Table 2 Community-based interventions
Reference, year and locationParticipants, age and study qualityIntervention/controlFollow-up (rate), intervention durationGroup outcome(s) of smoking behaviour (as presented in original publication)
Curry et al,25 2003, USAn = 4026, no information, highIntervention: minimal family-based interventionControl: no intervention20 months (I: 86%, C: 90%), NALifetime smoking:I: 13.6%C: 12.1%OR (I vs C): 1.13, p = 0.25Curry II, 30-day smoking:I: 2.4%C: 2.3%OR (I vs C): 1.06, p = 0.8
Hollis et al,34 2005, Canadan = 2526, 14 to 17 years, highIntervention: primary-care based, computer assisted and expert consultationControl: no intervention24 months (I: 86%, C: 90%), once30-day smoking:I: 27.2%C: 31.4%OR: 0.81 (0.68 to 0.97)Hollis II, 30-day smoking (not smoking at baseline):I: 14.2%C: 16.9%OR: 0.8 (0.62 to 1.03)
Jackson et al,35 2006, USAn = 873, 7 to 8 years, highIntervention: five guidelines mailed, activities for smoking parents and kids, one booster after 1 yearControl: information material36 months (I: 87.1%, C: 90.6%), 10 weeksLifetime smoking (not smoking at baseline):I: 11.9%C: 19.3%OR: 0.46 (0.30 to 0.72)IGD: p<0.001
Elder et al,47 2002, USAn = 660, 11 to 16 years, goodIntervention: eight weekly sessions, strengthening skills in parents and children plus two booster callsControl: no intervention24 months (I: 85%, C: 78%), 1 year30-day smoking:I: 2.9%C: 3.5%IGD: NS
Fidler et al,36 2001, UKn = 2942, 10 to 15 years, goodIntervention: four sessions, primary care based informationControl: no intervention12 months (I: 74.6%, C: 78.5%), continuingLifetime smoking (not smoking at baseline):I: 5.1%C: 7.8%OR: 0.63 (0.46 to 0.91)IGD: p = 0.006
Stanton et al,37 2004, USAn = 817, 13 to 16 years, goodFocus on kids (FOK): eight sessions, risk-reduction; I1: as above + informed parents and children together; I2: as above plus additional video and discussion with parents + booster of four 90 min group sessionsControl: NA24 months (overall: 60%), NA6-month smoking:FOK: 22.7% vs I1: p = 0.08, vs I2: p = 0.016I1: 12.1%, vs I2: p = 0.859I2: 12.9%
Stevens et al,38 2002, USAn = 3145, fifth to sixth grade, goodIntervention: paediatrician led information and discussion, parental involvement, newsletterControl: no intervention36 months (overall: 69.4%), 36 monthsLifetime smoking:I: 5.4%C: 4.6%OR: 0.97 (0.79 to 1.2), p = 0.78
DÓnofrio et al,58 2002, USAn = 1853, 10 to 14 years, fairIntervention: five meetings, youth club based activities and informationControl: no intervention24 months (I: 77.2%, C: 78.3%), 5 monthsLifetime smoking:no difference in smoking prevalence between intervention groups (only reported verbally)
Schinke et al,45 2004, USAn = 514, 10 to 12 years, fairCD-ROM intervention (I1): 10 sessions, computer assisted skill training; I2: as above + parental intervention, 1 session, additional information and materialControl: no intervention36 months (I1: 92.1%, I2: 88.2%, C: 93.3%), NA30-day smoking:I1: 0.9 (SD 0.28), vs C: p<0.05, vs I2: NSI2: 0.8 (SD 0.20), vs C: p<0.05C: 1.3 (SD 0.53)
Spoth et al,46 2004, USAn = 667, sixth grade, fairIowa strengthening family program (I1): seven school sessions and additional family session; Preparing for the drug free years (I2): four parental sessions and one session for youthsControl: no intervention72 months (NA), I1: 7 weeks; I2: 5 weeksLifetime smoking:primary growth curve parameters I1 vs C: α0 = 0.62, β0 = −2.95, γ0 = 0.094; I2 vs C: α0 = 0.62, β0 = −2.94, γ0 = 0.093, IGD: p<0.01intervention effect parameters I1 vs C: α1 = 0.07, β1 = −0.11, γ1 = −0.047; I2 vs C: α1 = 0.07, β1 = 0.59, γ1 = −0.028, IGD: p<0.01(smoking initiation was reduced in both intervention groups)
  • Author names followed by II, III or abbreviation represent additional outcome measures in meta-analysis. If given, ranges in parentheses are 95% CIs. Interventions are given by program name, where applicable. Grade refers to school grade.

  • IGD, intergroup difference; C, control; I, intervention; OR, odds ratio; NS, not significant; NA, not available.