Background In the Netherlands, the adoption of new tobacco control measures is needed to further reduce rates of adolescent smoking. Adolescents’ support for future measures could increase the likelihood of adoption as this provides political leverage for tobacco control advocates. There is, however, scant evidence about to what extent and why adolescents support future measures. We therefore assessed adolescents’ support for a range of future measures and explored the criteria that adolescents use to underpin their support.
Methods A mixed-method design involved surveys and group interviews with fourth-year students (predominantly 15–16 years). The survey, completed by 345 adolescents, included statements about future tobacco control measures and a smoke-free future where nobody starts or continues smoking. Thereafter, 15 adolescents participated in five group interviews to discuss their support for future measures.
Results The survey showed that adolescents generally support a smoke-free future. They expressed most support for product measures, mixed support for smoke-free areas, ambivalent support for price increases and least support for sales restrictions. The group interviews revealed that differences in support were explained by adolescents’ criteria that future measures should: have the potential to be effective, not violate individuals’ right to smoke, protect children from pro-smoking social influences and protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke.
Conclusion Adolescents’ high support for a smoke-free future does not lead to categorical support for any measure. Addressing the underlying criteria may increase adolescents’ support and therewith provide political leverage for the adoption of future measures.
- public opinion
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MS, NAL and AEK conceptualised the study. NAL collected the data. MS and NAL analysed the data with the support of BvdP and AEK. MS drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the writing of the final version of the manuscript and approved it.
Funding This study is part of the SILNE-R project, which is supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, under grant agreement 635056.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval AMC Medical Ethics Review Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.