J LittlecottPettenkofer School of Public Health (PSPH), Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, Munich, 81377, Germany. hlittlecott@gmail.com.
G F MooreCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK.
R E EvansCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK.
G J Melendez-TorresPeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), South Cloisters, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
M McCannMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Berkeley Square, 99 Berkeley Street, Glasgow, G3 7HR, UK.
H ReedCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK.
M MannSpecialist Unit for Review Evidence, Cardiff University, 6th Floor, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park Campus, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK.
F DobbieUsher Institute- University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
S JenningsTeaching and Learning for Health Professionals, Bristol Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39-41 St Michael's Hill, Bristol, BS2 8EZ, UK.
C DonaldsonCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK.
J HawkinsCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, Wales, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C64562/A26532Chief Scientist Office SPHSU11Chief Scientist Office SPHSU14Chief Scientist Office SPHSU16Chief Scientist Office SPHSU18Medical Research Council MC_PC_13027Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/11Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14Medical Research Council partnership grant MC_PC_13027MRC and Scotland's Chief Scientist Office MC_UU_12017/14 / SPHSU14 / MC_UU_00022/1The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence MR/KO232331/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA relationship between smoking and interpersonal influences has been well established within the literature. There have been cultural shifts in denormalisation and a reduction in tobacco smoking in many countries. Hence there is a need to understand social influences on adolescents' smoking across smoking normalisation contexts.

methodsThe search was conducted in July 2019 and updated in March 2022 within 11 databases and secondary sources. Search terms included schools, adolescents, smoking, peers, social norms and qualitative research. Screening was conducted by two researchers independently and in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the eight-item Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-centre) tool for the appraisal of qualitative studies. Results were synthesised using a meta-narrative lens for meta-ethnography and compared across smoking normalisation contexts.

resultsForty one studies were included and five themes were developed, mapping onto the socio ecological model. The social processes by which adolescents take up smoking differed according to a mixture of school type, peer group structure and the smoking culture within the school, as well as the wider cultural context. Data available from smoking denormalised contexts, described changes in social interactions around smoking to cope with its stigmatisation. This was manifested through i) direct peer influence, whereby subtle techniques were employed, ii) group belonging whereby smoking was less likely to be seen as a key determinant of group membership and smoking was less commonly reported to be used as a social tool, and iii) popularity and identity construction, whereby smoking was perceived more negatively in a denormalised context, compared with a normalised context.

conclusionsThis meta-ethnography is the first study to demonstrate, drawing on international data, that peer processes in adolescent smoking may undergo changes as smoking norms within society change. Future research should focus on understanding differences across socioeconomic contexts, to inform the adaptation of interventions.

Indexed as

FriendsTobacco ControlAdolescentAnthropology, CulturalHumansQualitative ResearchSmokingTobacco SmokingAdolescentsFriendshipmeta-ethnographyPeer influenceSchoolsSmokingSystematic reviewTobacco control

Identifiers

PMID36869343
PMCPMC9983235

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.