Understanding the mechanisms of change in social norms around tobacco use: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions.

IF 5.2 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Addiction Pub Date : 2024-10-12 DOI:10.1111/add.16685
Shaon Lahiri, Jeffrey B Bingenheimer, W Douglas Evans, Yan Wang, Ben Cislaghi, Priyanka Dubey, Bobbi Snowden
{"title":"Understanding the mechanisms of change in social norms around tobacco use: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions.","authors":"Shaon Lahiri, Jeffrey B Bingenheimer, W Douglas Evans, Yan Wang, Ben Cislaghi, Priyanka Dubey, Bobbi Snowden","doi":"10.1111/add.16685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Tobacco use spreads through social networks influencing social norms around tobacco use. However, the social norms scholarship is extremely diverse and occasionally conflicting, complicating efforts to understand how best to leverage social norms to reduce tobacco use. This study systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed this vast terrain by focusing on social norms measurement and mechanism, and intervention effectiveness and modality aimed at changing social norms around tobacco use and actual tobacco use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Scopus, PubMed, PsycInfo, Clinicaltrials.gov, ProQuest Dissertations, the Cochrane Trial Registry, as well as the websites of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, the Open Science Framework, medrXiv and the Truth Initiative for experimental and quasi-experimental evaluation studies of interventions designed to shift tobacco use. We included studies written in English from inception to 30 May 2024. We only included studies which noted social norms or social influence as part of the intervention design or set of measured variables. We excluded studies with only one time point, without an intervention being evaluated and those not published in English. Study screening followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and was conducted by at least two independent reviewers who resolved discrepancies through discussion and consensus. All included studies were analyzed in a narrative synthesis, and those providing sufficient statistics for tobacco and social norms outcomes were included in meta-analyses, which were performed separately for tobacco outcomes and social norms outcomes. Study outcomes were transformed into a standardized mean difference (Hedges' g) and several meta-regressions were fit to explore sources of heterogeneity using a robust variance estimation specification to handle effect size dependency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 95 studies met inclusion criteria for the narrative synthesis, 200 effect sizes from 86 studies were included in the tobacco outcomes meta-analysis, and 66 effect sizes from 29 studies were included in the social norms outcomes meta-analysis. Nearly 90% of included studies were conducted in high-income settings, with the remainder conducted in middle-income settings. No studies were conducted in Latin America or on the African continent. Social norms change interventions had a statistically significant effect on reducing tobacco use and pro-tobacco social normative perceptions [g = 0.233, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.166, 0.301, P < 0.001 and g = 0.292, 95% CI = 0.090, 0.494, P = 0.007, respectively]. Interventions were commonly conducted among schoolchildren in classrooms through multicomponent education sessions, often coupled with regular 'booster' sessions over time. Among adult populations, motivational interviewing and other counselling approaches were used in some cases, and few interventions leveraged digital technologies to change social norms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Social norms change interventions appear to be effective for reducing tobacco use and pro-tobacco social normative perceptions. In particular, leveraging role models appears to be the most effective social norms change mechanisms for tobacco control.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16685","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Tobacco use spreads through social networks influencing social norms around tobacco use. However, the social norms scholarship is extremely diverse and occasionally conflicting, complicating efforts to understand how best to leverage social norms to reduce tobacco use. This study systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed this vast terrain by focusing on social norms measurement and mechanism, and intervention effectiveness and modality aimed at changing social norms around tobacco use and actual tobacco use.

Methods: We searched Scopus, PubMed, PsycInfo, Clinicaltrials.gov, ProQuest Dissertations, the Cochrane Trial Registry, as well as the websites of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, the Open Science Framework, medrXiv and the Truth Initiative for experimental and quasi-experimental evaluation studies of interventions designed to shift tobacco use. We included studies written in English from inception to 30 May 2024. We only included studies which noted social norms or social influence as part of the intervention design or set of measured variables. We excluded studies with only one time point, without an intervention being evaluated and those not published in English. Study screening followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and was conducted by at least two independent reviewers who resolved discrepancies through discussion and consensus. All included studies were analyzed in a narrative synthesis, and those providing sufficient statistics for tobacco and social norms outcomes were included in meta-analyses, which were performed separately for tobacco outcomes and social norms outcomes. Study outcomes were transformed into a standardized mean difference (Hedges' g) and several meta-regressions were fit to explore sources of heterogeneity using a robust variance estimation specification to handle effect size dependency.

Results: A total of 95 studies met inclusion criteria for the narrative synthesis, 200 effect sizes from 86 studies were included in the tobacco outcomes meta-analysis, and 66 effect sizes from 29 studies were included in the social norms outcomes meta-analysis. Nearly 90% of included studies were conducted in high-income settings, with the remainder conducted in middle-income settings. No studies were conducted in Latin America or on the African continent. Social norms change interventions had a statistically significant effect on reducing tobacco use and pro-tobacco social normative perceptions [g = 0.233, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.166, 0.301, P < 0.001 and g = 0.292, 95% CI = 0.090, 0.494, P = 0.007, respectively]. Interventions were commonly conducted among schoolchildren in classrooms through multicomponent education sessions, often coupled with regular 'booster' sessions over time. Among adult populations, motivational interviewing and other counselling approaches were used in some cases, and few interventions leveraged digital technologies to change social norms.

Conclusions: Social norms change interventions appear to be effective for reducing tobacco use and pro-tobacco social normative perceptions. In particular, leveraging role models appears to be the most effective social norms change mechanisms for tobacco control.

了解改变烟草使用社会规范的机制:干预措施的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景和目的:烟草使用通过影响烟草使用社会规范的社会网络传播。然而,社会规范方面的学术研究极其多样,有时甚至相互矛盾,这使得了解如何最好地利用社会规范来减少烟草使用的工作变得更加复杂。本研究通过关注社会规范的测量和机制,以及旨在改变烟草使用社会规范和实际烟草使用的干预效果和方式,对这一广阔领域进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析:我们检索了 Scopus、PubMed、PsycInfo、Clinicaltrials.gov、ProQuest Dissertations、Cochrane 试验登记处以及尼古丁和烟草研究学会、开放科学框架、medrXiv 和真相倡议网站上有关旨在改变烟草使用的干预措施的实验和准实验评估研究。我们纳入了从开始到 2024 年 5 月 30 日用英语撰写的研究。我们仅纳入了将社会规范或社会影响作为干预设计或测量变量集的一部分的研究。我们排除了只有一个时间点、没有评估干预措施以及非英文发表的研究。研究筛选遵循 PRISMA 2020 指南,由至少两名独立审稿人进行,他们通过讨论和共识来解决分歧。对所有纳入的研究进行叙述性综合分析,对烟草和社会规范结果提供足够统计数据的研究纳入荟萃分析,并分别对烟草结果和社会规范结果进行荟萃分析。研究结果被转换为标准化均值差(Hedges'g),并使用稳健方差估计规范处理效应大小依赖性,拟合了多个元回归,以探索异质性的来源:共有 95 项研究符合叙述性综合的纳入标准,86 项研究的 200 个效应大小被纳入烟草结果荟萃分析,29 项研究的 66 个效应大小被纳入社会规范结果荟萃分析。近 90% 的纳入研究是在高收入环境中进行的,其余研究是在中等收入环境中进行的。没有研究在拉丁美洲或非洲大陆进行。社会规范改变干预对减少烟草使用和亲烟草社会规范观念有显著的统计学效果[g = 0.233, 95% 置信区间 (CI) = 0.166, 0.301, P 结论:社会规范改变干预似乎能有效减少烟草使用和亲烟草社会规范观念。特别是,利用榜样似乎是最有效的烟草控制社会规范改变机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Addiction
Addiction 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines. Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries. Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信