Smoking prevention: what benefits are indicated by a pilot school drug education programme that focuses on minimising harm?

Abstract

Background: This pilot study investigated the smoking prevention benefits of a secondary school drug education programme for all-licit and illicit drugs. The programme took a harm minimisation approach and incorporated abstinence as one of a range of prevention strategies. Method: The study population comprised a cohort of 318 Victorian junior secondary school students (intervention N = 225 in three schools, control N = 93 in one school). During Years 8 (13–14-year-olds) and 9 (14–15-year-olds), the intervention students received a 22-lesson programme derived from evidence of effective practice and aimed at minimising the harm associated with drug use. Control students received the drug education programme normally provided by their school. Results: Students who received the intervention remembered receiving more lessons about smoking and were more knowledgeable about drug use issues overall. They were no less likely to take up smoking, but those who did smoke, reported smoking fewer cigarettes and experiencing fewer harms associated with their smoking. Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that a harm minimisation approach to smoking can complement, rather than threaten, the abstinence message for adolescents. A school drug education programme with a harm reduction focus does not increase initiation into smoking and can equip smokers with the understanding and skills to make better decisions regarding use.

Keywords:

• tobacco
• adolescence
• harm minimisation
• education
• prevention

Acknowledgements

Financial contributions

This study was funded by the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Trial registration details

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000079842

Authors' contributions

Johanna Mitchell was the lead author of this paper and contributed to the study design.

Richard Midford obtained funding for this study, was the primary developer of the study design and contributed to the design of intervention materials and the drafting of this paper.

Helen Cahill was the primary developer of the intervention materials and contributed to the study design and the drafting of this paper.

Leanne Lester contributed to the study design and the drafting of this paper.

Lynne Venning contributed to the study design, the design of the intervention materials, and the drafting of this paper.

Robyn Ramsden contributed to the study design, the design of the intervention materials, and the drafting of this paper.

Michelle Pose contributed to the design of the intervention materials and the drafting of this paper.

Gillian Davenport recruited the study schools and contributed to the design of the intervention materials and the drafting of this paper.

Bernadette Murphy contributed to the design of the intervention materials and the drafting of this paper.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.