Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen

, Volume 96, Issue 1, pp 23–31 | Cite as

Op school steek je niks op!

Belemmerende en bevorderende factoren bij de overweging om een rookvrij schoolterrein in te voeren
  • Andrea D. Rozema
  • Jolanda J. P. Mathijssen
  • J. A. M. (Hans) van Oers
  • Maria W. J. Jansen
Wetenschappelijk artikel
  • 38 Downloads

Samenvatting

Achtergrond: Op middelbare scholen mag in het schoolgebouw vaak niet gerookt worden, maar een rookverbod voor het schoolterrein is minder gebruikelijk. Dit onderzoek gaat in op de vraag waarom veel middelbare scholen geen rookvrij schoolterrein ingevoerd hebben, door te onderzoeken wat de belemmerende en bevorderende factoren op scholen zonder een rookvrij schoolterrein zijn.

Methoden: Met zestig sleutelfiguren op vijftien middelbare scholen zijn semigestructureerde interviews gehouden. Bij de analyses is een thematische benadering gebruikt.

Resultaten: Er werden zestien belemmerende en bevorderende factoren gevonden, onder te verdelen in vier categorieën: (1) sociaal-politieke factoren (wetgeving en de sociale norm), (2) schoolgerelateerde factoren (beleid, besluitvormingsproces, handhaving, middelen, arbeidsvoorwaarden, communicatie en samenwerking), (3) individuele factoren (draagvlak, kennis en doelgroep) en (4) factoren rondom het rookverbod (omgevingsfactoren, richtlijnen, neveneffecten en effectiviteit).

Conclusie: De bevindingen onderstrepen de behoefte aan wetgeving op het gebied van rookvrije buitenruimtes. Samenwerking, communicatie en het vroegtijdig betrekken van respondenten in het proces zouden gestimuleerd moeten worden. Deze resultaten kunnen scholen helpen zich voor te bereiden op de wetgeving die in 2020 van kracht wordt rondom rookvrije schoolterreinen in onderwijsinstellingen.

Trefwoorden

rookvrij schoolterrein adopteren tabaksontmoediging gezondheidsbevordering voortgezet onderwijs 

Schools as smoke-free zones?

Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of outdoor school ground smoking bans at secondary schools

Abstract

Background: Whereas smoking bans inside secondary school buildings are relatively widespread, a smoking ban for the outdoor school grounds is less common. This study investigates why many secondary schools fail to adopt an outdoor school ground smoking ban. Perceived barriers and facilitators of stakeholders at schools without an outdoor school ground smoking ban were identified.

Methods: Qualitative data were obtained from 60 respondents of 15 secondary schools. Semi-structured interviews were held with various key-stakeholders and a thematic approach was used for analysis.

Results: The perceived barriers and facilitators of the stakeholders fell into four categories: (1) socio-political characteristics (legislation and social norm), (2) school characteristics (policy, decision process, enforcement, resources, workforce conditions, communication and collaboration), (3) individual characteristics (support, knowledge, and target group), and (4) smoking ban characteristics (environmental factors, guideline recommendations, outcome expectations, and evidence).

Conclusion: The findings highlight the importance of legislation for outdoor smoking bans. Moreover, collaboration, communication and involving stakeholders during an early stage of the process should be stimulated. These results can support schools adopting an outdoor smoking ban, which is important due to legislation that will be implemented for outdoor smoking bans at educational institutes in 2020.

Keywords

smoke-free school grounds adoption tobacco control policy health promotion secondary school 

Notes

Dankbetuiging

De auteurs willen Rick Boesten, Paula Dijkema, Wilco Schilthuis en Marian Levens bedanken voor het verzamelen van de data in de drie regio’s. Dit onderzoek is gefinancierd door ZonMw en het Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM).

Literatuur

  1. 1.
    Trimbos-instituut. Ziekte & sterfte. 2017. https://www.rokeninfo.nl/publiek/cijfers/ziekte-sterfte. Geraadpleegd op: 8 sep 2017.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    WHO. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic. In raising taxes on tobacco. 2015. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/178574/1/9789240694606_eng.pdf?ua=1. Geraadpleegd op: 6 sep 2017.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Welte JW, Barnes GM, Tidwell MO, et al. Tobacco use, heavy use, and dependence among adolescents and young adults in the United States. Subst Use Misuse. 2011;46:1090–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Been JV, Nurmatov UB, Cox B, et al. Effect of smoke-free legislation on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2014;383:1549–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wakefield MA, Chaloupka FJ, Kaufman NJ, et al. Effect of restrictions on smoking at home, at school, and in public places on teenage smoking: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2000;321(7257):333–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore L, Roberts C, Tudor-Smith C. School smoking policies and smoking prevalence among adolescents: multilevel analysis of cross-sectional data from Wales. Tob Control. 2001;10:117–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fallin A, Roditis M, Glantz SA. Association of campus tobacco policies with secondhand smoke exposure, intention to smoke on campus, and attitudes about outdoor smoking restrictions. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(6):1098–100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dorsselaer S van, Tuithof M, Verdurmen J, et al. Jeugd en riskant gedrag. 2015. https://assets.trimbos.nl/docs/8e6ef71f-d74e-4696-a67b-98ef82fb2235.pdf. Geraadpleegd op: 30 aug 2017.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klaassen A. Roken Jeugd Monitor. 2012. http://www.tns-nipo.com/. Geraadpleegd op: 30 aug 2017.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kota D, Robinson SE, Imad Damaj M. Enhanced nicotine reward in adulthood after exposure to nicotine during early adolescence in mice. Biochem Pharmacol. 2009;78:873–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kendler KS, Myers J, Damaj MI, et al. Early smoking onset and risk for subsequent nicotine dependence: a monozygotic co-twin control study. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170:408–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartstichting, KWF Kankerbestrijding, Longfonds. Rookvrije generatie. 2017. https://rookvrijegeneratie.nl/. Geraadpleegd op: 8 sep 2017.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Longfonds. Stappenplan voor een rookvrij schoolterrein. 2017. https://www.longfonds.nl/schoolterrein. Geraadpleegd op: 8 sep 2017.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verhoofstad A, Reijgersberg N. Rookvrije schoolterreinen. 2015. http://www.kennisbanksportenbewegen.nl/?file=5325&m=1446797226&action=file.download. Geraadpleegd op: 13 sep 2017.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolfenden L, Carruthers J, Wyse R, et al. Translation of tobacco control programs in schools: findings from a rapid review of systematic reviews of implementation and dissemination interventions. Health Promot J Austr. 2014;25(2):136–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe; 1962.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T. Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: literature review and Delphi study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16:107–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, et al. Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons; 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE‑AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1322–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hallfors D, Godette D. Will the ‘principles of effectiveness’ improve prevention practice? Early findings from a diffusion study. Health Educ Res. 2002;17:461–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fagan AAMS. Strategies for enhancing the adoption of school-based prevention programs: lessons learned from the blueprints for violence prevention replications of the life skills training program. J Community Psychol. 2003;31:235–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blake SM, Ledsky RA, Sawyer RJ, et al. Local school district adoption of state-recommended policies on HIV prevention education. Prev Med. 2005;40:239–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Little MA, Pokhrel P, Sussman S, et al. The process of adoption of evidence-based tobacco use prevention programs in California schools. Prev Sci. 2015;16:80–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sofaer S. Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them? Health Serv Res. 1999;34:1101–18.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rozema AD, Mathijssen JJP, Jansen MWJ, et al. Schools as smoke-free zones? Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of outdoor school ground smoking bans at secondary schools. Tob Induc Dis. 2016;14:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Diepeveen S, Ling T, Suhrcke M, et al. Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:756.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Radar. 53 % voor rookverbod op openbare plekken. 2017. https://radar.avrotros.nl/nieuws/detail/53-voor-rookverbod-op-openbare-plekken/. Geraadpleegd op: 13 sep 2017.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grootheest A van, Mors B. Onderzoek roken op het schoolterrein. 2012. [Beschikbaar op verzoek bij het Longfonds] Geraadpleegd op: 9 sep 2017.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grootheest A van, Woud L van der. Monitor Rookvrije Scholen 2013. 2013. [Beschikbaar op verzoek bij het Longfonds] Geraadpleegd op: 9 sep 2017.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grootheest A van, Woud L van der. Monitor Rookvrije Scholen 2014. 2014. http://www.alliantienederlandrookvrij.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Rapportage-Onderzoek-Longfonds-Monitor-2014.pdf. Geraadpleegd op: 9 sep 2017.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Breedveld K, Lammertink N. Rookvrije schoolterreinen – 2016. 2016. http://www.kennisbanksportenbewegen.nl/?file=7409&m=1479732680&action=file.download. Geraadpleegd op: 9 sep 2017.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee JGL, Goldstein AO, Kramer KD, et al. Statewide diffusion of 100 % tobacco-free college and university policies. Tob Control. 2010;19:311–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:327–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shediac-Rizkallah MC, Bone LR. Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health Educ Res. 1998;13:87–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wold B, Torsheim T, Currie C, et al. National and school policies on restrictions of teacher smoking: a multilevel analysis of student exposure to teacher smoking in seven European countries. Health Educ Res. 2004;19:217–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schreuders M, Nuyts PAW, Putte B van den, et al. Understanding the impact of school tobacco policies on adolescent smoking behaviour: a realist review. Soc Sci Med. 2017;183:19–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mamudu HM, Veeranki SP, He Y, et al. University personnel’s attitudes and behaviors toward the first tobacco-free campus policy in Tennessee. J Community Health. 2012;37:855–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rozema AD, Mathijssen JJP, Jansen MWJ, et al. Sustainability of outdoor school ground smoking bans at secondary schools: a mixed-method study. Eur J Public Health. 2017.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Polit DF, Beck CT. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47:1451–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum is een imprint van Springer Media B.V., onderdeel van Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea D. Rozema
    • 1
  • Jolanda J. P. Mathijssen
    • 1
  • J. A. M. (Hans) van Oers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria W. J. Jansen
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department TranzoTilburg UniversityTilburgNederland
  2. 2.Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM)BilthovenNederland
  3. 3.Academische Werkplaats Publieke Gezondheid Zuid LimburgGGD Zuid LimburgGeleenNederland
  4. 4.Department of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care CAPHRIMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtNederland

Personalised recommendations