RESEARCH PAPER
Differences in the effects of anti-tobacco health education programme in the areas of knowledge, attitude and behaviour, with respect to nicotinism among boys and girls
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Public Health, Medical University of Bialystok, Poland
2
University Clinical Hospital, Białystok, Poland
3
Higher School of Public Health, Zielona Góra, Poland
 
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2013;20(1):173–177
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction. Health education used for increasing the effectiveness of intervention actions should cover a number of factors which exert an effect on learning. Objectve. Recognition of the extent to which gender may determine the effects of an anti-tobacco health education programme. Material and methods. The intervention study was undertaken in May 2007, and covered 859 first-year schoolchildren in Białystok. The sample was selected by means of two-stage stratified sampling with consideration of two groups: an intervention group and a control group. Results. In the group of girls, the 2-year educational programme resulted in an increase in knowledge concerning the negative effects of cigarette smoking by 21%, and being familiar with anti-tobacco actions and campaigns carried out in Poland by 24.5%. Among boys, an increase was observed only with respect to the knowledge of anti-tobacco actions and campaigns – by 10.7%. Considering the attitudes of girls after the completion of the programme, changes were noted with respect to three from among the six elements analyzed. However, among boys, after completion of the project, no changes were noted in any of the analyzed elements of attitude. In girls who participated in the anti-nicotine programme, the percentage of smokers did not increase, while an increase in this percentage was observed among girls of the control group and boys in both groups. Conclusions. Different effects of the 2-year anti-tobacco programme obtained in the area of knowledge, attitude and behaviour should constitute a premise for the modification of educational programmes from the aspect of the variety of methods, techniques and instruments which would be adequate for adolescents’ predispositions resulting also from their gender.
 
REFERENCES (22)
1.
Ramadas K, Sauvaget C, Thomas G, Fayette JM, Thara S, Sankaranarayanan R. Effect of tobacco chewing, tobacco smoking and alcohol on all-cause and cancer mortality: a cohort study from Trivandrum, India. Cancer Epidemiol. 2010; 34(4): 405-412.
 
2.
Kaori H, Hiroyasu I, Shoichiro T, Akiko T, Hiroshi S, Kazuo T, et al. The effects of smoking and smoking cessation on mortality from cardiovascular disease among Japanese: pooled analysis of three largescale cohort studies in Japan. Tob Control. 2010; 19: 50-57.
 
3.
Hrubá D, Zachovalová V, Matějová H, Daňková I. “Our class does not smoke”; the czech version of the “Smoke-free class competition” programme. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2007; 15 (4): 163-166.
 
4.
Marmon G, Flak E. Przeciwdziałanie uzależnieniom wśród dzieci i młodzieży szkolnej na przykładzie programów antynikotynowych. Promocja zdrowia. Nauki Społeczne i Medycyna. 2000; 7(19): 145-155.
 
5.
Borucka A, Okulicz-Kozaryn K, Pisarska A. Pierwsze doświadczenia związane z wprowadzaniem szkolnej interwencji wobec uczniów używających substancji psychoaktywnych. Alkoh Narkom. 2002; 15(2): 241-251.
 
6.
Kowalewska A, Woynarowska B, Mazur J. Ocena wdrażania i realizacji edukacji prozdrowotnej w szkołach podstawowych i gimnazjach w roku szkolnym 1999/2000. Wych Fiz Zdr. 2001; 48(6/7): 32-37.
 
7.
Woynarowska B. Edukacja zdrowotna. 1st ed. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2008.
 
8.
Zatoński W, Przewoźniak K. Palenie tytoniu a fizjologia człowieka [Film]. PWN, 2006.
 
9.
Graham JW, Johnson CA, Hansen WB, Flay BR, Gee M. Drug use prevention programs, gender, and ethnicity: evaluation of three seventh-grade Project SMART cohorts. Prev Med. 1990; 19:305-13.
 
10.
Longshore D, Ellickson PL, McCaffrey DF, St. Clair PA. School-based drug prevention among at-risk adolescents: effects of ALERT Plus. Health Educ Behav. 2007; 34: 651-68.
 
11.
Klepp KI, Tell GS, Vellar OD. Ten-year follow-up of the Oslo Youth Study Smoking Prevention Program. Prev Med. 1993; 22: 453-62.
 
12.
Vigna-Taglianti F, Vadrucci S, Faggiano F, Burkhart G, Siliquini R, Galanti MR. Is universal prevention against youths’ substance misuse really universal? Gender-specific effects in the EU-Dap school-based prevention trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009; 63(9): 722-8.
 
13.
Różnice w wynikach nauczania a płeć uczniów. Obecna sytuacja i działania podejmowane w Europie. EURIDICE, FRSE, Warszawa 2010.
 
14.
Edukacja zróżnicowana ze względu na płeć. EURIDICE, FRSE, Warszawa 2007
 
15.
Mazurkiewicz G, Bębnik B. Kształcenie chłopców i dziewcząt. Naturalny porządek nierówność czy dyskryminacja? CEO, Warszawa 2006.
 
16.
Does peer education work in Europe? Entre Nous, 56, WHO, 2003.
 
17.
Szilágyi T. Peer education of tobacco issues in Hungarian communities of Roma and socially disadvantaged children. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2002; 10(3): 117-20.
 
18.
McDonald D. Alcohol and Other Drug Peer Education in Schools: A review for the ACT Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Strategy Implementation and Evaluation Group. Social Research and Evaluation, Austrarlia, 2004.
 
19.
Black D, Tobler N, Sciacca J. Peer helping/involvement: an efficacious way to meet the challenge of reducing alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use among youth? J Sch Health. 1998; 68: 87-93.
 
20.
Webster RA, Hunter M, Keats JA. Evaluating the effects of a peer support program on adolescents’ knowledge, attitudes and use of alcohol and tobacco. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2002; 21(1): 7-16.
 
21.
Rajani R, Berman DS, Rozanski A. Social networks-are they good for your health? The era of Facebook and Twitter. QJM. 2011; 104(9): 819-20.
 
22.
Freeman B, Chapman S. Measuring interactivity on tobacco control websites. J Health Commun. 2012; 17(7): 857-65.
 
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966