Perceptions of friendship, peers and influence on smoking according to socioeconomic status and tobacco control context: A systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative research

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1961885/v1

Background

The relationship between smoking and interpersonal influences has been well established within the literature. There has been a cultural shift in denormalisation and a reduction in tobacco smoking. Despite this, socioeconomic inequality in smoking has prevailed. This highlights the pressing need to understand health inequalities in relation to adolescents’ smoking attitudes across smoking normalisation and socioeconomic contexts.

Methods

The search was conducted in July 2019 and updated in March 2022 within 11 databases and secondary sources. Search terms included schools, adolescents, smoking, peers, social norms and qualitative research. Screening was conducted by two researchers independently and in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the eight-item Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-centre) tool for the appraisal of qualitative studies. Results were synthesised using a meta-narrative lens for meta-ethnography and compared across smoking normalisation contexts.

Results

Forty one studies were included and five themes were developed, mapping onto the socio ecological model. The social processes by which adolescents take up smoking differed according to a mixture of school type, peer group structure, socioeconomic composition and the smoking culture within the school, as well as the wider cultural context. Data available from smoking denormalised contexts, described changes in social interactions around smoking to cope with its stigmatisation. This was manifested through direct peer influence, whereby more subtle techniques were employed, group belonging whereby smoking was less likely to be seen as a key determinant of group membership and smoking was less commonly reported to be used as a social tool, and popularity and identity construction, whereby smoking was perceived more negatively in a post-legislative context.

Conclusions

This meta-ethnography is the first study to demonstrate, drawing on international data, that peer processes relating to socioeconomic inequalities in adolescent smoking may undergo changes as norms for smoking within society change. Future research should focus on understanding how differences across school-level socioeconomic contexts manifest once post-legislative norms have been established, to inform the adaptation of interventions.

smoking

tobacco control

socioeconomic status

adolescents

schools

friendship

peer influence

systematic review

meta-ethnography

The relationship between smoking and peers has been well established within the literature, with a review of qualitative research having identified interpersonal influences on smoking, including a desire for peer acceptance and a sense of belonging(1). Previous research has also established that smoking attitudes and behaviours of adolescents and their peers may be influenced at a range of socioecological levels, which interact with interpersonal influences to affect behaviour. For example, adolescent smoking has been found to be associated with intrapersonal characteristics such as individual level socioeconomic status(2), self-esteem(3) and the construction of ‘cool’ and ‘popular’ identities(4). At organisational and community levels, influences on smoking might include school level socioeconomic status, the development of subculture identities within schools(5, 6) and closeness of the school community(7) whereby smoking uptake may diffuse through close knit peer communities more easily. However, within much of this existing evidence, both individual- and school-level socio-economic variation has not been considered. Further, most existing evidence has been captured prior to the introduction of comprehensive smoking bans, in contexts where tobacco smoking is still highly normalised(8, 9).

School contexts are not homogenous; they vary in terms of number of students, smoking prevalence and socio-economic status, and the community and policy contexts they are embedded into(8). For example, students from a lower socioeconomic background are more likely to live with parents who smoke(9) and to be exposed to a higher level of tobacco retail activity within their communities(8). All of these contextual factors could affect the relationships between smoking and peers and are liable to changes over time. For example, one study found the link between school-level socioeconomic status and health behaviours, including smoking, to be a complex one. Findings showed that inequalities in smoking were wider within more affluent schools and that both individual and school-level socioeconomic status interacted to create unique contexts(10). A review of peer networks and smoking found that this association varied according to socioeconomic status, where measured. Findings also showed that the association between popularity and smoking differed according to the prevalence of smoking in each school context. However, this was only the case in studies which were conducted in a context where tobacco smoking was highly normalised, prior to the introduction of comprehensive tobacco legislation(11).

Case study research about school students’ substance use suggests smoking behaviour and attitudes may be influenced partially by the socioeconomic composition of schools and their communities. For example, more deprived students within high achieving schools develop subculture identities which are formed around the use of substances to cope(6). Some caution does need to be taken as this was a small, purposively sampled ‘disengaged’ population, therefore further research is needed in a wider variety of school contexts.

Smoking within more disadvantaged communities is likely to be driven largely by determinants over which schools have limited control. For example, children from more socioeconomically disadvantaged families have been found to have an increased likelihood of living with smoking parents(9) and to have a higher exposure to tobacco retail outlets and activity(8). Thus, despite a large decrease in smoking prevalence, socioeconomic inequality has prevailed(12). For example, young people living in the 20% most deprived areas in England were found to be up to three times more likely to be smokers than their counterparts in the 20% least deprived areas(13). This demonstrates the importance of addressing structural determinants and considering socioeconomic context when intervening to reduce or prevent smoking.

The epidemiological context of adolescent tobacco smoking has changed, with prevalence of youth smoking decreasing to its lowest level since the all-time highs at the turn of the century(14). Various legislation linked to pricing and tax, advertising, packaging and labelling, and the banning of smoking in public places have been variably implemented in different countries(15) alongside a cultural shift in denormalising smoking. This may have led to the reduction in effectiveness of anti-smoking policies in UK schools. As fewer students already smoke, students exist in spaces where tobacco norms have changed and those who continue to smoke may be less influenced by the school norms(16). Despite this, many key interventions to target adolescent smoking that have been found to be effective, are still based on harnessing peer influence and changing pro-smoking norms within the school context(7). Therefore, it is prudent for research to revisit understandings of whether, and how, peer influence and selection still functions to diffuse smoking attitudes and behaviours in school networks where smoking may be more denormalised, and how stakeholder perceptions can contribute to a greater insight.

The influence of community context has been shown in intervention research where schools located in stable areas with high levels of community attachment had high smoking rates to begin with. It is assumed the closeness of students meant increased contact between peer educators and other students which led to increased intervention effects in these communities(7). This alludes to the influence of the student community on the relationship between smoking and peers and sets up a hypothesis that smoking uptake diffuses through close knit peer communities more easily. Thus, this has implications for the design of interventions to tackle smoking in different school contexts. Much of the research supporting the effectiveness of such interventions was conducted prior to the introduction of comprehensive tobacco legislation within these countries, where tobacco use was still highly normalised. Thus, there is a need to explore these claims with school stakeholders at different stages of the tobacco epidemic, with different levels of tobacco normalisation.

Objectives

The pressing need to understand health inequalities in relation to adolescents’ smoking attitudes, suggests a new systematic review of qualitative research could contribute meaningfully. Changes in the legislative context, can be used as a proxy for the extent or context of tobacco denormalization within each country. In particular, a meta-ethnography, whereby variation in tobacco denormalisation contexts are taken into account could help to elicit new overarching theoretical interpretations and understanding of the included primary studies, that are bigger than the sum of their parts(17). This systematic review and meta-ethnography builds upon previous research by adding a focus on smoking normalisation and socioeconomic contexts to address the following research question and sub-questions:

What are school students (age 11-18), school staff, parents, or other education professionals’ views on peer influence on adolescent smoking attitudes and behaviours?
- To what extent and how do these views vary by individual and school-level socioeconomic status?
- To what extent and how do these views vary over time according to the proximity of the introduction of comprehensive smoking legislation at the time of data collection

Protocol and Registration

The systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019137358) in April 2020 and further details on the review methods can be found here(18). The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines(19, 20) and the eMERGe meta-ethnography reporting guidance(21).

Eligibility Criteria

The search criteria were guided by the Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type (SPIDER) framework(22). Publications meeting the criteria outlined in Table 1 were included.

[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]

Information Sources and Searches

Searches for abstracts, full-texts and conference proceedings were conducted on 12^th July 2019 and updated on 4^th March 2022. The following bibliographic databases and a variety of secondary sources were searched; CINAHL Plus with full text, Embase, Medline, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), British Education Index (BEI), Open Dissertations, Psychinfo, Scopus, Applied Social Science Index & Abstracts (ASSIA), Sociological Abstracts, and E-Theses Online Service (EThOS). The search was developed and refined in Medline (Appendix 1) before adapting to the specifications of each database.

Study Selection

Identified studies were de-duplicated in Endnote and subsequently imported into Rayyan screening software. Each title and abstract, followed by full text was screened independently and in duplicate by two researchers (HL, HR, SJ). Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer (GJMT).

Data Extraction

A review data extraction form was developed and piloted with a subset of two studies. Full text extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers (HL, CD), who extracted the following data; title, year of publication, year of data collection, participant number and characteristics, setting and tobacco control context, study design and methods, analysis, results and conclusions.

Quality Assessment

All included studies were independently appraised for quality by at least two researchers (HL, CD, GJMT). Study quality was assessed using the eight-item Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-centre) tool for the appraisal of qualitative studies(23), which included domains focused on the rigour of sampling, data collection, and data analysis procedures. As well as whether findings were supported by the data and their level of breadth and depth, privilege of children’s perspectives, reliability/trustworthiness and usefulness. Studies were rated low, medium, or high according to the weight assigned for the trustworthiness of findings and the usefulness of each study for this review. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer (GJMT). Further details are included in the review protocol(18).

Synthesis

A meta-narrative lens was applied throughout the seven stages of meta-ethnographic synthesis to obtain an understanding of how different paradigms may have influenced this field. Meta-narrative reviews focus on an unfolding storyline of how fields have changed over time, thus providing a methodology through which to understand true changes in the social influence of smoking over time. These changes are in line with the smoking ban, and the extent to which methodological advances and paradigm shifts may have had a role in these advances in understanding and changing results(17).

Findings were synthesised by one researcher (HL), and were verified by others during the write up period. Studies were divided into eight groups (see Appendix 2 for table) according to the timing of data collection in relation to the introduction of comprehensive tobacco legislation in each respective country (10+ years before/no smoking ban introduced; 5-9 years before; 0-4 years before; or after the introduction of comprehensive tobacco legislation), combined with the quality rating (high quality or medium/low quality). Organisation by chronological groups, stratified by quality ensured that findings were not driven by low quality studies. The seven phases of meta-ethnography were undertaken; getting started, deciding what is relevant to the initial interest, reading the studies, determining how the studies are related, translating the studies into one another, synthesising translations and expressing the synthesis(21). During phase seven, expressing the synthesis, findings within each group were organised using the socio-ecological model(24). Within each level of this model, a lines of argument approach was employed to understand how the combination of individual findings contributed to a greater understanding than each individual study(21).

Study selection

The searches identified 5365 records (see PRIMSA Figure 1). Forty one studies were included in the systematic review. As the date of data collection was required for the chronological analysis within this review, the authors of fourteen studies which did not specify the year of data collection were contacted for each of these studies, with ten responding to provide the year of data collection. Three did not respond and were therefore excluded from the review, one did not respond, but was still included due to there being no comprehensive smoking legislation introduced in the country and, therefore, being placed into the ‘before’ category.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE]

Overview of included studies

An overview of the characteristics of included studies and their methods and context are included in Tables 2 and 3.

[INSERT TABLE 2 HERE]

[INSERT TABLE 3 HERE]

Of the 41 studies, seven were based in the United Kingdom, four in the USA, four in Canada, two in India, three in Iran, two in the Netherlands, and one from each of the following countries; Uruguay Romania, Morocco, Portugal, Taiwan, Cyprus, Turkey, Ireland, Malaysia, Greece, Brunei, Sweden, Mexico, Nigeria, Spain, New Zealand, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. For the purpose of this study, comprehensive tobacco legislation was defined as legislation banning smoking in all public spaces, including bars and restaurants. This legislation was introduced within the 41 included studies between 2004 and 2019, with seven studies being conducted in countries, or regions within countries, that still have no comprehensive tobacco legislation in place. See Figure 2 for the year of introduction of comprehensive tobacco legislation by country/region.

All studies focused on young people, with participants aged between 10 and 19 years. Thirty two of the included studies employed focus groups, 19 face to face semi-structured interviews, one small group semi-structured interview, one telephone semi-structured interview, one unstructured face to face interview, one ethnography and one written narrative.

[INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE]

Quality assessment

Seventeen included studies were rated as high, 19 medium and five low quality. The majority of high quality studies came from the following high income countries; the USA, UK, Canada, the Netherlands and Ireland, whilst only three were based in lower and middle income countries; India, Iran, and Morocco. Moreover, 14 out of 17 high quality studies, as well as all five low quality studies were conducted before the introduction of comprehensive tobacco legislation. The detailed quality assessments are available in Appendix 3.

Exploration of stakeholder views on adolescent smoking

Synthesis resulted in the conceptualisation of five themes, which link to the review’s research questions and broadly map onto the socio ecological model(24); context: culture and socioeconomic status, perceived norms and modelling, perceived control, coercion and encouragement, group belonging and social selection, and identity construction and performance (see figure 3), which are all perceived to interact to affect peer influence processes. The contribution of each study to the themes are detailed in Appendix 4.

[INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE]

Context: culture and socioeconomic status: Before the introduction of comprehensive legislation

This theme focuses on the higher level determinants which set the wider context and interact with the lower level determinants discussed in the subsequent four themes to affect smoking behaviour. Nineteen studies published before the introduction of comprehensive tobacco legislation contributed to this theme(25-43). The main findings within this theme centred around culture and socioeconomic status.

The first key determinant was cultural norms. It was perceived to be socially unacceptable for girls to smoke in some cultures and family were generally seen to exert a stronger influence on adolescents among ethnic minorities(31, 40). For example, Mishra et al.(31) collected data in Morocco, finding that girls were more confident to resist smoking due to the unacceptability of girls’ smoking in society. In contrast, another study found that smokers in Saudi Arabia were perceived to be influenced by a need to look ‘Western’ and ‘civilised’, although there were contrasting opinions on whether smoking would help to achieve that(33).

In contrast, within some studies, smoking was viewed as an integral part of the culture and adolescents were perceived to be surrounded by smoking. This perception of high smoking prevalence and cultural norms was perceived to have an important influence on whether an individual started smoking. For example, in Tamvakas(40), smoking was seen as an integral part of the Greek culture.

Results also touched upon findings according to school-level culture, with one study showing that girls smoking to portray a ‘hard’ image and compete with boys was consistent across school type from an inner city deprived school to a suburban predominantly middle class school(28).

Further results related to socioeconomic status. For example, those students attending poorer government schools in Morocco perceived boys’ smoking to be brave, and students were exposed to a higher prevalence of smoking among parents. Whereas students attending richer private schools with higher quality teaching, lower smoking prevalence and lower exposure, to have more confidence to resist pressure(31). Smoking was also perceived to be determined by the lack of structured activities available for adolescents within poorer areas(39), as well as taking part in weekend cultural leisure activities with friends that are associated with smoking, such as going to discos.

Moreover, school level differences between schools of a similarly low socioeconomic status were observed according to network structure and culture around smoking. A school with more friendship groups reported a higher level of smoking and a more favourable perception of smoking(41).

Overall, this suggests that the social processes by which adolescents take up smoking differ according to a mixture of school type, peer group structure, socioeconomic composition and the smoking culture within the school, as well as the wider cultural context.

Context: culture and socioeconomic status: After the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Six studies published after the introduction of comprehensive legislation contributed to data on contextual determinants(44-49). Again, contextual themes comprised of culture, identity and socioeconomic status. Smoking was frequently perceived to be linked to those of a lower socioeconomic status, with the age of initiation reported to be younger amongst groups of a lower SES and linked to poorer academic outcomes(47).

In terms of culture, in certain countries, such as Iran, there were contradictory perceptions of smoking for girls, such as ‘high class’ and ‘elegant’ versus stigmatised, immoral and unacceptable(44, 45). Confidence to resist peer influence was varied and dependent upon context, such as the cultural acceptance of girls’ smoking(49).

School type related to socioeconomic status and smoking prevalence. Within communities and schools of a higher socioeconomic status and a very low smoking prevalence and normalisation, individuals were negatively evaluated for smoking. In turn, this affected the way smoking occurred in groups, with adolescents avoiding smoking at school due to feelings of shame and fear of negative evaluation(46) or creating pro-smoking groups to avoid stigma, resulting in magnified isolation and stigmatisation(48).

Overall, culture and socioeconomic status were perceived as important contextual determinants both before and after the introduction of comprehensive legislation. Data available after the introduction of comprehensive legislation, in a less normalised tobacco smoking context, described changes in social interactions around smoking to cope with its stigmatisation, particularly relating to the perceived association between smoking and a lower socioeconomic status within more affluent schools.

Perceived norms and modelling: Before the introduction of comprehensive legislation

This theme relates to how individuals perceive the smoking related attitudes and behaviours of their peers, with 18 contributing studies published before the introduction of comprehensive tobacco legislation(26, 29, 31-33, 36, 37, 39-42, 50-56). The main findings within this theme showed that indirect influence also contributes to smoking behaviour among adolescents, through their perception of smoking norms.

Examples of indirect influence were confined to an unspoken pressure to smoke due to perceptions of smoking as the norm, with perceived high prevalence and positive attitudes towards smoking among friends. Adolescents reported that smoking was a habit embedded within friendships and linked to having friends who were smokers(32, 56). It was reported that access to cigarettes was easier and there was a will to smoke in order to not feel inferior to their smoking friends and to search for social identity(55).

Findings showed that older adolescents modelled smoking behaviour, and that adolescents felt confusion and tension when confronted with peer smoking and expectations, which often contrasted with family expectations of refraining from smoking(42). Modelling was also reported to exert influence on adolescents’ decisions to smoke, with those with parents who smoke being more likely to smoke themselves(29, 50). These adolescents also reported having easier access to cigarettes and perceiving smoking as a normal part of adulthood(50). Conversely, one study found reports that those who had smoking parents were more likely to perceive this as a reason to avoid smoking, and to avoid modelling smoking to younger children(36). Other influences were teachers who, in one study, were perceived to tolerate smoking among adolescents, as long as it took place away from school buildings(51).

The influence of male family members, such as fathers and older brothers, on boys’ smoking behaviour was deemed to be particularly important in a non-Western Culture(33).

Overall, adolescents’ perceptions of peer smoking norms, as well as behaviour modelled by parents and older adolescents were important determinants of smoking behaviour. This aligns with the contextual findings discussed above, which demonstrated that cultural and socioeconomic determinants influenced the extent to which smoking was perceived as the norm in different contexts. This may influence the extent to which modelling may affect smoking behaviour.

Perceived norms and modelling: After the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Four studies published after the introduction of comprehensive legislation reported perceived norms as being key to smoking behaviour(45, 47-49).

As with studies published before the introduction of comprehensive legislation, perceived norms were perceived to indirectly influence smoking behaviour(45, 47-49). However, perceived norms were also thought to impact upon adolescent smoking patterns. For example, when school-level prevalence was low, this didn’t necessarily encourage the uptake of smoking, but it did force those who smoke to operate outside of the school cohort’s mainstream culture, with smokers seeking a low profile or attending smoking friendly social events. Whereas, in a high smoking context, smoking took place in the school, with little fear of judgement by peers(48).

Modelling by parents and older siblings, as well as older peers, was also seen to contribute to perceptions of norms and subsequent smoking(47, 49). Gender differences were also identified, with girls perceived to be more likely to emulate smoking behaviour of individuals who are important to them, whereas boys were perceived to emulate older individuals(47).

Overall, after the introduction of comprehensive legislation, smoking was viewed as a less normative behaviour. Thus, the perceived norms of the school were reported to impact upon where smoking took place and the extent to which adolescents made an effort to do this covertly to avoid negative judgement. This aligns with the findings discussed within the context: culture and socioeconomic status theme, which demonstrated that this negative judgement varied according to cultural and socioeconomic norms across different countries and school settings.

Perceived control, coercion, and encouragement: Before the introduction of comprehensive legislation

This theme relates to the interpersonal determinants of smoking behaviour in relation to control, coercion, and encouragement from peers, with 29 contributing studies published before the introduction of comprehensive tobacco legislation(25-35, 37-39, 41-43, 50-61). The main findings within this theme showed that, intertwined with the need to belong to a group, was direct peer influence.

Direct peer influence, manifested through control, coercion, and encouragement was reported by the majority of studies(25-35, 37-39, 41-43, 50-61). Most descriptions involved acts, such as being offered cigarettes or even forced, with an unspoken pressure to accept or be subject to social exclusion or ridicule(52). This was contradicted by a belief that adolescents can say no to this pressure without any repercussions, if surrounded by real friends(28). Pressure was perceived to be more prevalent among early teens and males, who were reported to be directly pressured to smoke to conform with a masculine identity(43). Moreover, there were reports of individuals being ridiculed for refusing to accept a cigarette and a perception of a lack of refusal skills among adolescents(29, 33).

There were also reports that older students may derive status from directly influencing younger students to emulate their smoking behaviour(30). Several studies found that the need to fit in was competing with the need to also stand out as an individual. Moreover, belonging to a non-smoking peer group was shown to facilitate adolescents’ confidence to resist coercion to smoke(27) and an individual’s membership of several different peer groups diluted peer influence(58). This reduced the need to smoke to achieve group belonging.

Overall, direct peer influence was a prevalent theme amongst studies. This was manifested in different ways, as a coercive process. Protective factors included belonging to multiple peer groups or to one non-smoking peer group.

Perceived control, coercion, and encouragement: After the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Eight studies published after the introduction of comprehensive legislation reported smoking as being key to group belonging and social selection(44-49, 62, 63). As with studies published before the introduction of comprehensive legislation, pressure was consistently reported from peers by many studies, particularly in social settings.

For some, being offered cigarettes in a group setting was seen to exert pressure on individuals to conform(47, 49), whilst others reported more subtle forms of influence and even feeling the need to support their smoking friends(63).

Pressure to smoke was perceived to manifest differently according to gender, with boys being more likely to be physically or verbally coerced, and girls more likely to adopt subtle strategies to encourage their peers to smoke(47).

Reports of individuals’ ability to resist peer pressure was also varied in terms of the confidence expressed and it was reported to be easier to express anti-smoking sentiment to parents and family, rather than peers(49).

Overall, social influence in the form of control, coercion and encouragment was important in both a pre- and post- legislative context. After the introduction of comprehensive legislation, girls were reported to use more subtle coercion techniques. According to the pervious themes, gender norms varied according to culture, thus these themes may interact to affect the manner in and extent to which different genders are influenced by their peers.

Group belonging and social selection: Before the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Thirty studies reported smoking as being key to group belonging and social selection(25, 27, 28, 30-43, 50-54, 56-61, 64, 65). This theme relates to the interpersonal determinants of smoking behaviour in relation to the need to be accepted and belong to a group and social selection, whereby individuals choose their group of friends according similarity in smoking status.

Smoking was overwhelmingly seen as a way to facilitate increasing popularity, creating a social identity and gaining acceptance into a group through the creation of shared activities and experiences(25, 27, 28, 30, 32-38, 40-43, 50-52, 54, 56-60, 64). Further to this, smoking was perceived to allow individuals to mix with older children, as well as accessing a wider variety of social groups(36, 38, 40).

This suggests that smoking may be used by adolescents as a tool to facilitate social interaction and status, as opposed to being an inherently enjoyable activity. Indeed, within many of the included studies, smoking was perceived consciously as a social tool allowing adolescents to converse, connect and feel less awkward in a social setting(40, 60). Some adolescents even described forcing themselves to acquire the taste so that they were able to make use of this social tool(60).

Others showed adolescents to have a sophisticated understanding of smoking as a tool to avoid rejection and create a shared narrative among group members as well as other factors such as showing commitment to the group and developing outgroup discrimination for those who do not smoke(57). This is linked to social selection, or adolescents choosing friends according to their smoking status, with reports of adolescents who wish to smoke, subsequently seeking out smoker friends(28). Another way in which smoking was used as a tool was to gain entrance to new social groups and start new conversations and to participate in cultural activities outside of school, such as clubbing(64). Thus, the use of smoking as a tool to facilitate group belonging, is likely to vary according to context. However, as highlighted in the section above, smoking was only perceived to facilitate social acceptance when the individual was a competent and confident smoker, otherwise the act could have the opposite effect of undermining their group acceptance(30, 53).

Group belonging and identity, alongside the process through which smoking was integrated into friendships, were found to be more important for girls, where smoking and sharing cigarettes allowed them to fully engage in group activities, create a group identity, and create a balance between obtaining social capital and being stigmatised for smoking(25, 52). For example, girls reported smoking being linked to social cohesion and trust to reinforce social bonds, bound by willingness to share cigarettes, whereas boys were more likely to go to extreme measures to get money for their own cigarettes and were more averse to sharing. Moreover, boys reported smoking to portray an image consistent with group members, but also reported having the opportunity for avoiding smoking through the creation of alternative identities around activities, such as sport. Whereas girls were more likely to spend break times undertaking sedentary activities(65). Further to this, girls were also more likely to associate, be romantically involved with and be influenced by older boys and to have to accept a lower status if they decided not to smoke(35).

Overall, prior to the introduction of comprehensive legislation, where smoking was more normalised, smoking behaviour was viewed as an important tool to enhance adolescents’ group belonging and popularity. Again, relating back to the findings reported within the previous themes, the use and effectiveness of smoking as a social tool may vary according to cultural norms, such as the social acceptability of girls’ smoking.

Group belonging and social selection: After the introduction of a comprehensive smoking ban

Seven studies published after the introduction of comprehensive legislation reported smoking as being key to group belonging and social selection(44-48, 62, 63). The main findings within this theme, like the findings from before the introduction of comprehensive legislation, demonstrated that adolescents perceived smoking to be key to group acceptance, while refusing to smoke could result in rejection from a group. Thus, adolescents reported being afraid to say no, or not to conform, due to the perceived risk of losing friendships and the associated support network(46, 48, 62).

This was reflected in adolescents’ reported need to smoke in order to belong to a group(46, 47). It was viewed as awkward to smoke alone, for example, adolescents would wait for school breaks when a group could congregate(48). Students reported getting into a routine of smoking with friends, which would then lead to making good memories and a group atmosphere. Thus reinforcing smoking behaviour, despite awareness of the health risks(48).

In contrast, other findings showed that girls felt smoking was not essential for group membership(48) and that individuals valued health over and above the need to belong to a group, and that non-smokers deselected smoker friends(63). A further study found more boys to report smoking in groups than girls(47). There was also evidence from only one study, based in Iran, to suggest that smoking was used as a tool to achieve adolescents’ social needs(44).

To summarise, before comprehensive legislation was introduced, and smoking was more normalised, smoking was strongly perceived to be key to group acceptance and popularity. Whereas, after the introduction of comprehensive legislation, where smoking was less normalised, smoking was not always a prerequisite for group membership, reports of the use of smoking as a social tool were less prevalent and smoking behaviour was not always strongly perceived to be linked to group acceptance and popularity. This aligns with the findings discussed within the context: culture and socioeconomic status theme, which demonstrated that after the introduction of comprehensive tobacco legislation social acceptability of smoking varied according to school-level socioeconomic status. Thus, the social selection and group belonging processes described above would vary according to contextual determinants.

Identity construction and performance: Before the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Twenty three studies reported smoking as being part of the intrapersonal determinant of identity construction and performance(28-31, 33-39, 41-43, 50, 52-54, 59-61, 64, 65). Identity construction was seen as the perception of the role of smoking in facilitating the formation of a certain identity. Whilst performance relates to the act of using smoking related symbolism, such as the act of smoking, appearing to smoke or carrying cigarettes. These identities and the associated behaviour can both be influenced by others or initiated by individuals who then select friends with similar identities(66).

The majority of studies focused on smoking as a way of creating a self-identity at an important stage of development. Mainly, this was manifested in adolescents reporting smoking to look cool, hard(28, 39, 41, 42, 50, 52-54, 59-61, 64, 65), mature(31, 33-35, 41-43) or popular(38, 41, 42, 64, 65). With males in particular aiming to portray a brave and masculine identity(29, 33, 36, 43, 61).

However, there were mixed opinions of whether smoking was actually perceived as an activity undertaken by popular or ‘cool’ individuals or not. For example, individuals reported negative personal perceptions of smoking(41), whilst reporting a belief that others perceive cigarettes as cool, good for them and fun(42). Thus, this misperception may work to perpetuate the perceived need to smoke to look cool. Indeed, the perception of smoking as cool was seen by some to be more important in influencing smoking behaviour than peer influence. It was reported that smoking could carry both a high and a low status as it was just one element of being cool, rather than a measure of ‘cool’ in itself(65).

Other factors, such as ethnicity and gender were also reported to affect smoking behaviour. For example, girls were motivated more by trying to look mature and by using smoking as a tool to overcome traditional female stereotypes and assert equality by competing with boys(64).

One study highlighted that smoking awkwardly or symbolic smoking through techniques such as pretending to inhale could actually do more harm than good to an individual’s social status(30). Others reported that smoking was simply an activity that they engage in, not something that was perceived as key to identity(37).

Overall, the majority of studies found smoking and its associated performative acts to be key to adolescent identity construction. There were mixed opinions on the extent to which smoking was perceived as ‘cool’, but the majority perceived this to be the case.

Identity construction and performance: After the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Six studies published after the introduction of comprehensive legislation reported smoking as being part of identity construction and performance(44-48, 63). The main findings within this theme showed that a number of individual determinants contributed to adolescents’ decision to start, and continue, to smoke, with a large proportion of the data focusing on smoking as a way of developing a sense of identity. Much like the findings from before the introduction of comprehensive legislation, although somewhat less prevalent, reasons cited included trying to appear ‘cool’(46, 63). This was found to be more of a motivation where adolescents attended a school with a high smoking prevalence, where studies cited girls and boys smoking to appear ‘hard’ or ‘tough’ or ‘high class’(46).

Others suggested that smoking was not perceived as cool, particularly in today’s society where smoking has become denormalised and the adverse health effects are so well known. Smoking was instead overwhelmingly perceived as something which caused adolescents to be alienated from school culture(63). It was also perceived as a behaviour deserving of sympathy due to signalling unhappiness in an adolescent’s life(63). This was echoed in other studies where adolescent smokers discussed the need to hide their smoking from peers for fear of being judged negatively(48).

Others suggested smoking was a way to get attention and stand out from the crowd and can often be used as a largely symbolic activity by carrying cigarettes, without fully engaging in the activity. This symbolism varied according to countries, with data from Iran finding that participants perceived smoking to be a symbol of being high class or sophisticated(44, 45).

Overall, the data from after the introduction of comprehensive smoking legislation, in a less normalised context, reports more negative perceptions of smoking and outlines the social risks, such as negative judgement from peers, of engaging in the behaviour. Whilst the data from before the introduction of comprehensive legislation found some individuals to perceive smoking negatively, the data did not reflect this as a wider opinion with no perceived negative social consequences for smokers. These findings align with the findings described within the above themes. For example, the contextual determinants, as well as lower perception of smoking as the norm in a less normalised tobacco smoking context would combine with identity construction to determine a lower likelihood of the use of smoking to portray a ‘cool’ image and of individuals being influenced to smoke in order to be perceived as ‘cool’.

This meta-ethnography is the first study to demonstrate, drawing on international data, that peer processes relating to adolescent smoking may undergo changes as norms for smoking within society change. Overall, findings showed that adolescents’ fears of negative judgement due to smoking were more commonly reported in a less normalised tobacco smoking context. Whilst peers also less commonly reported using smoking as a social tool to facilitate group belonging, social status and gender equality within a less normalised tobacco smoking context.

Social influence and selection were reported to occur across tobacco smoking normalisation contexts, both before and after the introduction of comprehensive smoking legislation. This suggests that both processes should be considered within future intervention development. Currently, interventions tend to focus on education as well as harnessing social influence in a positive manner to facilitate adolescents to exert influence on peers not to take up smoking, or to quit if they have already taken up the habit(7).

Gender, cultural determinants and school-level socioeconomic context were reported to be important across tobacco smoking normalisation contexts. Despite this, results relating to socioeconomic status were sparse. Only 17 out of 38 studies reported students’ SES, six studies focused on participants mainly from deprived communities(26, 39, 41, 42, 46, 53) and only four studies assessed results separately according to school-level SES(31, 48, 49, 61). These studies showed that context, in terms of school level SES, was reported to be important in both pre- and post-legislative data in terms of how social influence on smoking behaviour was manifested. This was due to differences in the prevalence and social acceptability of smoking. For example, it may be less socially acceptable to smoke daily post legislation, but occasional smoking may be more acceptable(48).

Results of the synthesis conducted in a more normalised tobacco smoking context consistently showed evidence of adolescents using cigarettes as a social tool. This differed from the results after the introduction of comprehensive legislation, in a less normalised tobacco smoking context. These differences included more discussion of how smoking was not an essential factor for group membership and only one study reporting the use of smoking as a social tool. These results could be explained by the fact that smoking is reported to become increasingly stigmatised within societies where smoking has become denormalised. Thus, aligned with the findings of the current review, regular smoking instead becomes a socially unacceptable behaviour which tends to occur within groups of smokers, and covertly to avoid the attached stigma(67, 68). Thus, these contextual issues may contribute to the perpetuation of socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and marginalisation as a result of smoking(46).

Current interventions do not account for the differing processes occurring within different school contexts reported within this review. These include differing levels of socioeconomic status, culture, social norms relating to smoking and subsequently differing smoking behaviour, such as whether smoking takes place as a central or peripheral activity. These interventions may therefore miss opportunities to effectively target those of a lower socioeconomic status, both at a school level and an individual level, such as individuals from a lower SES attending more affluent schools(10). This is consistent with a previous systematic review which found that only one in four health behaviour interventions mentioned SES inequalities. A recommendation was made for the need for routine testing of the effects of future interventions on inequalities(69). Both the mechanisms of identifying which pupils to train as peer supporters (i.e. who will exert social influence), and training provided to peer supporters about interacting with other students (i.e. how peer supporters are selected into social groups) could differ according to school context. Further research is required to focus upon differences between school contexts and how we can adapt interventions to enhance their effectiveness within different schools in contexts where smoking has now become denormalised(70). For example, A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial (ASSIST) Global states that the intervention is likely to work within low income countries where smoking remains normalised(71).

Results for the synthesis focused on more normalised tobacco smoking contexts showed reports of girls using cigarettes as a tool to strive for gender equality, through strategies such as trying to portray a ‘hard’ image(64). Reporting of this did not differ according to SES. One explanation for this could be that smoking was still normalised within society and, thus, smoking as cool still dominated across SES settings. This was not reported within studies conducted after the introduction of comprehensive legislation, within less normalised tobacco smoking contexts.

Parental modelling was reported to be an important influence on smoking among adolescents in both more normalised and less normalised tobacco smoking contexts. This has the potential to contribute to the perpetuation of inequalities in a context where overall levels of smoking are reducing, but more slowly among lower SES groups(12). Thus, adolescents from lower SES groups will be increasingly likely to be exposed to parental smoking over and above their more affluent peers. This is consistent with previous studies which have shown adolescents from a lower SES to experience increased exposure to parental smoking in comparison with their more affluent peers(9).

The results of this study are aligned with the sister review of quantitative social network effects on adolescent smoking. With a focus on network characteristics, findings showed variation in the composition and effect of network characteristics on smoking across different types of school, including those differing according to socioeconomic status and other characteristics(11). Conclusions were aligned with the current review, revealing the lack of focus on socioeconomic status and the need for future research to employ these methods to understand how network structure and its influence on adolescent smoking may differ across school types.

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this systematic review are the thorough review processes that were undertaken, such as double screening and quality assessment. In addition to a lack of studies focused on SES, this review only identified seven eligible studies that were conducted after, compared to 31 studies conducted before the introduction of comprehensive smoking legislation. All seven of these studies were conducted between two and ten years post-legislation. Researchers who conceptualise schools as complex systems have consistently advocated for longer follow-up periods of at least ten years within studies to allow any changes to become embedded within the system(72). Thus, a larger volume of future research is required to focus on social influence processes within contexts at least ten years after the introduction of such legislation. This would help to obtain a greater insight into how the denormalisation of tobacco smoking has altered social influence processes within school systems.

Further to this, there are several reasons why results should be interpreted with caution. The heterogeneity of study characteristics, including methods, sample size and characteristics and culture, make direct comparisons between studies difficult. There was also a lack of diversity between studies, with the majority of evidence coming from developed countries. While information on e-cigarette use was beyond the scope of the study, this is an important contextual issue for cigarette smoking that should be considered within future studies and systematic reviews.

Within the context of tobacco smoking denormalisation, fears of negative judgement and stigma related to smoking have increased among adolescents, and the use of smoking as a social tool has decreased. Both social influence and selection and school level SES have maintained their importance in perceived differentiated processes across contexts. A greater volume of future research should ensure a measurement and focus on SES both at the individual and school level, gender and cultural contexts, and focus on contexts where comprehensive legislation has been introduced for at least ten years, thus further accelerating denormalisation. This would facilitate an enhanced understanding of how differences across school-level SES contexts manifest once post-legislative norms have been established. Subsequently, this would allow future interventions to be adapted to different school contexts to tackle inequalities.

ASSIST: A Stop Smoking In Schools Trial; ASSIA: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts; BEI: British Education Index; CINAHL: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; EPPI-centre: Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre; ERIC: Education Resources Information Center; ETHOS: E-Theses Online Service; NA: Not Applicable; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‑Analyses; PROSPERO: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; SABM: Stochastic Actor‑Based Models; SES: Socioeconomic Status; SNA: Social Network Analysis; SPIDER: Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type; SURE: Specialist Unit for Review Evidence;

Ethics approval and consent to participate:

This was a systematic review, but each of the included studies had received ethical approval and obtained informed consent from all participants. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication:

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials:

Quality assessments and study contributions to themes are available in the Appendices.

Competing interests:

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding:

Dr. Hannah Littlecott, the principal researcher, is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Postdoctoral Fellowship (C64562/A26532). The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. It was also supported by its successor, The Centre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), funded by Welsh Government via Health and Care Research Wales. Mark McCann was supported by Medical Research Council partnership grant MC_PC_13027 and by the MRC and Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office through the SPHSU Complexity (MC_UU_12017/14 / SPHSU14 / MC_UU_00022/1) and relationships (MC_UU_12017/11 / SPHSU11 / MC_UU_00022/3) programmes

Authors’ contributions:

HL led the review. HL, JH, RE, GJMT, MM1, FD and GM developed the protocol. HL and MM2 developed the search strategy. HL, HR, SJ and CD undertook study screening and GJMT helped to resolve discrepancies and queries. HL and HR extracted the data. HL analysed the data and HL wrote the manuscript. The manuscript was reviewed and revised by all authors.

Acknowledgements:

Thank you to the fellowship advisory board who have provided guidance throughout this process. These include; Professor Laurence Moore (University of Glasgow), Professor Eva Rehfuess (Ludwig‑Maximillians University, Munich), Susanne Cass (ASH Wales) and Ashley Gould (Public Health Wales).

Walsh RA, Tzelepis F. Adolescents and tobacco use: systematic review of qualitative research methodologies and partial synthesis of findings. Substance Use & Misuse. 2007;42(8):1269-321.
Hiscock R, Bauld L, Amos A, Fidler JA, Munafò M. Socioeconomic status and smoking: a review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2012;1248(1):107-23.
Tyas SL, Pederson LL. Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: a critical review of the literature. Tobacco Control. 1998;7(4):409-20.
Lloyd B, Lucas K, Fernbach M. Adolescent girls' constructions of smoking identities: implications for health promotion. Journal of Adolescence. 1997;20(1):43-56.
Fletcher A, Bonell C. Social network influences on smoking, drinking and drug use in secondary school: centrifugal and centripetal forces. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2013;35(5):699-715.
Fletcher A, Bonell C, Sorhaindo A, Strange V. How might schools influence young people's drug use? Development of theory from qualitative case-study research. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2009;45(2):126-32.
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. The Lancet. 2008;371(9624):1595-602.
Caryl F, Shortt NK, Pearce J, Reid G, Mitchell R. Socioeconomic inequalities in children’s exposure to tobacco retailing based on individual-level GPS data in Scotland. Tobacco Control. 2020;29(4):367-73.
Moore GF, Angel L, Gray L, Copeland L, Van Godwin J, Segrott J, et al. Associations of socioeconomic status, parental smoking and parental E-cigarette use with 10–11-year-old Children’s perceptions of tobacco cigarettes and E-cigarettes: cross sectional analysis of the CHETS Wales 3 survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(3):683.
Moore GF, Littlecott HJ. School‐and family‐level socioeconomic status and health behaviors: multilevel analysis of a national survey in Wales, United Kingdom. Journal of School Health. 2015;85(4):267-75.
Littlecott HJ, Moore G, McCann M, Melendez-Torres G, Mercken L, Reed H, et al. Exploring the association between school-based peer networks and smoking according to socioeconomic status and tobacco control context: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1-22.
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.
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Health Inequalities and Smoking. https://ash.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ASH-Briefing_Health-Inequalities.pdf;. 2019. Accessed 11^th November 2020.
Perez-Warnisher MT, de Miguel MPC, Seijo LM. Tobacco use worldwide: legislative efforts to curb consumption. Annals of Global Health. 2018;84(4):571.
World Health Organization. Tobacco control legislation: an introductory guide - second edition. 2004. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241562684. Accessed 1^st October 2020.
Hallingberg B, Fletcher A, Murphy S, Morgan K, Littlecott H, Roberts C, et al. Do stronger school smoking policies make a difference? Analysis of the health behaviour in school-aged children survey. The European Journal of Public Health. 2016;26(6):964-8.
Noblit G, Hare R. A meta-ethnographic approach. Meta-Ethnography. 1988:27-37.
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. Systematic Reviews. 2019;8(1):1-7.
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. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(1):1-9.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349.
France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, Uny I, Duncan EA, Jepson RG, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2019;19(1):1-13.
Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research. 2012;22(10):1435-43.
Rees R, Thomas J. Children’s views about obesity, body size, shape and weight: a systematic review [IOE Research Briefing N° 49]. 2013. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/Obesity%20Views%20Children%20R2009Rees.pdf?ver=2010-12-22-121209-040. Accessed 10^th May 2019.
McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly. 1988;15(4):351-77.
Amos A, Bostock Y. Young people, smoking and gender—a qualitative exploration. Health Education Research. 2007;22(6):770-81.
Arora M, Tewari A, Tripathy V, Nazar GP, Juneja NS, Ramakrishnan L, et al. Community-based model for preventing tobacco use among disadvantaged adolescents in urban slums of India. Health Promotion International. 2010;25(2):143-52.
Craciun C, Baban A. Exploring smoking in romanian adolescents: prevalence, predictors and meanings of smoking. Cognition, Brain, Behavior. 2008;12(4):435.
Denscombe M. Uncertain identities and health‐risking behaviour: The case of young people and smoking in late modernity. The British Journal of Sociology. 2001;52(1):157-77.
Fithria F, Adlim M, Jannah SR, Tahlil T. Indonesian adolescents’ perspectives on smoking habits: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1-8.
Haines RJ, Poland BD, Johnson JL. Becoming a ‘real’smoker: cultural capital in young women's accounts of smoking and other substance use. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2009;31(1):66-80.
Mishra A, Arora M, Stigler MH, Komro KA, Lytle LA, Reddy KS, et al. Indian youth speak about tobacco: results of focus group discussions with school students. Health Education & Behavior. 2005;32(3):363-79.
Mitschke DB, Matsunaga DS, Loebl K, Tatafu Jr E, Robinett H. Multi-ethnic adolescents' attitudes toward smoking: A focus group analysis. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2008;22(6):393-8.
Mutaz M, De Vries N, Cheung KL, De Vries H. Towards a better understanding of factors affecting smoking uptake among Saudi male adolescents: A qualitative study. Tobacco Prevention & Cessation. 2020;6.
Niknami S, Akbari M, Ahmadi F, Babaee Rouchi G, Heidarnia A. Smoking initiation among Iranian adolescents: a qualitative study. EMHJ-Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 14 (6), 1290-1300, 2008. 2008.
Perez-Milena A, Martinez-Fernandez M, Redondo-Olmedilla M, Nieto CÁ, Pulido IJ, Gallardo IM. Motivations for tobacco consumption among adolescents in an urban high school. Gaceta Sanitaria. 2011;26(1):51-7.
Rothwell E, Lamarque J. The use of focus groups to compare tobacco attitudes and behaviors between youth in urban and rural settings. Health Promotion Practice. 2011;12(4):551-60.
Sánchez Martínez JA, Ribeiro CRdO. The search for equality: representations of the smoking act among adolescent women. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. 2008;16:640-5.
Stjerna M-L, Lauritzen SO, Tillgren P. “Social thinking” and cultural images: teenagers’ notions of tobacco use. Social Science & Medicine. 2004;59(3):573-83.
Treacy M, Hyde A, Boland J, Whitaker T, Abaunza PS, Stewart-Knox BJ. Children talking: emerging perspectives and experiences of cigarette smoking. Qualitative Health Research. 2007;17(2):238-49.
Tamvakas I, Amos A. ‘These things don't happen in Greece': a qualitative study of Greek young people's attitudes to smoking, secondhand smoke and the smokefree legislation. Health Education Research. 2010;25(6):955-64.
Turner K, West P, Gordon J, Young R, Sweeting H. Could the peer group explain school differences in pupil smoking rates? An exploratory study. Social Science & Medicine. 2006;62(10):2513-25.
Vasquez D, Jones MC, Brown LD. Attitudes toward tobacco among low-income Hispanic adolescents: Implications for prevention. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse. 2018.
Yuksel H, Corbett KK. Mixed messages: a qualitative study of the meanings and context of high school students' tobacco use in Turkey. Health Promotion International. 2005;20(4):360-6.
Baheiraei A, Cheraghi MA, Ebadi A, Soltani F. In their own voices: Iranian adolescent girls' views about smoking. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 2018;8(3):1-6.
Jafari A, Mahdizadeh M, Peyman N, Gholian-Aval M, Tehrani H. Exploration the role of social, cultural and environmental factors in tendency of female adolescents to smoking based on the qualitative content analysis. BMC Women's Health. 2022;22(1):1-8.
Lewis S, Russell A. Young smokers’ narratives: Public health, disadvantage and structural violence. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2013;35(5):746-60.
Peterson E, Harrell M, Springer A, Medina J, Martinez L, Perry C, et al. Uruguayan secondary school students speak up about tobacco: results from focus group discussions in and around Montevideo. Global Health Promotion. 2019;26(2):15-24.
Schreuders M, Klompmaker L, van den Putte B, Kunst AE. Adolescent smoking in secondary schools that have implemented smoke-free policies: in-depth exploration of shared smoking patterns. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(12):2100.
Povlsen L, Aryal UR, Petzold M, Krettek A. Adolescents’ knowledge and opinions about smoking: a qualitative study from the Jhaukhel-Duwakot Health Demographic Surveillance Site, Bhaktapur District, Nepal. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health. 2018;30(1).
Dijk F, de Nooijer J, Heinrich E, de Vries H. Adolescents' view on smoking, quitting and health education. Health Education. 2007.
Nwafor C, Ibeh C, Aguwa E, Chukwu J. Assessment of pattern of cigarette smoking and associated factors among male students in public secondary schools in Anambra State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Medicine. 2012;21(1):41-7.
Stewart‐Knox BJ, Sittlington J, Rugkåsa J, Harrisson S, Treacy M, Abaunza PS. Smoking and peer groups: results from a longitudinal qualitative study of young people in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2005;44(3):397-414.
Milton B, Woods S, Dugdill L, Porcellato L, Springett R. Starting young? Children's experiences of trying smoking during pre-adolescence. Health Education Research. 2008;23(2):298-309.
Clark VLP, Miller DL, Creswell JW, McVea K, McEntarffer R, Harter LM, et al. In conversation: high school students talk to students about tobacco use and prevention strategies. Qualitative Health Research. 2002;12(9):1264-83.
Talip T, Kifli N, Murang Z, Naing L. Smoking initiation and continuation a qualitative study among Bruneian male adolescents. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2016;17(7):3533-40.
Tohid H, Ishak NM, Muhammad NA, Hassan HA, Ahmad FNM, Omar K. What Determines Teenagers' Smoking Behaviour?: A Qualitative Study. International Medical Journal. 2011;18(3).
Baillie L, Lovato CY, Johnson JL, Kalaw C. Smoking decisions from a teen perspective: a narrative study. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2005;29(2):99-106.
Denscombe M. Peer group pressure, young people and smoking: New developments and policy implications. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy. 2001;8(1):7-32.
Fraga S, Sousa S, Ramos E, Dias I, Barros H. Social representations of smoking behaviour in 13-year-old adolescents. Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia (English Edition). 2011;17(1):27-31.
Johnson JL, Bottorff JL, Moffat B, Ratner PA, Shoveller JA, Lovato CY. Tobacco dependence: adolescents’ perspectives on the need to smoke. Social Science & Medicine. 2003;56(7):1481-92.
El Kazdouh H, El-Ammari A, Bouftini S, El Fakir S, El Achhab Y. Adolescents, parents and teachers’ perceptions of risk and protective factors of substance use in Moroccan adolescents: a qualitative study. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. 2018;13(1):1-12.
Hong R-M, Guo S-E, Chen M-Y. The experiences of tobacco use among South-Western Taiwanese adolescent males. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2015;12(9):10522-35.
Woodgate RL, Busolo DS. A qualitative study on Canadian youth’s perspectives of peers who smoke: an opportunity for health promotion. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):1-10.
Ioannou S, Pike J. Young Cypriots’ perspectives of the symbolic values of smoking. Critical Public Health. 2010;20(3):373-84.
Plumridge EW, Fitzgerald LJ, Abel GM. Performing coolness: smoking refusal and adolescent identities. Health Education Research. 2002;17(2):167-79.
Ragan DT. Peer beliefs and smoking in adolescence: a longitudinal social network analysis. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2016;42(2):222-30.
Thompson L, Pearce J, Barnett JR. Moralising geographies: stigma, smoking islands and responsible subjects. Area. 2007;39(4):508-17.
Stuber J, Galea S, Link BG. Smoking and the emergence of a stigmatized social status. Social Science & Medicine. 2008;67(3):420-30.
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):1-15.
Moore G, Campbell M, Copeland L, Craig P, Movsisyan A, Hoddinott P, et al. Adapting interventions to new contexts—the ADAPT guidance. BMJ. 2021;374.
Global ASSIST. Can we implement and research a schools-based smoking prevention intervention, developed in the UK, in a range of lowand middle-income countries? 2019. http://www.sphsu.mrc.ac.uk/universityfiles/Documents/ASSIST%20Global%20Report.pdf. Accessed 15^th May 2019.
Hawe P. Lessons from complex interventions to improve health. Annual review of public health. 2015.

Table 1. Eligibility criteria according to the SPIDER framework

SPIDER Framework	Description
Sample	• Studies that sought school students (age 11-18), school staff, parents or other education professionals’ views and were focused on whole population, or students of a low socioeconomic status. • Studies that focused on special populations, for example, cannabis smokers were excluded.
Phenomenon of Interest	• Studies that focused on friendship, peers, influence and selection. • Studies were excluded if they focused exclusively on waterpipe tobacco, e-cigarettes and other forms of nicotine inhalation as well as passive smoking and cessation studies.
Design	• Qualitative or mixed methods studies with a qualitative element including interviews, focus groups, and observations.
Evaluation	• Studies that sought participants’ views, perceptions or attitudes.
Research Type	• Date: Papers published using data collected during or after 1997. This is the year that adolescent smoking peaked in the US (30). Corresponding authors were contacted directly to request this information, where this was omitted in papers. • Language: No language or geographical limits were set, but comparisons were made within the analyses according to whether the data were collected before or after the introduction of comprehensive smoking legislation covering bans on smoking in all work places and public places, including restaurants and bars, in each respective country.

Table 2. Characteristics of included studies

Author and year	Year of data collection	Participant characteristics			Country	Quality assessment
		Age	Number	Socioeconomic status
Amos et al. (2007)	2002	Range 15-16 years	46 ( 24 females and 22 males)	4 focus groups from middle class (ABC1) and 4 from working class (C2DE)	UK (Scotland)	HIGH
Arora et al. (2010)	2005	Range 10-19 years	37 (6 females and 31 males)	2 low SES communities	India	MEDIUM
Baheiraei et al. (2017)	2012	Range 15-18 years	11 females	Not recorded	Iran	MEDIUM
Baillie et al. (2005)	2000-1	Range 14-18 years, mean 16 years	35 (17 females and 18 males)	Not recorded	Canada (British Columbia)	HIGH
Craciun et al. (2008)	2005-6	Range14-15 years	30 (15 females and 15 males)	Not recorded	Romania	LOW
Denscombe et al. (2001)	1997-8	Range 15-16 years	Focus groups 123, interviews 20	Not recorded	UK (England)	HIGH
Denscombe et al. (2001b)	1997-8	Range 15-16 years	Focus groups 123, interviews 20	Not recorded	UK (England)	HIGH
Dijk et al. (2006)	2003	Range15-17 years	101	Not recorded	Netherlands	MEDIUM
El Kazdouh et al. (2018)	2016	Range 14-16 years	100	2 schools - one classed as "advantaged", the other as "disadvantaged"	Morocco	HIGH
Fithria (2022)	2019	Range 12-18 years	24 male students	Schools located in regions with a poverty level of 15.41%	Indonesia	LOW
Fraga et al. (2011)	2003-4	Mean/range 13 years	30 (15 females and 15 males)	Not recorded	Portugal	LOW
Haines et al. (2009)	2005-6	Range 16-19 years	25	No data collected but researchers say that most appeared to be mid to high SES	Canada (Toronto)	MEDIUM
Hong et al. (2015)	2013	Range 13-18 years	12	Not recorded	Taiwan	MEDIUM
Ioannou et al. (2010)	2002	Range 15-17 years	25 (13 females and 12 males)	States 'diverse socioeconomic backgrounds'	Cyprus	MEDIUM
Jafari (2022)	2020	Mean 16 years	20 females	Not recorded	Iran	MEDIUM
Johnson et al. (2003)	2000-1	1st phase mean = 16, range 14-18; 2nd and 3rd phases mean = 16, range 13-19 years	1st phase 47 (29 females and 18 males); 2nd and 3rd phases - 25 (14 females and 11 males).	Not recorded	Canada (Vancouver)	HIGH
Lewis et al. (2003)	2009	Range 11-18 years	52 (30 females and 22 males)	'Disadvantaged community' - "The youth club featured is situated in a former coal-mining village which, according to the index of multiple deprivation score (North East Public Health Observatory 2007), is amongst the 10 per cent most deprived wards in a county that is one of the most deprived in England. Unemployment levels are in the highest quintile (Durham County Council 2012) for the county.”	UK (England)	HIGH
Milton et al. (2008)	2001	Range 9-11 years	76	Over half of the cohort lived in low-income families, and 82% lived in the most deprived quartile (the poorest quarter of addresses) in the northwest of England as calculated using Townsend’s indices of deprivation.	UK (England)	HIGH
Mishra et al. (2005)	2002	Range 10-16 years	435 (181 females and 254 males)	Government run schools with low-medium SES; private schools with medium-high SES were included.	India	HIGH
Mitschke et al. (2008)	2006	Range 10-14 years	54 (35 females and 19 males)	Not recorded	USA (Hawaii)	MEDIUM
Mutaz (2020)	unknown	Range 12-16 years	103 males	Not recorded	Saudi Arabia	MEDIUM
Niknami et al. (2008)	2004-5	Range 10-47 years	62 (92% male)	Not recorded	Iran	HIGH
Nwafor et al. (2012)	2008	Not recorded	40 male	Not recorded	Nigeria	LOW
Perez-Milena et al. (2012)	2008-9	Range 12-18 years	44 (6 focus groups ranging from 17%-78% female)	Within the six focus groups, there were between 0-33% composition of the lowest socioeconomic group, between 42-83% middle and 11-50% highest.	Spain	MEDIUM
Peterson et al. (2019)	2012-13	Range 12-16 years	81	Students are rated high/medium/low SES but no info on how this has been done.	Uruguay	MEDIUM
Plano Clark et al. (2002)	1999	Mean 16 years	205 (plus 66 student co-researchers)	Not recorded	USA (Newbraska)	HIGH
Plumridge et al. (2002)	1999	Range 14-15 years	42	School of relatively high socio-economic catchment (decile 8 ranking)	New Zealand	MEDIUM
Povlsen et al. (2018)	2013	Range 13-16 years	71 (36 females and 35 males)	2 public and 2 private schools/castes recorded	Nepal	MEDIUM
Rothwell et al. (2011)	2007	Mean 17 years, range 14-17 years	28	Not recorded	USA (Utah)	MEDIUM
Sanchez Martinez et al. (2008)	2005	Range 16-17 years	14	Not recorded	Mexico	LOW
Schreuders et al. (2019)	2016-17	Ranges: focus groups: 14-17 years old; interviews 15-18 years old	22 for focus groups; 14 for interviews	1 vocational school and one mid-level theoretical school	Netherlands	HIGH
Stewart-Knox et al. (2005)	1997-2000	Ranges: Year 1: 11-12 years old; year 2: 12-13 years old; year 3: 13-14+ years	Year 1: 102 (52 females;50 males); Year 2: 51 (28 females;23 males); Year 3: 39 (22 females; 17 males)	Not recorded	UK (Northern Ireland)	HIGH
Stjerna et al. (2004)	1999	Range 14-15 years	43 (25 females and 18 males)	Schools had 'average SES structure'	Sweden	MEDIUM
Talip et al. (2016)	2015	Mean 14 years, range 13-17 years	43 males	Not recorded	Brunei	MEDIUM
Tamvakas et al. (2010)	2009	Mean 15 years, range 14-16 years	31 (14 females and 17 males)	Not recorded	Greece	MEDIUM
Tohid et al. (2011)	2008-10	Mean/range 16 years	26 (3 females and 23 males)	Not recorded	Malaysia	MEDIUM
Treacy et al. (2007)	1997	Longitudinal - yearly from 11-12 to 15-16 years	1^st round 78(44 females and 34 males); 2^nd round 48; 3^rd round 19; 4^th rounds 33	Most of sample from working-class areas of Dublin	Republic of Ireland	HIGH
Turner et al. (2006)	2000-1	Mean/range 13 years	136	Both schools served disadvantaged populations	UK (Scotland)	HIGH
Vazquez et al. (2018)	2015	Range 9-19 years	49 (60% males)	90% eligible for free school lunch	USA (Texas)	HIGH
Woodgate et al. (2015)	2007-10	Mean 14.5 years, range 11-19 years	75	72% identified as middle class	Canada (Western Canadian Province)	HIGH
Yuksel et al. (2005)	2001-2	Median 16 years	52 youth (19 females and 33 males) + 24 adults (teachers/school counsellors/parents)	Not reported	Turkey	MEDIUM

Table 3. Study methods and smoking legislative context

Author and year	Data collection methods	Analysis	Substance focus	Country and year of smoking ban	Synthesis category
Amos et al. (2007)	Face to face single sex focus groups	Thematic	Smoking only	Scotland (UK) 2006	0-4 years before
Arora et al. (2010)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic	Smoking and smoke-free tobacco	India no comprehensive ban	10+ years before
Baheiraei et al. (2017)	Telephone semi-structured interviews	Thematic (constant comparative analysis/content analysis)	Smoking only	Iran 2007	After
Baillie et al. (2005)	Face to face semi-structured interviews	Thematic (narrative enquiry)	Smoking only	Canada (British Columbia) 2008	5-9 years before
Craciun et al. (2008)	Face to face semi-structured interviews	Thematic (content analysis)	Smoking only	Romania 2016	10+ years before
Denscombe et al. (2001)	Face to face focus groups and semi-structured interviews	Thematic	Smoking only	England (UK) 2007	5-9 years before
Denscombe et al. (2001b)	Face to face focus groups and semi-structured interviews	Thematic	Smoking only	England (UK) 2007	5-9 years before
Dijk et al. (2006)	Face to face group interviews	Thematic	Smoking only	Netherlands 2008	5-9 years before
El Kazdouh et al. (2018)	Face to face single sex focus groups	Thematic (inductive)	Substance use	Morocco no comprehensive ban	10+ years before
Fithria (2021)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic (inductive content analysis)	Smoking only	Indonesia no comprehensive ban	10+ years before
Fraga et al. (2011)	Face to face semi-structured interviews	Thematic (content analysis)	Smoking only	Portugal no comprehensive ban	0-4 years before
Haines et al. (2009)	Face to face semi-structured interviews	Thematic	Smoking and other substances	Canada (Toronto) 2015	0-4 years before
Hong et al. (2015)	Face to face semi-structured interviews and focus groups	Thematic (Colaixxi’s method)	Smoking only	Taiwan 2009	After
Ioannou et al. (2010)	Face to face unstructured interviews	Thematic (content analysis/grounded theory)	Smoking only	Cyprus 2010	5-9 years before
Jafari (2022)	Face to face semi-structured interviews	Thematic (content analysis)	Smoking only	Iran 2007	After
Johnson et al. (2003)	Face to face semi-structured interviews (secondary analysis and primary data collection) + free pile and sort	Thematic	Smoking only	Canada (Vancouver) 2015	10+ years before
Lewis et al. (2003)	Ethnography	Thematic (open coding approach)	Smoking only	UK (England) 2007	After
Milton et al. (2008)	Face to face focus groups and semi-structured interviews	Thematic	Smoking only	UK (England) 2007	5-9 years before
Mishra et al. (2005)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic	Tobacco in various forms	India, no comprehensive ban	10+ years before
Mitschke et al. (2008)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic	Smoking only	Honolulu, Hawaii, USA 2006	0-4 years before
Mutaz (2020)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic	Smoking only	Saudi Arabia, no comprehensive ban	10+ years before
Niknami et al. (2008)	Face to face semi-structured interviews, focus groups and written narratives	Thematic (content analysis)	Smoking only	Iran 2007	0-4 years before
Nwafor et al. (2012)	Face to face focus groups	Not stated clearly	Smoking only	Nigeria no comprehensive ban	10+ years before
Perez-Milena et al. (2012)	Face to face focus groups	Content analysis	Smoking only	Spain 2011	0-4 years before
Peterson et al. (2019)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic (constant comparison)	Smoking only	Uruguay 2006	After
Plano Clark et al. (2002)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic	Primarily smoking, but also included smokeless tobacco	USA (Newbraska) 2009	5-9 years before
Plumridge et al. (2002)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic	Smoking only	New Zealand 2004	5-9 years before
Povlsen et al. (2018)	Face to face single sex focus groups	Thematic (content analysis)	Smoking only	Nepal 2011	After
Rothwell et al. (2011)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic	Smoking and chewing tobacco	USA (Utah) 2007	0-4 years before
Sanchez Martinez et al. (2008)	Face to face semi-structured interviews	Thematic (content analysis)	Smoking only	Mexico 2008	10+ years before
Schreuders et al. (2019)	Face to face focus groups and semi-structured interviews	Thematic (framework analysis)	Smoking only	The Netherlands 2008	After
Stewart-Knox et al. (2005)	Face to face semi-structured interviews	Thematic (content analysis/grounded theory)	Smoking only	UK (Northern Ireland) 2007	5-9 years before
Stjerna et al. (2004)	Face to face single sex focus groups	Thematic (inductive/discursive analysis)	Tobacco, including snuff	Sweden 2005	10+ years before
Talip et al. (2016)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic	Smoking only	Brunei 2017	0-4 years before
Tamvakas et al. (2010)	Face to face semi-structured interviews with small groups (2/3 people)	Thematic	Smoking only	Greece 2010	0-4 years before
Tohid et al. (2011)	Face to face focus groups and semi-structured interviews	Thematic	Smoking only	Malaysia 2019	10+ years before
Treacy et al. (2007)	Face to face focus groups and semi-structured interviews	Thematic (inductive analysis)	Smoking only	Ireland 2004	5-9 years before
Turner et al. (2006)	Face to face single sex focus groups	Thematic	Smoking only	UK (Scotland) 2006	0-4 years before
Vazquez et al. (2018)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic	Smoking only	USA (Texas) No comprehensive ban	10+ years before
Woodgate et al. (2015)	Face to face semi-structured interviews, participatory method 'Photovoice' and focus groups	Thematic	Smoking only	Canada (Western Canadian Province, unclear which) 2004, 2005, 2008, 2008	After
Yuksel et al. (2005)	Face to face focus groups	Thematic and content analysis	Smoking only	Turkey 2009	10+ years before

No competing interests reported.

Perceptions of friendship, peers and influence on smoking according to socioeconomic status and tobacco control context: A systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative research

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Protocol and Registration

Eligibility Criteria

Information Sources and Searches

Study Selection

Data Extraction

Quality Assessment

Synthesis

Results

Study selection

Overview of included studies

Quality assessment

Exploration of stakeholder views on adolescent smoking

Context: culture and socioeconomic status: Before the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Context: culture and socioeconomic status: After the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Perceived norms and modelling: Before the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Perceived norms and modelling: After the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Perceived control, coercion, and encouragement: Before the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Perceived control, coercion, and encouragement: After the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Group belonging and social selection: Before the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Group belonging and social selection: After the introduction of a comprehensive smoking ban

Identity construction and performance: Before the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Identity construction and performance: After the introduction of comprehensive legislation

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1