Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jun 5;15(6):e0233462. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233462

The theory of planned behavior as a behavior change model for tobacco control strategies among adolescents in Botswana

Roy Tapera 1,*, Bontle Mbongwe 1, Magen Mhaka-Mutepfa 2, Andrew Lord 3, Nthabiseng A Phaladze 4, Nicola M Zetola 5
Editor: Amir H Pakpour6
PMCID: PMC7274417  PMID: 32502211

Abstract

Background

Behavioral intentions (motivational factors), attitudes, subjective norm (social pressures), and perceived behavioral control promote or discourage smoking behavior among adolescents.

Objective

To assess students’ behavioral intentions, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control on smoking using the Theory of Planned Behavior. The prevalence of smoking among the adolescents is also calculated.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, structured self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data from adolescents in primary and secondary schools. Data on demographics, behavioral intentions, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control towards smoking were collected. Pearson product moment correlations and logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with current smoking.

Results

A total sample of 2554 (mean age = 15; Range = 12–18 years) students participated in the study. Twenty-nine percent (n = 728) of the students had tried smoking at least once. Smoking was predicted by attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intention.There was a strong association between having a parent or guardian, caregiver or close friend who smoked (p < 0.001) and being a smoker. The majority of students (57%) conveyed that adults talked to them about the harmful effects of cigarette smoking and 50% had discussed smoking concerns with their friends. Students who had positive attitudes towards smoking like “smoking makes you confident” were more likely to be current smokers (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.03–2.59). The feeling or conviction that they could refuse a cigarette if offered was an impediment from smoking (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.13–0.26).

Conclusions

Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control contributed significantly to the students' smoking. Right attitudes must be cultivated and behavioral control must be strengthened for early effective interventions to curtail smoking among adolescents.

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic (2017) estimates that one in 10 deaths globally is caused by tobacco use. Additionally, about 1.3 billion people in the world currently smoke, and 7 million people die every year from tobacco consumption [1]. Recent research the world over on tobacco smoking revealed that smoking-associated deaths have escalated to 7.2 million lives every year, resulting in more deaths than a combination of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis [2], although cigarette smoking is entirely preventable.

Initial exposure for those who end up smoking typically occurs early in adolescence and increases over time [3]. Thus adolescence and early adulthood comprise a critical time for prevention and intervention efforts [4]. It is also well-established that adolescents are more likely to smoke if they have peers or friends who smoke. This association is typically interpreted as evidence of a peer influence effect [5]. Students in the vicinity of smoking peers are also more likely to smoke regardless of being offered a cigarette or not. Passive (imitation) peer influence affects young adult smoking rather than active (pressure) peer influence [6]. Thus, smoking cessation efforts should aim at preventing interaction with smoking peers and advocacy of its impact, particularly in adolescents as they are more impressionable and susceptible to advertising. Additionally, parents or guardians should impart good values, instill positive principles, and model exemplary behavior for their children, a phenomenon known as social modelling [7]. Social modelling may thus be used as a preventative method especially in children.

In a previous study in Botswana, the prevalence of tobacco smoking amongst primary and secondary school students was found to be 10%, whilst 29% reported having tried smoking [3]. In the same study, self-image and acceptance by peers were the strongest predictors of smoking overall (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 3.13, 95%, Confidence Interval [CI]: 2.67–3.66). The theory of planned behavior (Fig 1) was used to explain smoking behaviors in children in the current study.

Fig 1. Theory of Planned Behavior [Adopted from Ajzen, I. [17]].

Fig 1

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was developed by Icek Ajzen [17] as an attempt to predict human behavior. TPB provides a framework to identify key behavioral, normative, and control beliefs affecting behaviors. Interventions can then be designed to target and change these beliefs or the value placed on them, thereby affecting attitude, subjective norm, or perceived behavioral control, leading to changes in intentions and behaviors [8,9]. The TPB has also been used successfully to predict and explain a wide range of health behaviors including exercise, smoking and drug use, HIV prevention behaviors, among others [816]. Models of behavior, such as the TPB provide a conceptual framework that allows program designers and policy makers to detect the fundamental features that determine behavior and thus design valuable interventions.

The prevention strategies can be tailored if key parental and peer factors (subjective norms) influencing behavior and attitudes of the adolescent towards tobacco smoking are identified. Intentions are also expected to capture the motivational elements that impact behavior as signals of how committed people are prepared and willing to try and apply boundless efforts to perform the behavior [17]. As a general rule, a person with a stronger intention to engage in a behavior is more likely to act as such and perform better than a person who lacks intention. It should be explicit, however, it should be pointed out explicitly that a “behavioral intention” can only be explained if the behavior in question is performed willfully. Although some behavior might meet this requirement, the performance of most individuals may depend on non-motivational factors, such as availability of requisite opportunities and resources (e.g., time, money, skills, synergies) [17].

This article focuses on the second objective of the study done in Botswana [3]. In this study, TPB is utilized to assess attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intentions of adolescents on smoking in Gaborone and Francistown, the two largest cities of Botswana. For example, parental and peer smoking are subjective norms that are strong and significant determinants of the risk of smoking uptake by children and young people in previous studies from 27 European countries, in addition to United States of America and Korea [1821]. Additionally extant literature shows that intention to smoke is a strong predictor of future smoking [2224]. Further, perceived behavioral control was found to be a predictor of smoking behavior [25,26]. Perceived behavior control entails an individual’s perceptions of his/her ability that includes both internal (e.g., refusal skills) and external (e.g., constraints) behavior. Other previous researchers have found that negative attitudes toward smoking prospectively predict low rates of smoking behavior [2731] therefore the need to investigate the situation in a sub-Saharan African country like Botswana.

Materials and methods

Research design

A cross-sectional survey that assessed attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intentions of adolescents on smoking was done. The cross-sectional study enabled the prevalence for all factors under investigation in the study to be measured at one point in time. The study was carried out in the two largest districts of Botswana. Data were collected in Gaborone and Francistown primary and secondary schools. The associations among the predictor variables and active smoking were found. The data was collected in January 2014.

Inclusive and exclusive criteria

The study population included boys and girls aged 12 to 18 years. For children under 18 years, guardian or parental consent was sought. Children who were not in school at the time of data collection were excluded. Mentally challenged and children whose parents/guardians declined to provide assent or could not give consent did not take part in the study.

Sample size and sampling

A total of 3000 students from 75 schools consisting of 25 primary, 25 junior secondary, and 25 senior secondary from public and private schools were randomly selected using multistage proportionate sampling. The list of schools was provided by the Ministry of Basic Education. The schools were further stratified according to whether they were private or public. Some seven schools had to be skipped because of bureaucratic challenges.

A sampling fraction was calculated to select participants concerning the population of each school. For each school the students were selected using a systematic random sampling technique from the available class registers.

Data collection

Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data. The questionnaire comprised socio-demographic variables, TPB constructs and some questions from the Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS). A brief description of the questionnaire is provided below:

The main outcome was “Active smoking”, which was defined as having smoked at least 1 cigarette 30 days prior to data collection.

The secondary outcomes were the number of cigarettes smoked in the month before data collection and intention to smoke.

Main exposures of interest were

Demographic characteristics: Three items were included in the questionnaire to elicit personal information on level of study, sex and age; Attitudes towards smoking: Four items on attitudes towards smoking derived from GYTS were included (see examples in Table 2); Subjective Norms: Three items derived from GYTS were used to assess the influence of adolescent’s referent others (parents, guardians and friends) towards their smoking behavior (see examples in Table 2); Perceived Behavioral Control: Single item derived from GYTS was used to assess perceived behavioral control to avoid smoking (see examples in Table 2); Intentions: Two items derived from GYTS were used to assess adolescent’s intention to smoke. For example, it asked “In the next 12 months, do you think you might smoke a cigarette?” or “Do you want to smoke when you grow up?”

Table 2. Logistics regression with TPB constructs to predict current cigarette smokers.

95% CI for OR
B Sig OR Lower Upper
Attitudes
Positive attitudes towards smoking like “smoking makes you confident” 0.72 0.001 1.63 1.03 2.59
Smoking cigarettes is enjoyable 0.80 0.001 2.3 1.52 3.48
Positive attitudes towards none smokers like “there are cool people who do not smoke” - 0.36 0.003 0.54 0.31 0.95
I think someone my age who does not smoke cigarettes looks well kempt -0.66 0.002 0.56 0.38 0.83
Subjective Norms
Participants who had mothers/female guardians or caregivers who smoked. 1.01 0.001 2.7 1.59 4.59
Fathers/male guardians who smoke 0.50 0.001 1.7 1.4 2.1
Students who perceived norms conformity with smoking 0.90 0.001 1.3 1.10 1.57a
Perceived Control
The feeling or conviction that they could refuse a cigarette if a friend offered -0.86 0.001 0.18 0.13 0.26
Intentions
The students who intended to smoke or continue to smoke 0.44 0.001 1.8 1.67 2.11a
Constant -2.22 0.001 0.11

OR = Odds ratio, CI = confidence interval. Data with a is from [3].

Data analysis

IBM SPSS version 25 (Chicago, IL) statistical software was used for data entry and analysis. Assumptions for normality and homoscedasticity were met as the data was not skewed. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, and cross tabulation) and Chi-square statistical test was used to determine associations between outcome and exposure variables. Logistic regression was used to establish adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), for independent variables (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intentions) linked with active smoking. For the main analyses, smoking was categorized as a dichotomic variable (yes vs. no). Secondary analyses using linear regression was used to establish the association and smoking was treated as a continuous variable in terms of the number of cigarettes smoked per month. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Human subjects

The study was approved by the Ministry of Health and Wellness, the Ministry of Basic Education, University of Botswana Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Human Research Development Committee of Botswana. All participants agreed to participate. Written consent was sought directly from students who were 18 years. Written consent for participation of persons aged 17 years and younger was sought from their legal guardians and written agreement from the minor.

Results

Demographic characteristics of study participants

Forty-four percent (n = 1111) of respondents were from junior secondary schools, whilst 33% (n = 845) and 23% (n = 598) were from senior secondary and primary schools respectively (see Table 1). Out of the 2,550 respondents, 2,432 respondents (95.2%) indicated their gender; 58% were female while 42% were male. The average age of the participants was 15 years with an age range of 12–18 years. Academic levels for participants are also presented in Table 1, where most of the participants were in form 5 (21%).

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study participants.

Number of respondents (n) Proportion (%)
School Category n = 2550
Primary Schools 594 23
Junior Secondary Schools 1111 44
Senior Secondary Schools 845 33
Gender n = 2432
Male 1021 42
Females 1411 58
Academic level n = 2550
Standard 6 204 8
Standard 7 383 15
Form 1 357 14
Form 2 383 15
Form 3 357 14
Form 4 129 5
Form 5 537 21
Form 6 204 8

Adopted from Mbongwe et al. (2017) [3].

Current smokers were 261 (10%) and a significant proportion of respondents (29%) had tried smoking cigarettes or any form of tobacco [3].

Dimension of TPB constructs in association with current cigarettes use

Intention to smoke

Five percent (n = 74) of the respondents compared to 95% (n = 1273) had a conversation with an adult about harmful effects of smoking and have been thinking of smoking in the next 2 months. Three percent (n = 77) of the students had a conversation with an adult and were encouraged to smoke in the last two months. From the 77 students, 16% (n = 12) believed they could smoke in the next 12 months whilst 84% (n = 65) had no intention to smoke (see S1 Table).

S1 Table shows that amongst the students who intended to smoke in the next 12 months (n = 157), few of them 32.5% (n = 51) had a conversation with a friend about the harmful impacts of smoking. Among students with no intention to smoke, the majority 52.8% (n = 1148) had a conversation in the past two months about the harmful effects of smoking. The students who intended to smoke or continue to smoke was calculated [3] and the adolescents had 1.8 times odds of smoking compared to those who had no intention to smoke (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.67–2.11; refer to Table 2).

Subjective norms

The majority (57%) of students said adults talked to them about the harmful effects of cigarette smoking and 50% had discussed smoking issues with their friends. Asked whether in the past 2 months they had a conversation with any of their friends about smoking; 50% had talked about how harmful smoking is, 33% talked about their feelings toward smoking and 29% talked about their refusal of cigarettes. Ten percent indicated that their friends had encouraged them to try smoking whilst 11% indicated their friends had tried to sell them cigarettes.

Females had higher odds of discussing with friends the harms of smoking and talking about how to refuse cigarette smoking compared to their male counterparts (p = 0.013) and (p = 0.045) respectively. There was no difference between gender and friends when discussing how students felt about smoking (p = 0.327) and having tried to sell cigarettes to each other (p = 0.281).

As to whether any of their close family members smoked, 42% of the respondents indicated that someone else in their close family other than the mother, sister, father or brother smoked. More fathers (14%) than mothers (3%) and more brothers 13% than sisters (4%) smoked (see Table 3).

Table 3. Respondents report on family members who smoke.
Close family member who smoke Frequency Proportion (%)
Mother (or female guardian/caregiver) 79 3
Father (or male guardian/caregiver) 361 14
Older sister 92 4
Older brother 322 13
Someone else in my close family 1069 42

There was no significant difference between school category (p = 0.376) and having a close family member who smokes. No significant differences were observed by gender (p = 0.450) and having close family members who smoked. There was however a strong association between grade and having a close friend who smokes (p<0.001). Respondents in junior secondary school had more close family members smoking (46%) compared to respondents in primary schools (31.4%).

Twenty-nine percent of students had tried smoking. Table 2 shows that a strong association was observed between having tried smoking and having a parent, guardian, care giver or close friend who smokes (p < 0.001). Participants who had mothers/female guardians or caregivers who smoked were 2.7 times more likely to have tried any form of tobacco (OR = 2.7, CI: 1.59–4.59) whilst those with fathers/male guardians who smoke were 1.7 times more likely to have tried smoking cigarettes (OR = 1.7, CI: 1.4–2.1). Students who perceived norms conformity with smoking was calculated [3] and the adolescents were 1.3 times likely to be current smokers than those who did not perceive norms conformity with smoking (aOR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.10–1.57).

Attitudes

Table 2 shows that students who had positive attitudes towards smoking like “smoking makes you confident” and “smoking cigarettes is enjoyable” were more likely to be current smokers (OR = 1.63, 95% CI:1.03–2.59) and (OR = 2.3, 95% CI:1.52–3.48) respectively. Negative attitude towards smoking like “smoking cigarettes is expensive” was a deterrent to smoking. Additionally, positive attitudes towards none smokers like “there are cool people who do not smoke” and “I think someone my age who does not smoke cigarettes looks well kempt were found to be protective from smoking (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31–0.95) and (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.38–0.83) respectively.

Perceived behavioral control

Eighty percent (n = 2043) of the students felt they could refuse a cigarette if a friend offered, and those who could refuse were less likely to be current smokers. Table 2 shows that the feeling or conviction that they could refuse a cigarette if a friend offered was protective from being a smoker (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.13–0.26).

Table 4 represents simple Pearson product moment correlations between the TPB variables and other study variables. Favorable behavioral control for smoking was significantly associated with older adolescents, at higher levels of study (e.g., form 5s), who first tried smoking at an older age, (e.g., 17–18 year olds) who had tried smoking several times and for several days in the last month. Those with subjective norms and intentions that were favorable towards smoking tended to be younger, had started smoking at a younger age, were in lower levels of study, had tried smoking on fewer occasions and for fewer days in the last month. Although it was not statistically significant, those with favorable attitudes towards smoking tended to be older and were at higher levels of study. Favorable attitudes towards smoking were significantly associated with having started smoking at a young age and smoking for fewer days in the last month (see Table 4).

Table 4. Associations between TPB’s constructs and background variables.
Favourable towards smoking
Attitude Subjective norm Perceived Control Intensions
Pearson Correlation
Age 0.038 -0.058* 0.075* -0.113*
Grade/Form 0.019 -0.046* 0.056* -0.119*
How many times have you tried to smoke -0.036 -0.090* 0.325* -0.363*
In the last month how many days did you smoke -0.055* -0.090* 0.250* -0.392*
How old were you when you first tried smoking -0.023* -0.052* 0.186* -0.180*

The results in the table show Pearson product moment correlations, the * represents significance at an alpha of 0.01.

Discussion

Results of the current study indicated that a high percentage of students are active smokers (10%) or had tried smoking (29%). These findings are consistent with previous studies from some Asian countries [3234] and USA [35]. Amongst those who had tried smoking, a strong association between having tried smoking and having a parent, guardian, and/or care giver who smoked was found. These findings are consistent with previous results [19,36], in which guardians and parents who smoked played an influential role in initiating their children to smoking. Parental smoking may exert its influence on adolescent smoking through various mechanisms, including the availability of cigarettes in the home environment, modeling, the internalization of parental smoking norms, and parents’ difficulty in enforcing sanctions against smoking when they also smoke [37]. This finding is consistent worldwide [38, 35] as modelling plays a pivotal role in shaping behavior. The television, a source of modelling was also found to influence smoking behaviors uptake in previous studies [3].

Over 50% of the respondents indicated that someone in their close family smoked. The close relatives included fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and other relatives. Despite a higher prevalence of male guardians who smoke, female guardians exerted a stronger influence over adolescent smoking. Compared to primary schools, respondents in secondary schools had more close family members and friends who smoked. Subjective norms involving close family members and friends was a significant factor for one to smoke. There are negative implications related to these findings. Consistent with previous studies in the USA [35], that adolescents rate of taking up smoking increased as the number of friends who smoked increased due to peer pressure, the current study also showed the significant impact of peer pressure. It was also noted that the majority of the students discuss with adults and half discuss with friends about harmful effects of cigarette smoking. Similar to previous findings [3941], these discussions with significant others tend to discourage affiliations with substance using adolescents. The assumptions from Social Control Theory [3941] indicating that parental constraints deter adolescent delinquency are also consistent with the aforementioned finding.

Literature has shown that parental and peer influence plays a part on girls smoking behavior [42]. This finding is consistent with the findings of the current study where respondents who smoked confirmed that someone their age had offered them a cigarette, with a small number indicating that they had been offered a cigarette by an adult in the last two months. These findings indicate that tobacco prevention interventions that aim to influence the behavior of peers, and parents or care givers, could play an important role in tobacco control amongst adolescents as some caregivers influence adolescents to smoke.

A significant number of adolescents reported having conversations with adults (parents or guardians) on the harms of cigarettes. The parent or guardian’s involvement in a smoking cessation program is an important step towards reducing the number of adolescents who take up smoking. Compared to low parent involvement, adolescents whose parents were highly involved in smoking cessation were 0.4 times less likely to smoke [35]. However, there is need to pay attention to empowering adolescents to refuse the offers from adults who sell cigarettes or encourage them to smoke. Half of adolescents reported having conversations with their peers on the harms of tobacco. Nonetheless, many adolescents had their friends selling tobacco products to them or encouraged them to smoke. These findings have implications for programming and policy as they hinge on issues of accessibility of tobacco products to adolescents and raises issues of awareness on the laws governing the sale of tobacco products to and by minors [3]. Over the short term, it is important to involve family members in anti smoking interventions.

In the current study, students who had positive attitudes towards smoking were more likely to be current smokers and negative attitudes towards smoking were a deterrent to smoking. The foregoing findings were similar to those found among secondary school students in China [32]. The implication is that cognitive based therapy (CBT), could be used to change the positive attitudes in adolescents towards smoking. Establishing the right attitudes toward tobacco control in middle school students is advantageous in reducing their smoking rate [43] and cessation.

Majority (80.1%) of the students stated that they could refuse a cigarette if a friend offered. Those who could refuse were less likely to be current smokers. The feeling or conviction that they could refuse a cigarette if a friend offered was protective from being a smoker. This current finding is similar to meta-analysis findings [44,45] in which behavioral control was a strong determinant of smoking. The majority (86%) of students did not have the intention to smoke in the next 12 months which is important for intervention as behavior is shaped by intention. Decades of research show that the strongest determinants of behavior is one’s motivation or intention to engage in that behavior [46]. The few students who intended to smoke or continue to smoke were more likely to be current smokers and this was consistent with the findings a study in China [47].

Limitations

Although the TBP is a good theory in explaining behavior, critics claim that human behavior is much more robust than the four elements (i.e. attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention) of TBP. This criticism has led to the inclusion of other related factors [48,49]. Literature shows that affect and emotions can have indirect effects on intentions and behavior independent of the other predictors in the TPB, and that this possibility is not sufficiently accounted for in the TPB [5052]. Nonetheless, the author Ajzen supported his theory and postulated that TPB does not propose that people are rational or that they behave logically [5357]. However, the criticism suggests there should be a shift to using the extended TBP in the realm [48,49]. This implies that future research on smoking that use the TBP should extend the TBP theory by investigating affect and emotion, risk perceptions and healthy literacy among others as they all play a pivotal role in uptake of smoking.

The other limitation for this study is that the study was conducted in urban areas of Botswana and targeted adolescents who were in school. The prevalence and associations may be different if adolescents living in rural areas and in the West of the country were included. Botswana has the San (Bushmen), living in the West and this traditional ethnic group is likely to have different findings with regards smoking attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control. Future studies should include adolescents living in rural villages and in the West (the San) to make comparisons.

Conclusion

The results show that the TPB plays an important role in predicting smoking, therefore it can be used in designing interventions for smoking cessation and prevention of smoking among adolescence. Adolescents are impressionable thus prevention methods should be put in place early in their lives. When designing intervention, targeting referent others may be the way to proceed as they have been found to be influential, particularly through modelling because adolescents see them as role models. The correct attitudes towards smoking must be inculcated in both guardians/caregivers and adolescents and behavioral control must be strengthened so that the early interventions are efficacious.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Intension to smoke and having had a conversation with an adult about smoking, and they encouraged me to try smoking.

(DOCX)

S1 File

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The research team acknowledges the support received from the Ministry of Basic Education as well as the University of Botswana Office of Research and Development.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research was commissioned by Good Business (London) as part of a social marketing programme designed to prevent teenage girls from taking up smoking in Botswana. This was funded through a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grant number OPP1082662. The funder had no role in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; writing the report or the decision to submit the report for publication. The views expressed in this paper are therefore those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding body.

References

  • 1.WHO. Tobacco: Key Facts [Internet]. WHO; 2019. [cited 2019 Aug 20]. p. 1 Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco [Google Scholar]
  • 2.WHO. TOWARDS TOBACCO-FREE YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE AFRICAN REGION [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2019 Aug 20]. Available from: https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2017-06/youth-and-tobacco-use.pdf
  • 3.Mbongwe B, Tapera R, Phaladze N, Lord A, Zetola NM. Predictors of smoking among primary and secondary school students in Botswana. 2017;1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Orlando M, Tucker JS, Ellickson PL, Klein DJ. Developmental trajectories of cigarette smoking and their correlates from early adolescence to young adulthood. Vol. 72, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology. 2004. p. 400–10. 10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kobus K. Peers and adolescent smoking. Addiction. 2003;98(SUPPL. 1):37–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Harakeh Z, Vollebergh W a M. The impact of active and passive peer influence on young adult smoking: An experimental study. Drug Alcohol Depend [Internet]. 2012;121(3):220–3. Available from: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.08.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gass RH, Seiter JS. Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. 2015. 390 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lin CY, Oveisi S, Burri A, Pakpour AH. Theory of Planned Behavior including self-stigma and perceived barriers explain help-seeking behavior for sexual problems in Iranian women suffering from epilepsy. Vol. 68, Epilepsy and Behavior. 2017. p. 123–8. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Montaño DE, Kasprzyk D. The theory of reasoned action and the theory ofplanned behavior. In: Glanz K, Lewis F, Rimer B, editors. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. 3rd ed. 2002. p. 67–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hou WL, Lin CY, Wang YM, Tseng YH, Shu BC. Assessing related factors of intention to perpetrate dating violence among university students using the theory of planned behavior. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fung XCC, Pakpour AH, Wu YK, Fan CW, Lin CY, Tsang HWH. Psychosocial variables related to weight-related self-stigma in physical activity among young adults across weight status. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lin CY, Broström A, Årestedt K, Mårtensson J, Steinke EE, Pakpour AH. Using extended theory of planned behavior to determine factors associated with help-seeking behavior of sexual problems in women with heart failure: a longitudinal study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2019;8942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lin CY, Broström A, Nilsen P, Pakpour AH. Using extended theory of planned behavior to understand aspirin adherence in pregnant women. Pregnancy Hypertens J Women’s Cardiovasc Heal. 2018;12:84–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lin CY, Fung XCC, Nikoobakht M, Burri A, Pakpour AH. Using the Theory of Planned Behavior incorporated with perceived barriers to explore sexual counseling services delivered by healthcare professionals in individuals suffering from epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2017;74:124–9. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Strong C, Lin CY, Jalilolghadr S, Updegraff JA, Broström A, Pakpour AH. Sleep hygiene behaviours in Iranian adolescents: an application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Vol. 27, Journal of Sleep Research. 2018. p. 23–31. 10.1111/jsr.12566 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lin CY, Updegraff JA, Pakpour AH. The relationship between the theory of planned behavior and medication adherence in patients with epilepsy. Vol. 61, Epilepsy and Behavior. 2016. p. 231–6. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.05.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process [Internet]. 1991. December 1 [cited 2019 Aug 19];50(2):179–211. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/074959789190020T [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lakon CM, Wang C, Butts CT, Jose R, Timberlake DS, Hipp JR. A Dynamic Model of Adolescent Friendship Networks, Parental Influences, and Smoking. J Youth Adolesc [Internet]. 2015. September 20 [cited 2019 Aug 20];44(9):1767–86. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25239115 10.1007/s10964-014-0187-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Filippidis FT, Agaku IT, Vardavas CI. The association between peer, parental influence and tobacco product features and earlier age of onset of regular smoking among adults in 27 European countries. Eur J Public Health [Internet]. 2015. October 1 [cited 2019 Aug 20];25(5):814–8. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/eurpub/ckv068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wang C, Hipp JR, Butts CT, Jose R, Lakon CM. Coevolution of adolescent friendship networks and smoking and drinking behaviors with consideration of parental influence. Psychol Addict Behav [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2019 Aug 20];30(3):312–24. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26962975 10.1037/adb0000163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lee E, Tak Y. Peer and parental influences on adolescent smoking. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi [Internet]. 2005. June [cited 2019 Aug 20];35(4):694–700. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16037724 10.4040/jkan.2005.35.4.694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mohammadpoorasl A, Nedjat S, Yazdani K, Fakhari A, Foroushani A., Fotouhi A. Intention to start smoking and its related factors in never smoked adolescents in Tabriz, 2010 [Internet]. Vol. 3, International Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2012. p. 880–6. Available from: http://ijpm.mui.ac.ir/index.php/ijpm/article/view/627/737%5Cnhttp://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=emed11&NEWS=N&AN=2013000431 10.4103/2008-7802.104860 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Conrad KM, Flay BR, Hill D. Why children start smoking cigarettes: predictors of onset. Br J Addict. 1992;87(12):1711–24. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1992.tb02684.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Topa G, Moriano L. Theory of planned behavior and smoking: meta-analysis and SEM model. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2010;23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hukkelberg SS, Hagtvet KA, Kovac VB. Latent interaction effects in the theory of planned behaviour applied to quitting smoking. Br J Health Psychol. 2014;19(1):83–100. 10.1111/bjhp.12034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Karimy M, Zareban I, Araban M, Montazeri A. An extended theory of planned behavior (TPB) used to predict smoking behavior among a sample of Iranian medical students. Int J High Risk Behav Addict. 2015;4(3):1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lee HS, Addicott M, Martin LE, Harris KJ, Goggin K, Richter KP, et al. Implicit Attitudes and Smoking Behavior in a Smoking Cessation Induction Trial. Vol. 20, Nicotine & tobacco research: official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. 2017. p. 58–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chassin L, Presson C, Rose J, Sherman SJ, Prost J. Parental smoking cessation and adolescent smoking. J Pediatr Psychol. 2002;27(6):485–96. 10.1093/jpepsy/27.6.485 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Huijding J, De Jong PJ, Wiers RW, Verkooijen K. Implicit and explicit attitudes toward smoking in a smoking and a nonsmoking setting. Vol. 30, Addictive Behaviors. 2005. p. 949–61. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Robinson MD, Meier BP, Zetocha KJ, McCaul KD. Smoking and the implicit association test: When the contrast category determines the theoretical conclusions. Vol. 27, Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2005. p. 201–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Swanson JE, Rudman LA, Greenwald AG. Using the implicit association test to investigate attitude-behaviour consistency for stigmatised behaviour. Vol. 15, Cognition and Emotion. 2001. p. 207–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Xu X, Chen C, Abdullah AS, Liu L, Sharma M, Li Y, et al. Smoking related attitudes, motives, and behaviors of male secondary school students in an urban setting of China. Springerplus [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2019 Oct 11];5(1):2021 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27994998 10.1186/s40064-016-3694-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Maassen ITHM, Kremers SPJ, Mudde AN, Joof BM. Smoking initiation among Gambian adolescents: social cognitive influences and the effect of cigarette sampling. Health Educ Res [Internet]. 2004. May 17 [cited 2019 Oct 13];19(5):551–60. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15155587 10.1093/her/cyg077 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Su X, Li L, Griffiths SM, Gao Y, Lau JTF, Mo PKH. Smoking behaviors and intentions among adolescents in rural China: The application of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the role of social influence. Addict Behav [Internet]. 2015. September [cited 2019 Oct 13];48:44–51. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25973776 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Simons-Morton B, Haynie DL, Crump a D, Eitel SP, Saylor KE. Peer and parent influences on smoking and drinking among early adolescents. Health Educ Behav. 2001;28(1):95–107. 10.1177/109019810102800109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Chuang Y-C, Cubbin C, Ahn D, Winkleby MA. Effects of neighbourhood socioeconomic status and convenience store concentration on individual level smoking. J Epidemiol Community Heal [Internet]. 2005. July 1 [cited 2019 Aug 20];59(7):568–73. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15965140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lakon CM, Wang C, Butts CT, Jose R, Hipp JR. A Dynamic Model of Adolescent Friendship Networks, Parental Influences, and Smoking HHS Public Access. J Youth Adolesc [Internet]. 2015. [cited 2019 Aug 20];44(9):1767–86. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4397181/pdf/nihms675960.pdf 10.1007/s10964-014-0187-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health [Internet]. 1998;13(February):623–49. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zIZvXySP_YcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA299&dq=Social+cognitive+theory:+An+agentic+perspective&ots=Sue3jrIcEL&sig=W5sVmZTWTAmOE1hNIN3SaCgu8OA [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hirschi T. Causes of delinquency. [Internet]. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1969. [cited 2019 Aug 19]. 309 p. Available from: https://www.worldcat.org/title/causes-of-delinquency/oclc/47920 [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nyagwui AE. Master’s Thesis in Public Health Specialization: Epidemiology. 2012;(17). [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nye FI. Family Controls and Delinquency. Encycl Criminol Theory [Internet]. 2010. [cited 2019 Aug 19]; Available from: 10.4135/9781412959193.n187 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hong T, Rice J, Johnson C. Social environmental and individual factors associated with smoking among a panel of adolescent girls. Vol. 51, Women & health. 2011. p. 187–203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Guo Q, Unger JB, Azen SP, MacKinnon DP, Johnson CA. Do cognitive attributions for smoking predict subsequent smoking development? Addict Behav [Internet]. 2012. March [cited 2019 Oct 11];37(3):273–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112425 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gwaltney CJ, Metrik J, Kahler CW, Shiffman S. Self-efficacy and smoking cessation: A meta-analysis. Psychol Addict Behav [Internet]. 2009. March [cited 2019 Aug 19];23(1):56–66. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19290690 10.1037/a0013529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hiemstra M, Otten R, de Leeuw RNH, van Schayck OCP, Engels RCME. The Changing Role of Self-Efficacy in Adolescent Smoking Initiation. J Adolesc Heal [Internet]. 2011. June [cited 2019 Aug 19];48(6):597–603. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21575820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gold GJ. Review of Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. J Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2011. April 21 [cited 2019 Sep 14];151(3):382–5. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.2011.563209 [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Chen X, Stanton B, Fang X, Li X, Lin D, Zhang J, et al. Perceived smoking norms, socioenvironmental factors, personal attitudes and adolescent smoking in China: a mediation analysis with longitudinal data. J Adolesc Health [Internet]. 2006. April 1 [cited 2019 Aug 19];38(4):359–68. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16549296 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lin CY, Cheung MKT, Hung ATF, Poon PKK, Chan SCC, Chan CCH. Can a modified theory of planned behavior explain the effects of empowerment education for people with type 2 diabetes? Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab. 2020;11:1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Cheng OY, Yam CLY, Cheung NS, Lee PLP, Ngai MC, Lin CY. Extended theory of planned behavior on eating and physical activity. Am J Health Behav. 2019;43(3):569–81. 10.5993/AJHB.43.3.11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wolff K, Nordin K, Brun W, Berglund G, Kvale G. Affective and cognitive attitudes, uncertainty avoidance and intention to obtain genetic testing: An extension of the theory of planned behaviour. Psychol Heal. 2011;26(9):1143–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Abraham C, Sheeran P. Acting on intentions: The role of anticipated regret. Br J Soc Psychol. 2003;42(4):495–511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Conner M, Smith N, Mcmillan B. Examining normative pressure in the theory of planned behaviour: Impact of gender and passengers on intentions to break the speed limit. Curr Psychol. 2003;22(3):252–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Questions raised by a reasoned action approach: Comment on Ogden (2003). Heal Psychol. 2004;23(4):431–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol Health [Internet]. 2011;26(9):1113–27. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Icek_Ajzen/publication/51653805_The_theory_of_planned_behaviour_reactions_and_reflections/links/0f31753a05cf5d4de0000000.pdf 10.1080/08870446.2011.613995 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ajzen I. Consumer Attitudes and Behavior. Handb Consum Psychol. 2008;525–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2000;11(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Theory-based behavior change interventions: Comments on Hobbis and Sutton. J Health Psychol. 2005;10(1):27–31. 10.1177/1359105305048552 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Amir H Pakpour

11 Feb 2020

PONE-D-20-00392

The Theory of Planned Behavior as a behavior change model for tobacco control strategies among adolescents in two cities of Botswana.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Tapera,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 27 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-17146-000

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-014-0187-7

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This work was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grant OPP082662. The funders

did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to public

or preparation of the manuscript."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding section of your manuscript:

"This study was funded through the financial support of Good Business Ltd."

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Good Business Ltd.

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interest exists."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Good Business Ltd.

  1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

7. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

8. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

9. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “The theory of planned behavior as a behavior change model for tobacco control strategies among adolescents in Botswana” recruited 2554 adolescents to study whether the theory of planned behavior (TPB) can be a useful theory to examine how far we can understand the behavior of smoking among adolescents inhabiting in Botswana. I applaud for the authors to collect such valuable data on assessing a widely used theory to study a meaningful and important research question. Specifically, the present study has a strong strength in data collection; that is, the authors used a rigorous sampling method to collect a large sample. However, I have following comments for the authors to elevate their work. In addition, I believe that the manuscript needs to be edited by a native English speaker to make it free from grammatical errors (e.g., P5. Our analyses focuses on…)

1. A major and root problem is that the authors do not clearly indicate whether they studied on the smoking behavior. In many descriptions, the authors only talked about smoking intention (e.g., in the Abstract). However, the authors have collected whether the participants are a current smoker and they sometimes reveal the relationship between the TPB elements and a current smoker or not. Therefore, this causes a lot of confusion when I read the manuscript. I cannot know what the authors stand in using the TPB.

2. In the Abstract, the sentence in the Background is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whose intentions, whose attitudes, whose subjective norms, and whose perceptions that promote/discourage the smoking behavior of an individual. Also, do authors want to say perceived behavioral control when they mention “people’s perceptions”? If yes, then, the authors should not use people’s perceptions to indicate perceived behavioral control; they are different concepts. Following this, the Objective is not in line with what the authors did in the study. Specifically, the authors studied more than “behavioral attitudes” and “intention”, while the authors only mentioned the two factors in the Objective.

3. In the Introduction, the authors said, “The TPB has also been used successfully to predict and explain a wide range of health behaviors including exercise, smoking and drug use, HIV prevention behaviors, among others (Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2002).” I agree. However, please cite more references to support this sentence. Please refer to the following.

Hou, W.-L., Lin, C.-Y., Wang, Y.-M., Tseng, Y.-H., & Shu, B.-C. (2020). Assessing Related Factors of Intention to Perpetrate Dating Violence among University Students Using the Theory of Planned Behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 923.

Fung, X. C. C., Pakpour, A. H., Wu, K.-Y., Fan, C.-W., Lin, C.-Y., Tsang, H. H. W. (2019). Psychosocial variables related to weight-related self-stigma in physical activity among young adults across weight status. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 64.

Lin, C.-Y., Broström, A., Årestedt, K., Mårtensson, J., Steinke, E. E., & Pakpour, A. H. (2020). Using extended Theory of Planned Behavior to determine factors associated with help-seeking behavior of sexual problems in women with heart failure: A longitudinal study. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 41,54-61.

Lin, C.-Y., Broström, A., Nilsen, P., & Pakpour, A. H. (2018). Using extended Theory of Planned Behavior to understand aspirin adherence in pregnant women. Pregnancy Hypertension: An International Journal of Women’s Cardiovascular Health, 12, 84-89.

Lin, C.-Y., Fung, X. C. C., Nikoobakht, M., Burri, A., & Pakpour, A. H. (2017). Using theory of planned behavior incorporated with perceived barriers to explore sexual counseling services delivered by health professionals in individuals suffering from epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 74, 124-129.

Strong, C., Lin, C.-Y., Jalilolghadr, S., Updegraff, J. A., Broström, A., & Pakpour, A. H. (2018). Sleep hygiene behaviors in Iranian adolescents: an application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Sleep Research, 27(1), 23-31.

Lin, C.-Y., Oveisi, S., Burri, A., & Pakpour, A. H. (2017). Theory of Planned Behavior including self-stigma and perceived barriers explain help-seeking behavior for sexual problems in Iranian women suffering from epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 68, 123-128.

Lin, C.-Y., Updegraff, J. A., & Pakpour, A. H. (2016). The relationship between the theory of planned behavior and medication adherence in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 61, 231-236.

4. The Goals of the study section in the Introduction should be rewritten. Specifically, I cannot see the link between the two paragraphs: the authors said “The current study assessed the effect of peer and parental influences on youth smoking” in the first paragraph and “Our analyses focuses on the four belief-based TPB constructs (attitudes, subjective norms,

perceived behavioral control and intentions) because these are most conducive to change with

persuasive messaging in communication campaigns. The main objective of our study was to

identify the key beliefs underlying these four constructs, that best explain parent, and peer

influences on smoking in Gaborone and Francistown” in the second paragraph. The two paragraphs do not link well. I would suggest the authors use the first paragraph to mention the goal of using TPB constructs directly. Then, they may list some examples on each TPB construct. For example, the peer and parental influences are obvious subjective norms.

5. In the Materials and Methods section, the authors should have a section talking about their assessment on TPB elements. The authors are suggested reading prior TPB studies to know how to describe their TPB elements.

6. The authors mentioned that they exclude missing data. Then, they should report the missing size to let the readers understand to what extent we can trust in the findings.

7. In the Results section, I think that the authors do not need to spell out SD. SD is a commonly and widely understood statistical term. Therefore, please remove “standard deviation”.

8. Table 2 should report both frequency and percentage. Also, I cannot understand the meaning of Yes… at the top left column.

9. The authors should use a (or more) table to summarize their findings on odds ratio. Reading the text in the Results section is very easy to lose the direction. Also, P7. The sentence “Twenty-nine percent (29%) of students had tried smoking” should be changed because the authors need not to mention 29% twice.

10. The authors mentioned adjusted odds ratio in the Results section; however, I did not see the authors describe how they constructed a multivariable logistic regression model in the Data analysis section.

11. Sentences like “Eighty percent (2043) of the students” should be changed to “Eighty percent (n=2043) …” or “Two thousand and forty-three (80%) ….” because it is not intuitive to know that 2043 indicates the number.

12. In the Discussion, please add a limitation for the use of TPB. I agree that TPB is a good theory to explain many behaviors; however, it has been criticized due to its simplicity. That is, some scholars feel that human behaviors are much more complicated than the four elements (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention) proposed in the TPB. Therefore, there is a trend of using extended TPB in the realm. Specifically, scholars are encouraged to include other potential factors in the TPB to explain each specific behavior. For example, extended TPB has been used to explain the self-care behaviors among patients with diabetes by adding risk perception and health literacy on the TPB elements; some used extended TPB to explain the weight reduction behaviors by adding weight-related self-stigma. Please refer to the following references.

Lin, C.-Y., Cheung, M. K. T., Hung, A. T. F., Poon, P. K. K., Chan, S. C. C., & Chan, C. C. H. (2020). Can a Modified Theory of Planned Behavior Explain the Effects of Empowerment Education for People with Type 2 Diabetes? Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology and Metabolism, 11, 1-12.

Cheng, O. Y., Yam, C. L. Y., Cheung, N. S., Lee, P. L. P., Ngai, M. C., & Lin, C.-Y. (2019). Extended Theory of Planned Behavior on eating and physical activity. American Journal of Health Behavior, 43(3), 569-581.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 5;15(6):e0233462. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233462.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Apr 2020

Academic Editor

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Noted, the manuscript has been edited to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

Noted, the Tables have been included in the mainscript.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-17146-000

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-014-0187-7 In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

We have taken our manuscript through ant-plagiarism software and corrected were necessary.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:" This work was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grant OPP082662. The funders

did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to public

or preparation of the manuscript. "We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Funding information has been deleted from Acknowledgement section. The funding statement must read:

“This research was commissioned by Good Business (London) as part of a social marketing programme designed to prevent teenage girls from taking up smoking in Botswana. This was funded through a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grant number OPP1082662. The funder had no role in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; writing the report or the decision to submit the report for publication. The views expressed in this paper are therefore those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding body.”

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding section of your manuscript: "This study was funded through the financial support of Good Business Ltd." We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Good Business Ltd. Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc. Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Noted. The correct statement should be: “This research was commissioned by Good Business (London) as part of a social marketing programme designed to prevent teenage girls from taking up smoking in Botswana. This was funded through a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grant number OPP1082662. The funder had no role in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; writing the report or the decision to submit the report for publication. The views expressed in this paper are therefore those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding body.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "The authors have declared that no competing interest exists." We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Good Business Ltd. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. ”If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

This research was commissioned by Good Business (London) as part of a social marketing programme designed to prevent teenage girls from taking up smoking in Botswana.

The commercial affiliation did not play any role in the study.

7. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Noted

8. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Noted, the data has been attached as supporting information file.

9. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Noted, we have included the separate caption.

10. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Noted.

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “The theory of planned behavior as a behavior change model for tobacco control strategies among adolescents in Botswana” recruited 2554 adolescents to study whether the theory of planned behavior (TPB) can be a useful theory to examine how far we can understand the behavior of smoking among adolescents inhabiting in Botswana. I applaud for the authors to collect such valuable data on assessing a widely used theory to study a meaningful and important research question. Specifically, the present study has a strong strength in data collection; that is, the authors used a rigorous sampling method to collect a large sample. However, I have following comments for the authors to elevate their work. In addition, I believe that the manuscript needs to be edited by a native English speaker to make it free from grammatical errors (e.g., P5. Our analyses focuses on…)

The manuscript has been edited by Native English speakers.

1. A major and root problem is that the authors do not clearly indicate whether they studied on the smoking behavior. In many descriptions, the authors only talked about smoking intention (e.g., in the Abstract). However, the authors have collected whether the participants are a current smoker and they sometimes reveal the relationship between the TPB elements and a current smoker or not. Therefore, this causes a lot of confusion when I read the manuscript. I cannot know what the authors stand in using the TPB.

This has been clearly indicated in the revised version. The prevalence of smoking was calculated in a previous manuscript from the same data and the prevalence has been cited in the current paper. Thus the authors looked at current smoking and intentions to smoke.

2. In the Abstract, the sentence in the Background is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whose intentions, whose attitudes, whose subjective norms, and whose perceptions that promote/discourage the smoking behavior of an individual. Also, do authors want to say perceived behavioral control when they mention “people’s perceptions”? If yes, then, the authors should not use people’s perceptions to indicate perceived behavioral control; they are different concepts. Following this, the Objective is not in line with what the authors did in the study. Specifically, the authors studied more than “behavioral attitudes” and “intention”, while the authors only mentioned the two factors in the Objective.

We edited the statement to refer to adolescents. “Behavioral intentions (motivational factors), attitudes, subjective norm (social pressures), and perceived behavioral control promote or discourage smoking behavior among adolescents.”

We edited to behavioral control not perceptions

We edited the objective to include all the constructs of TPB.

In this study, we utilized TPB to assess attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intentions of adolescents on smoking in Gaborone and Francistown, the two largest cities of Botswana.

3. In the Introduction, the authors said, “The TPB has also been used successfully to predict and explain a wide range of health behaviors including exercise, smoking and drug use, HIV prevention behaviors, among others (Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2002).” I agree. However, please cite more references to support this sentence. Please refer to the following.

Hou, W.-L., Lin, C.-Y., Wang, Y.-M., Tseng, Y.-H., & Shu, B.-C. (2020). Assessing Related Factors of Intention to Perpetrate Dating Violence among University Students Using the Theory of Planned Behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 923.

Fung, X. C. C., Pakpour, A. H., Wu, K.-Y., Fan, C.-W., Lin, C.-Y., Tsang, H. H. W. (2019). Psychosocial variables related to weight-related self-stigma in physical activity among young adults across weight status. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 64.

Lin, C.-Y., Broström, A., Årestedt, K., Mårtensson, J., Steinke, E. E., & Pakpour, A. H. (2020). Using extended Theory of Planned Behavior to determine factors associated with help-seeking behavior of sexual problems in women with heart failure: A longitudinal study. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 41,54-61.

Lin, C.-Y., Broström, A., Nilsen, P., & Pakpour, A. H. (2018). Using extended Theory of Planned Behavior to understand aspirin adherence in pregnant women. Pregnancy Hypertension: An International Journal of Women’s Cardiovascular Health, 12, 84-89.

Lin, C.-Y., Fung, X. C. C., Nikoobakht, M., Burri, A., & Pakpour, A. H. (2017). Using theory of planned behavior incorporated with perceived barriers to explore sexual counseling services delivered by health professionals in individuals suffering from epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 74, 124-129.

Strong, C., Lin, C.-Y., Jalilolghadr, S., Updegraff, J. A., Broström, A., & Pakpour, A. H. (2018). Sleep hygiene behaviors in Iranian adolescents: an application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Sleep Research, 27(1), 23-31.

Lin, C.-Y., Oveisi, S., Burri, A., & Pakpour, A. H. (2017). Theory of Planned Behavior including self-stigma and perceived barriers explain help-seeking behavior for sexual problems in Iranian women suffering from epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 68, 123-128.

Lin, C.-Y., Updegraff, J. A., & Pakpour, A. H. (2016). The relationship between the theory of planned behavior and medication adherence in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 61, 231-236.

We have cited all the references provided by the reviewer.

The TPB has also been used successfully to predict and explain a wide range of health behaviors including exercise, smoking and drug use, HIV prevention behaviors, among others (Fung et al., 2020; Hou, Lin, Wang, Tseng, & Shu, 2020; Lin et al., 2019; Lin, Broström, Nilsen, & Pakpour, 2018; Lin, Updegraff, & Pakpour, 2016; Lin, Fung, Nikoobakht, Burri, & Pakpour, 2017; Lin, Oveisi, Burri, & Pakpour, 2017; Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2002; Strong et al., 2018).

4. The Goals of the study section in the Introduction should be rewritten. Specifically, I cannot see the link between the two paragraphs: the authors said “The current study assessed the effect of peer and parental influences on youth smoking” in the first paragraph and “Our analyses focuses on the four belief-based TPB constructs (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intentions) because these are most conducive to change with persuasive messaging in communication campaigns. The main objective of our study was to identify the key beliefs underlying these four constructs, that best explain parent, and peer influences on smoking in Gaborone and Francistown” in the second paragraph. The two paragraphs do not link well. I would suggest the authors use the first paragraph to mention the goal of using TPB constructs directly. Then, they may list some examples on each TPB construct. For example, the peer and parental influences are obvious subjective norms.

We used the first paragraph to mention the goal of using TPB constructs directly and went on to list some examples on each TPB construct.

5. In the Materials and Methods section, the authors should have a section talking about their assessment on TPB elements. The authors are suggested reading prior TPB studies to know how to describe their TPB elements.

We added a section on main exposures of interest. The section describes assessments of TPB elements.

6. The authors mentioned that they exclude missing data. Then, they should report the missing size to let the readers understand to what extent we can trust in the findings.

We removed the statement of missing data.

7. In the Results section, I think that the authors do not need to spell out SD. SD is a commonly and widely understood statistical term. Therefore, please remove “standard deviation”.

We removed SD in Results section.

8. Table 2 should report both frequency and percentage. Also, I cannot understand the meaning of Yes… at the top left column.

We edited the table to include both frequency and percentage. We removed Yes at the top left column. It’s now Table 3 not 2.

9. The authors should use a (or more) table to summarize their findings on odds ratio. Reading the text in the Results section is very easy to lose the direction. Also, P7. The sentence “Twenty-nine percent (29%) of students had tried smoking” should be changed because the authors need not to mention 29% twice.

Table 2 has been added to summarise findings on odds ratio

We edited the sentence to a more accurate sentence as follows: “Twenty-nine percent of students had tried smoking.”

10. The authors mentioned adjusted odds ratio in the Results section; however, I did not see the authors describe how they constructed a multivariable logistic regression model in the Data analysis section.

We added more information in data analysis section on logistic regression: “Logistic regression was used to determine adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and their 95% CIs, for independent variables (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intentions) associated with active smoking. For the main analyses, smoking was categorized as a dichotomic variable (yes vs. no). Secondary analyses using linear regression was used to determine the association when smoking was treated as a continuous variable in terms of the number of cigarettes smoked per month. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.”

11. Sentences like “Eighty percent (2043) of the students” should be changed to “Eighty percent (n=2043) …” or “Two thousand and forty-three (80%) ….” because it is not intuitive to know that 2043 indicates the number.

We have edited the sentences according to reviewer’s comments.

“Eighty percent (n = 2043) of the students felt they could refuse a cigarette if a friend offered”.

12. In the Discussion, please add a limitation for the use of TPB. I agree that TPB is a good theory to explain many behaviors; however, it has been criticized due to its simplicity. That is, some scholars feel that human behaviors are much more complicated than the four elements (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention) proposed in the TPB. Therefore, there is a trend of using extended TPB in the realm. Specifically, scholars are encouraged to include other potential factors in the TPB to explain each specific behavior. For example, extended TPB has been used to explain the self-care behaviors among patients with diabetes by adding risk perception and health literacy on the TPB elements; some used extended TPB to explain the weight reduction behaviors by adding weight-related self-stigma. Please refer to the following references.

Lin, C.-Y., Cheung, M. K. T., Hung, A. T. F., Poon, P. K. K., Chan, S. C. C., & Chan, C. C. H. (2020). Can a Modified Theory of Planned Behavior Explain the Effects of Empowerment Education for People with Type 2 Diabetes? Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology and Metabolism, 11, 1-12.

Cheng, O. Y., Yam, C. L. Y., Cheung, N. S., Lee, P. L. P., Ngai, M. C., & Lin, C.-Y. (2019). Extended Theory of Planned Behavior on eating and physical activity. American Journal of Health Behavior, 43(3), 569-581.

We have incorporated the limitations of the theory of planned behaviour.

Future studies could extend the TBP theory by adding risk perceptions and healthy literacy with regards smoking among adolescents.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx

Decision Letter 1

Amir H Pakpour

1 May 2020

PONE-D-20-00392R1

The theory of planned behavior as a behavior change model for tobacco control strategies among adolescents in Botswana.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Tapera,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 15 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript is much improved, especially the English presentation. The authors also have answered all my prior comments in a satisfactory way. However, one minor issue needs to be fixed before acceptance. That is, the manuscript contains both British and American spelling (e.g., utilise; behavioral; behavioural). Please use Word function to check whether all the spellings are consistent and correct them in either British spelling or American spelling. Please do not use a mixture. Anyway, good work and I look forward to reviewing a new revision.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 5;15(6):e0233462. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233462.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 May 2020

We have edited the spellings to American English for example on page 4 we have changed the word behaviour to behavior and on page 5 we changed the word utilised to utilized. We have gone through the whole document using Word function to check for consistence in spellings.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Amir H Pakpour

6 May 2020

The theory of planned behavior as a behavior change model for tobacco control strategies among adolescents in Botswana.

PONE-D-20-00392R2

Dear Dr. Tapera,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Amir H Pakpour

28 May 2020

PONE-D-20-00392R2

The theory of planned behavior as a behavior change model for tobacco control strategies among adolescents in Botswana.

Dear Dr. Tapera:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Amir H. Pakpour

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Intension to smoke and having had a conversation with an adult about smoking, and they encouraged me to try smoking.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES