| Bauman 1991 | Clusters n = 2 (SMSAs) Individuals n = 1637 | Weekly and ever‐smoking | Overall outcome ‐ No evidence of an effect Means of all smoking variables changed significantly in the direction of more smoking. No P values are significant (authors state that F > 1.00 in all instances). Data consistent with the conclusion that the campaign did not influence smoking. |
| Fallin 2015 | Clusters n = 33 (nightclubs/bars) Individuals n = 3348 | Daily and non‐daily smoking | Overall outcome ‐ No evidence of an effect Smoking rates did not change across the 3 time periods (P = 0.17), but partiers who recalled the HAVOC intervention had lower daily smoking (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.95; P < 0.05), compared to those who did not recall the intervention |
| Flay 1995 | Clusters n = 47 (schools) Individuals n = 4134 | Smoker (No quantity) | Overall outcome ‐ No evidence of an effect There were no consistent programme effects on smoking outcomes, suggesting that the treatment was no more or less effective for different groups
Control pretest mean = 2.09 versus 2‐year follow‐up = 2.76;
TV intervention group pretest mean = 2.06 versus 2‐year follow‐up = 2.91 |
| Flynn 1995 | Clusters n = 2 (communities) Individuals n = 2860 | Daily, weekly and smokeless tobacco | Overall outcome ‐ Favours intervention Significant difference in the school‐and‐media group only within the final 2 years, a consistent trend toward less smoking was noted prior to this. In the 5th year the relative differences for daily smoking was 34% and for weekly smoking 35% between school‐and‐media and school‐only groups. For smokeless tobacco behaviour the 2 groups did not differ significantly, except in the 4th year when the school‐only group was more likely to report use. |
| Flynn 2010 | Clusters n = 98 (schools) Individuals n = 23,246 | Weekly and monthly | Overall outcome ‐ No evidence of an effect The 30‐day smoking rates appeared to decline over the 4‐year interval between baseline and follow‐up surveys for participants in both conditions, but this trend was not significant. Similar results were obtained for 7‐day prevalence. |
| Hafstad 1997 | Clusters n = 2 (counties) Individuals n = 6234 | Daily, weekly, monthly, non‐smoker and smoker (No quantity) | Overall outcome ‐ Favours intervention Among non‐smokers, a significantly lower proportion of adolescents of both genders had started to smoke in the intervention county compared to the proportion in the control county. Among those who were smokers at baseline, significantly more girls in the intervention county had stopped than in the control county, while no significant differences were detected among boys. |
| Longshore 2006 | Clusters n = 100 (schools) Individuals: ALERT n = 4276 ALERT Plus n = 4015 | Weekly and monthly | Overall outcome ‐ Favours intervention ALERT Plus held down current (past month) and regular (weekly) smoking producing a 23% reduction in both measures of use, P < 0.01. Project ALERT curbed current use among the high‐risk experimenters and the even higher‐risk baseline smokers (users) by approximately 20% (P < 0.03), and cut regular (weekly) cigarette use across all 3 groups by anywhere from 19% (P < 0.06) to 39% (P < 0.02). |
| Worden 1983 | Clusters n = 93 (schools) Individuals n = 4005 | Weekly | Overall outcome ‐ No evidence of an effect There were no significant differences in smoking between intervention and control groups. A trend (non‐significant) favouring the intervention group toward a lower level of smoking was noted. P values were not provided. |
