The suitability of peer supporters identified to informally promote a smoke-free message
Dr. Jo Holliday (DECIPHer)
09.30, Wednesday 10 July. The Clubhouse, level 4
Introduction
The ASSIST Programme is an informal school-based peer-led intervention aimed at reducing the uptake of weekly smoking amongst 12-13 year olds. Based on diffusion theory, the intervention relies on peer socialisation and the diffusion of smoke-free messages by ‘peer supporters’ through informal conversations. Peer supporters are nominated using a whole-community approach. The intervention was evaluated in the UK using a randomised controlled trial (ASSIST), which demonstrated a 22% reduction in the odds of being a regular smoker [odds ratio 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.96)] in intervention compared with control schools.
Peer education relies on peer educators being credible and influential role models amongst their target population. So whilst the Programme is effective, it is important to examine whether the nomination process used achieved its aim of identifying peer supporters with these characteristics. This study therefore explores if the peer supporters were similar to other Year 8 (aged 11-12) students, and were considered suitable by their peers.
Methods
Data were collected immediately post-intervention during ASSIST. Semi-structured individual interviews and discussion groups were conducted with students in four schools selected for an in-depth process evaluation study. Quantitative data on suitability were obtained from questionnaires completed by all students in intervention schools.
Quantitative data underwent descriptive analysis. Qualitative transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis.
Results
The nomination process successfully identified a diverse group of peer supporters, broadly representative of their year group.
Respondents gave mixed opinions about the performance of peer supporters. Some students were thought to be responsible and confident whereas others were seen as shy or not taking it seriously. Smoking status was identified as one of the major threats to the credibility of peer supporters.
Conclusions
This study confirms that the nomination process successfully achieved its intended outcomes. The peer supporters were broadly similar to their year group. While views regarding peer supporter suitability were mixed, since opinion leaders are not always credible across communities, attaining a range of peer supporters, credible with different groups is likely to have contributed to the success of the intervention. However, developing communication skills, facilitating smoking cessation and encouraging students to embrace their role may enhance intervention outcomes.
The ASSIST Programme is an informal school-based peer-led intervention aimed at reducing the uptake of weekly smoking amongst 12-13 year olds. Based on diffusion theory, the intervention relies on peer socialisation and the diffusion of smoke-free messages by ‘peer supporters’ through informal conversations. Peer supporters are nominated using a whole-community approach. The intervention was evaluated in the UK using a randomised controlled trial (ASSIST), which demonstrated a 22% reduction in the odds of being a regular smoker [odds ratio 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.96)] in intervention compared with control schools.
Peer education relies on peer educators being credible and influential role models amongst their target population. So whilst the Programme is effective, it is important to examine whether the nomination process used achieved its aim of identifying peer supporters with these characteristics. This study therefore explores if the peer supporters were similar to other Year 8 (aged 11-12) students, and were considered suitable by their peers.
Methods
Data were collected immediately post-intervention during ASSIST. Semi-structured individual interviews and discussion groups were conducted with students in four schools selected for an in-depth process evaluation study. Quantitative data on suitability were obtained from questionnaires completed by all students in intervention schools.
Quantitative data underwent descriptive analysis. Qualitative transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis.
Results
The nomination process successfully identified a diverse group of peer supporters, broadly representative of their year group.
Respondents gave mixed opinions about the performance of peer supporters. Some students were thought to be responsible and confident whereas others were seen as shy or not taking it seriously. Smoking status was identified as one of the major threats to the credibility of peer supporters.
Conclusions
This study confirms that the nomination process successfully achieved its intended outcomes. The peer supporters were broadly similar to their year group. While views regarding peer supporter suitability were mixed, since opinion leaders are not always credible across communities, attaining a range of peer supporters, credible with different groups is likely to have contributed to the success of the intervention. However, developing communication skills, facilitating smoking cessation and encouraging students to embrace their role may enhance intervention outcomes.