Identifying student opinion leaders to lead e-cigarette interventions: protocol for a randomized controlled pragmatic trial

Kar-Hai Chu, Sara Matheny, Alexa Furek, Jaime Sidani, Susan Radio, Elizabeth Miller, Thomas Valente, Linda Robertson, Kar-Hai Chu, Sara Matheny, Alexa Furek, Jaime Sidani, Susan Radio, Elizabeth Miller, Thomas Valente, Linda Robertson

Abstract

Background: After the US Surgeon General declared youth electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use an epidemic in 2018, the number of youth e-cigarette users continued to surge, growing from 3.8 million in 2018 to over 5 million 2019. Youth who use e-cigarettes are at a substantially higher risk of transitioning to traditional cigarettes, becoming regular cigarette smokers, and increasing their risk of developing tobacco-related cancer. A majority of youth are misinformed about e-cigarettes, often believing they are not harmful or contain no nicotine. Middle school students using e-cigarettes have been affected by its normalization leading to influence by their peers. However, social and group dynamics can be leveraged for a school-based peer-led intervention to identify and recruit student leaders to be anti-e-cigarette champions to prevent e-cigarette initiation. This study outlines a project to use social network analysis to identify student opinion-leaders in schools and train them to conduct anti-e-cigarette programming to their peers.

Methods: In the 2019-2020 academic school year, 6th grade students from nine schools in the Pittsburgh area were recruited. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted with three arms-expert, elected peer-leader, and random peer-leader-for e-cigarette programming. Sixth grade students in each school completed a network survey that assessed the friendship networks in each class. Students also completed pre-intervention and post-intervention surveys about their intention-to-use, knowledge, and attitudes towards e-cigarettes. Within each peer-led arm, social network analysis was conducted to identify peer-nominated opinion leaders. An e-cigarette prevention program was administered by (1) an adult content-expert, (2) a peer-nominated opinion leader to assigned students, or (3) a peer-nominated opinion leader to random students.

Discussion: This study is the first to evaluate the feasibility of leveraging social network analysis to identify 6th grade opinion leaders to lead a school-based e-cigarette intervention.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04083469 . Registered on September 10, 2019.

Keywords: E-cigarette; School; Social network analysis; Tobacco.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest at this time.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
SPIRIT schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments

References

    1. Cullen KA, Gentzke AS, Sawdey MD, et al. E-cigarette use among youth in the United States, 2019. JAMA. 2019;322:2095. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.18387.
    1. Stein R. Vaping “epidemic” among youths declared by U.S. Surgeon General. NPR. 2018. Available from: .
    1. Primack BA, Shensa A, Sidani JE, et al. Initiation of traditional cigarette smoking after electronic cigarette use among tobacco-naïve US young adults. Am J Med. 2018;131:443.e1–443.e9. doi: 10.1016/J.AMJMED.2017.11.005.
    1. Primack BA, Soneji S, Stoolmiller M, et al. Progression to traditional cigarette smoking after electronic cigarette use among US adolescents and young adults. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169:1018–1023. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1742.
    1. Barrington-Trimis JL, Urman R, Berhane K, et al. E-cigarettes and future cigarette use. Pediatrics. 2016;138:e20160379. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-0379.
    1. Soneji S, Barrington-Trimis JL, Wills TA, et al. Association between initial use of e-cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking among adolescents and young adults. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:788. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1488.
    1. Spindle TR, Hiler MM, Cooke ME, et al. Electronic cigarette use and uptake of cigarette smoking: a longitudinal examination of U.S. college students. Addict Behav. 2017;67:66–72. doi: 10.1016/J.ADDBEH.2016.12.009.
    1. Miech RA, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, et al. Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2017: volume I, secondary school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan; 2018.
    1. Willett JG, Bennett M, Hair EC, et al. Recognition, use and perceptions of JUUL among youth and young adults. Tob Control. 2019;28:115–116. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054273.
    1. Coleman BN, Johnson SE, Tessman GK, et al. “It’s not smoke. It’s not tar. It’s not 4000 chemicals. Case closed”: exploring attitudes, beliefs, and perceived social norms of e-cigarette use among adult users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;159:80–85. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.11.028.
    1. Truth Initiative . How are schools responding to the youth e-cigarette epidemic? 2019.
    1. Alexander C, Piazza M, Mekos D, Valente T. Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. J Adolesc Health. 2001;29:22–30. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00210-5.
    1. Ali MM, Dwyer DS. Estimating peer effects in adolescent smoking behavior: a longitudinal analysis. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:402–408. doi: 10.1016/J.JADOHEALTH.2009.02.004.
    1. Cavazos-Rehg PA, Krauss MJ, Sowles SJ, et al. Multiple levels of influence that impact youth tobacco use. Tob Regul Sci. 2016;2:106–122. doi: 10.18001/TRS.2.2.2.
    1. Lipperman-Kreda S, Grube JW. Students’ perception of community disapproval, perceived enforcement of school antismoking policies, personal beliefs, and their cigarette smoking behaviors: results from a structural equation modeling analysis. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11:531–539. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntp033.
    1. Sheikh A, Vadera S, Ravey M, et al. A social norms approach to changing school children’s perceptions of tobacco usage. Health Educ. 2017;117:530–539. doi: 10.1108/HE-01-2017-0006.
    1. Taylor J, Taylor A, Lewis S, et al. A qualitative evaluation of a novel intervention using insight into tobacco industry tactics to prevent the uptake of smoking in school-aged children. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:539. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3205-8.
    1. Chu K-H, Shensa A, Colditz J, et al. Integrating social dynamics into modeling cigarette and E-cigarette use. Health Educ Behav. 2020;47:191–201. doi: 10.1177/1090198119876242.
    1. Schillinger D, Ling PM, Fine S, et al. Reducing cancer and cancer disparities: lessons from a youth-generated diabetes prevention campaign. Am J Prev Med. 2017;53:S103–S113. doi: 10.1016/J.AMEPRE.2017.05.024.
    1. Valente TW. Network interventions. Science. 2012;337:49–53. doi: 10.1126/science.1217330.
    1. Gesell SB, Barkin SL, Valente TW. Social network diagnostics: a tool for monitoring group interventions. Implement Sci. 2013;8:116. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-116.
    1. Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5. New York: Free Press; 2003.
    1. Franks A, Kelder S, Dino GA, Horn KA. School-based programs: lessons learned from CATCH, Planet Health, and Not-On-Tobacco. In: Hassan A, editor. School nutrition and activity. Oakville: Apple Academic Press; 2015. pp. 147–162.
    1. Medicine SS of the tobacco prevention toolkit.
    1. CATCH CATCH my breath E-cigarette prevention. . Accessed 15 Apr 2019.
    1. McKenzie TL, Stone EJ, Feldman HA, et al. Effects of the CATCH physical education intervention: teacher type and lesson location. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:101–109. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00335-X.
    1. Leon AC, Davis LL, Kraemer HC. The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45:626–629. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.10.008.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner