Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Smoking and Nicotine Detoxification | Research article

Exploring the association between school-based peer networks and smoking according to socioeconomic status and tobacco control context: a systematic review

Authors: H. J. Littlecott, G. F. Moore, M. McCann, G. J. Melendez-Torres, L. Mercken, H. Reed, M. Mann, F. Dobbie, J. Hawkins

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Whilst prevalence of youth smoking in middle and high income countries has decreased, inequality has prevailed. The introduction of legislation regulating tobacco use in public spaces varies across countries, impacting the tobacco control context. Thus reviewing our knowledge of how social networks may influence smoking differently within different contexts is required to facilitate the development of context-specific interventions.

Methods

The search, conducted on 31st May 2019, included the following smoking-related terms; schools, adolescents, peers and social networks. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied throughout the title and abstract screening and full text screening. Quality assessment and synthesis followed. Studies were narratively synthesised to identify changes according to legislative context. This synthesis was conducted separately for findings relating to three categories: socioeconomic status; social selection and influence; and network position.

Results

Thirty studies were included. Differences in the relationship between network characteristics and smoking according to socioeconomic status were measured in five out of fifteen studies in Europe. Results varied across studies, with differences in network characteristics and their association with smoking varying both between schools of a differing and those of a similar socioeconomic composition. For studies conducted both before and after the introduction of comprehensive smoking legislation, the evidence for selection processes was more consistent than influence, which varied according to reciprocity. Findings showed that isolates were more likely to smoke and in-degree and out-degree centrality were related to smoking both before and after the introduction of legislation. The relationship between popularity and smoking was contingent on school level smoking prevalence in studies conducted before the introduction of legislation, but not after.

Conclusions

Overall, effects according to socioeconomic status were underreported in the included studies and no consistent evidence of change after the introduction of a comprehensive smoking ban was observed. Further network analyses are required using more recent data to obtain a comprehensive understanding of how network processes may influence smoking differently according to socioeconomic status, and how adaptation could be used to enhance intervention effectiveness.

Systematic review registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD42019137358.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Chassin L, Presson CC, Rose JS, Sherman SJ. The natural history of cigarette smoking from adolescence to adulthood: demographic predictors of continuity and change. Health Psychol. 1996;15(6):478.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Harper S, McKinnon B. Global socioeconomic inequalities in tobacco use: internationally comparable estimates from the world health surveys. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23(1):11–25.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Giovino GA, Mirza SA, Samet JM, Gupta PC, Jarvis MJ, Bhala N, et al. Tobacco use in 3 billion individuals from 16 countries: an analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional household surveys. Lancet. 2012;380(9842):668–79.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Pfadenhauer LM, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Booth A, Hofmann B, et al. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the context and implementation of complex interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Hawe P, Webster C, Shiell A. A glossary of terms for navigating the field of social network analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(12):971–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Hoffman BR, Sussman S, Unger JB, Valente TW. Peer influences on adolescent cigarette smoking: a theoretical review of the literature. Substance Use Misuse. 2006;41(1):103–55.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Keshavarz N, Nutbeam D, Rowling L, Khavarpour F. Schools as social complex adaptive systems: a new way to understand the challenges of introducing the health promoting schools concept. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(10):1467–74.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Moore GF, Evans RE, Hawkins J, Littlecott H, Melendez-Torres G, Bonell C, et al. From complex social interventions to interventions in complex social systems: future directions and unresolved questions for intervention development and evaluation. Evaluation. 2019;25(1):23–45.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Seo DC, Huang Y. Systematic review of social network analysis in adolescent cigarette smoking behavior. J Sch Health. 2012;82(1):21–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27(1):415–44.CrossRef
14.
Valente TW, Coronges K, Lakon C, Costenbader E. How correlated are network centrality measures? Connections (Toronto, Ont). 2008;28(1):16.
15.
Choudhury D, Paul A. Community detection in social networks: an overview. Int J Res Eng Technol. 2013;2(2):6–13.
16.
Larson RW, Verma S. How children and adolescents spend time across the world: work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(6):701.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Adams J, Schaefer DR. How initial prevalence moderates network-based smoking change: estimating contextual effects with stochastic actor-based models. J Health Soc Behav. 2016;57(1):22–38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Valente TW, Unger JB, Johnson CA. Do popular students smoke? The association between popularity and smoking among middle school students. J Adolesc Health. 2005;37(4):323–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Frohlich KL, Potvin L. Transcending the known in public health practice: the inequality paradox: the population approach and vulnerable populations. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(2):216–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Badham J, Kee F, Hunter RF. Network structure influence on simulated network interventions for behaviour change. Soc Netw. 2021;64:55–62.
21.
Moore GF, Littlecott HJ, Turley R, Waters E, Murphy S. Socioeconomic gradients in the effects of universal school-based health behaviour interventions: a systematic review of intervention studies. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):907.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Littlecott H, Hawkins J, Mann M, Melendez-Torres G, Dobbie F, Moore G. Associations between school-based peer networks and smoking according to socioeconomic status and tobacco control context: protocol for a mixed method systematic review. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):313.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Morgan RL, Whaley P, Thayer KA, Schünemann HJ. Identifying the PECO: a framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes. Environ Int. 2018;121(Pt 1):1027.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Mercken L, Candel M, Willems P, De Vries H. Disentangling social selection and social influence effects on adolescent smoking: the importance of reciprocity in friendships. Addiction. 2007;102(9):1483–92.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Mercken L, Candel M, Willems P, de Vries H. Social influence and selection effects in the context of smoking behavior: changes during early and mid adolescence. Health Psychol. 2009;28(1):73.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Mercken L, Snijders TA, Steglich C, de Vries H. Dynamics of adolescent friendship networks and smoking behavior: social network analyses in six European countries. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(10):1506–14.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Mercken L, Snijders TA, Steglich C, Vartiainen E, De Vries H. Dynamics of adolescent friendship networks and smoking behavior. Soc Networks. 2010;32(1):72–81.CrossRef
29.
Mercken L, Snijders TA, Steglich C, Vertiainen E, De Vries H. Smoking-based selection and influence in gender-segregated friendship networks: a social network analysis of adolescent smoking. Addiction. 2010;105(7):1280–9.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Turner K, West P, Gordon J, Young R, Sweeting H. Could the peer group explain school differences in pupil smoking rates? An exploratory study. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(10):2513–25.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Pearson M, Sweeting H, West P, Young R, Gordon J, Turner K. Adolescent substance use in different social and peer contexts: a social network analysis. Drugs Educ Prev Policy. 2006;13(6):519–36.CrossRef
32.
Steglich C, Sinclair P, Holliday J, Moore L. Actor-based analysis of peer influence in a stop smoking in schools trial (ASSIST). Soc Networks. 2012;34(3):359–69.CrossRef
33.
Mercken L, Steglich C, Sinclair P, Holliday J, Moore L. A longitudinal social network analysis of peer influence, peer selection, and smoking behavior among adolescents in British schools. Health Psychol. 2012;31(4):450.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Copeland M, Bartlett B, Fisher JC. Dynamic associations of network isolation and smoking behavior. Netw Sci (Cambridge University Press). 2017;5(3):257.
35.
Ragan DT. Peer beliefs and smoking in adolescence: a longitudinal social network analysis. The Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2016;42(2):222–30.CrossRefPubMed
36.
McMillan C, Felmlee D, Osgood DW. Peer influence, friend selection, and gender: how network processes shape adolescent smoking, drinking, and delinquency. Soc Networks. 2018;55:86–96.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Osgood DW, Feinberg ME, Wallace LN, Moody J. Friendship group position and substance use. Addict Behav. 2014;39(5):923–33.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Ennett ST, Faris R, Hipp J, Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Hussong A, et al. Peer smoking, other peer attributes, and adolescent cigarette smoking: a social network analysis. Prev Sci. 2008;9(2):88–98.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Ennett ST, Bauman KE, Hussong A, Faris R, Foshee VA, Cai L, et al. The peer context of adolescent substance use: findings from social network analysis. J Res Adolesc. 2006;16(2):159–86.CrossRef
40.
DeLay D, Laursen B, Kiuru N, Salmela-Aro K, Nurmi JE. Selecting and retaining friends on the basis of cigarette smoking similarity. J Res Adolesc. 2013;23(3):464–73.CrossRef
41.
Kiuru N, Burk WJ, Laursen B, Salmela-Aro K, Nurmi J-E. Pressure to drink but not to smoke: disentangling selection and socialization in adolescent peer networks and peer groups. J Adolesc. 2010;33(6):801–12.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Huisman C, Bruggeman J. The social network, socioeconomic background, and school type of adolescent smokers. Int J Behav Dev. 2012;36(5):329–37.CrossRef
43.
Huisman C. Does it matter what friends think, say, or do? The role of friends’ smoking attitudes and behavior for Dutch adolescents’ smoking behavior. Substance Use Misuse. 2014;49(6):715–23.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Lorant V, Rojas VS, Robert P-O, Kinnunen JM, Kuipers MA, Moor I, et al. Social network and inequalities in smoking amongst school-aged adolescents in six European countries. Int J Public Health. 2017;62(1):53–62.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Robert P-O, Kuipers MA, Rathmann K, Moor I, Kinnunen JM, Rimpelä A, et al. Academic performance and adolescent smoking in 6 European cities: the role of friendship ties. Int J Adolesc Youth. 2019;24(1):125–35.CrossRef
46.
Mulassi AH, Borracci RA, Calderón J, Vinay P, Mulassi M. Social networks on smoking, alcohol use and obesity among adolescents attending a school in the city of lobos, Buenos Aires. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2012;110(6):474–84.PubMed
47.
Valente TW, Fujimoto K, Unger JB, Soto DW, Meeker D. Variations in network boundary and type: a study of adolescent peer influences. Soc Networks. 2013;35(3):309–16.CrossRef
48.
Forster M, Grigsby TJ, Bunyan A, Unger JB, Valente TW. The protective role of school friendship ties for substance use and aggressive behaviors among middle school students. J Sch Health. 2015;85(2):82–9.CrossRefPubMed
49.
50.
Ramírez-Ortiz G, Caballero-Hoyos R, Ramírez-López G, Valente TW. The effects of social networks on tobacco use among high-school adolescents in Mexico. Salud Publica Mex. 2012;54:433–41.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Lakon CM, Valente TW. Social integration in friendship networks: the synergy of network structure and peer influence in relation to cigarette smoking among high risk adolescents. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(9):1407–17.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Van Ryzin MJ, DeLay D, Dishion TJ. Being well-liked predicts increased use of alcohol but not tobacco in early adolescence. Addict Behav. 2016;53:168–74.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Kobus K, Henry DB. Interplay of network position and peer substance use in early adolescent cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use. J Early Adolesc. 2010;30(2):225–45.CrossRef
54.
Snijders TA. Stochastic actor-oriented models for network change. J Math Sociol. 1996;21(1–2):149–72.CrossRef
55.
Fletcher A, Bonell C. Social network influences on smoking, drinking and drug use in secondary school: centrifugal and centripetal forces. Sociol Health Illn. 2013;35(5):699–715.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Alexander C, Piazza M, Mekos D, Valente T. Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. J Adolesc Health. 2001;29(1):22–30.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Elstad JI. Indirect health-related selection or social causation? Interpreting the educational differences in adolescent health behaviours. Soc Theory Health. 2010;8(2):134–50.CrossRef
58.
Campbell R, Starkey F, Holliday J, Audrey S, Bloor M, Parry-Langdon N, et al. An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial. Lancet. 2008;371(9624):1595–602.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
60.
61.
62.
Evans RE, Craig P, Hoddinott P, Littlecott H, Moore L, Murphy S, et al. When and how do ‘effective’interventions need to be adapted and/or re-evaluated in new contexts? The need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(6):481–2.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Rutter H, Savona N, Glonti K, Bibby J, Cummins S, Finegood DT, et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet. 2017;390(10112):2602–4.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Exploring the association between school-based peer networks and smoking according to socioeconomic status and tobacco control context: a systematic review
Authors
H. J. Littlecott
G. F. Moore
M. McCann
G. J. Melendez-Torres
L. Mercken
H. Reed
M. Mann
F. Dobbie
J. Hawkins
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12333-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Public Health 1/2022 Go to the issue

Research

Cannabidiol use and perceptions in France: a national survey

Research

How education and racial segregation intersect in neighborhoods with persistently low COVID-19 vaccination rates in Philadelphia

Research

Past, present, and future trends of overweight and obesity in Belgium using Bayesian age-period-cohort models

Research

Relationship between sense of coherence and health-related behaviours in adolescents and young adults: a systematic review

Research

Effects of globalization, energy consumption and ICT on health status in Australia: the role of financial development and education

Study protocol

A prospective cohort study examining exposure to incarceration and cardiovascular disease (Justice-Involved Individuals Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology – JUSTICE study): a protocol paper