Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 4;17:292. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4201-3

Table 5.

Effectiveness of policies on substance misuse (tobacco and alcohol use)

Study Design Policy Outcomes Specific outcome Impact
(+) Favorable and significant change
(=) No change
Strength of Association
Tobacco use
Evans-Whipp et al., 2010 [37] Cross-sectional Comprehensive smoking bans, policy orientation towards abstinence and harm minimization principles, possession of tobacco products among students Current tobacco use, Daily smoking, Perception of smoking in school campus Smoking ban – current smoking = OR (95% CI): 0.86 (0.59, 1.25)
Harm minimization – current smoking = OR (95% CI): 1.09 (0.99, 1.21)
Strict enforcement – current smoking = OR (95% CI): 0.78 (0.57, 1.05)
Smoking ban – daily smoking = OR (95% CI): 0.95 (0.53, 1.69)
Harm minimization – daily smoking = OR (95% CI): 1.01 (0.85, 1.20)
Strict enforcement – daily smoking = OR (95% CI): 0.70 (0.44, 1.12)
Smoking ban – perception = OR (95% CI): 1.39 (0.67, 2.89)
Harm minimization – perception = OR (95% CI): 1.18 (0.97, 1.43)
Strict enforcement – perception + OR (95% CI): 0.45 (0.25, 0.82)
Hamilton et al., 2005 [38] RCT School-based harm minimization smoking intervention Regular smoking, smoking within previous month Regular smoking + Intervention vs comparison OR (95% CI): Baseline 0.74 (0.45, 1.22) Post-intervention: 0.50 (0.33, 0.74)
Smoking within previous month + Intervention vs comparison OR (95% CI): Baseline 0 0.95 (0.71, 1.28) Post-intervention: 0.69 (0.53, 0.91)
Lovato et al., 2007 [39] Cross sectional School/ District tobacco control policies – policy intention (written policy), policy implementation, perception of policy enforcement Prevalence of smoking Policy intention – smoking prevalence + β = −0.11 (R2 = 0.27) (P < 0.05)
Policy implementation – smoking prevalence + β = −0.04 (R2 = 0.21) (P < 0.05)
Policy perception – smoking prevalence + β = −0.55 (R2 = 0.62) (P < 0.05)
Murnaghan et al., 2008 [40] Cross-sectional Policy banning smoking in school property participated in provincially directed school-based smoking prevention program Current smoking, Occasional smoking and Regular smoking Occasional vs nonsmoker = OR (95% CI): 1.54 (0.79, 3.01)
Regular vs occasional smoker = OR (95% CI): 0.92 (0.69, 1.23)
O’Brien et al., 2010 [35] Cross-Sectional Tobacco control school-based policy – Teacher shared information of consequences of smoking Frequency of smoking in past month Average cigarettes smoked/day = Not reported
Paek et al., 2013 [41] Cross-sectional Tobacco-free school policy Frequency of smoking Frequency of smoking + β = −0.56 (P < 0.05)
Patel et al., 2012 [20] Cross-sectional Avoiding tobacco promotion Tobacco use Tobacco use + P < 0.05
Alcohol use
Evans-Whipp et al., 2013 [42] Cross-sectional Low policy enforcement, Abstinence alcohol message, Harm minimization alcohol message Alcohol use: alcohol use on school grounds, current alcohol use. Binge drinking, student alcohol harm Low policy enforcement - Use on school grounds + OR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.07, 2.05)
Low policy enforcement - Current alcohol use = OR (95% CI): 1.12 (0.95, 1.32)
Low policy enforcement - Binge drinking = OR (95% CI): 1.14 (0.94, 1.38)
Low policy enforcement - Student alcohol harm = OR (95% CI): 1.02 (0.84, 1.25)
Abstinence alcohol message - Use on school grounds = OR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.66, 1.10)
Abstinence alcohol message - Current alcohol use = OR (95% CI): 0.90 (0.78, 1.04)
Abstinence alcohol message - Binge drinking = OR (95% CI): 0.84 (0.59, 1.25)
Abstinence alcohol message - Student alcohol harm = OR (95% CI): 0.86 (0.71, 1.04)
Harm minimization alcohol message - Use on school grounds = OR (95% CI): 0.90 (0.73, 1.10)
Harm minimization alcohol message - Current alcohol use = OR (95% CI): 0.92 (0.83, 1.02)
Harm minimization alcohol message - Binge drinking = OR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.72, 1.92)
Harm minimization alcohol message - Student alcohol harm + OR (95% CI): 0.83 (0.71, 0.96)