| Purpose: To understand smoking situations of Xinjiang college students and studysmoking behaviour characteristics and the influencing factors of college students fromdifferent ethnic groups, so as to prepare certain basis for tobacco control in the future; toexplore Xinjiang college students’ attitude towards tobacco control and action; to analyzepublic health capacity building for tobacco control of Xinjiang college students and carryout public advocacy and policy advocacy through tobacco control class teaching andsmoke-free campus campaign. Method: Questionnaire surveys were adopted in the study,and questionnaire measurement was scored by Likert Scale5-level system.(1) In surveyof current smoking situations of Xinjiang college students and survey of their attitudetowards tobacco control and behaviour,8colleges from colleges and universities inXinjiang were sampled randomly, and cluster stochastic sampling was used, to sample3434students in total as the study object on the basis of100from freshman, sophomore,junior and senior college students.(2) Taking the students from Xinjinag MedicalUniversity as subject for building smoke-free campus, carry out smoke-free campuscampaign.(3) For study of the curriculum and public health capacity building for tobaccocontrol, six colleges were selected, with two from Xinjiang and four from inland China.Of the six colleges, total six classes were selected randomly on the basis of one classfrom each of sophomore and junior majoring in public health of the six colleges. Theselected six classes were then classified into the intervention group and the control group.Results:1. Survey on college students’ current smoking situation (1) In this survey total3670questionnaires were released and3537questionnaires were recovered, with3434questionnaires valid, making questionnaire effective rate of97%.(2) Smoking ratedifference between male and female college students has statistical significance (P＜0.001), showing smoking rate of male college students is higher than that of female collegestudents; college students from different ethnic groups have different smoking rate, thedifference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); college students of different majorshave smoking rate different, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); collegestudents of different grades have smoking rate different, the higher the grade, the higherthe smoking rate, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); college studentsthinking different health status have completely different smoking rate, and the differencehas statistical significance (P＜0.05); college students with more classes cut have highersmoking rate, the difference between number of class cut and college students’ smokingrate has statistical significance (P＜0.001); among college students, the more the disputeswith others, the higher the smoking rate, the difference between college students’ disputesand the smoking rate has statistical significance (P＜0.001); the difference betweencollege students’ failures in examination and the smoking rate in recent half a year hasstatistical significance (P＜0.001); the more a college student got drunk, the higher hissmoking rate would be, the difference between number of being drunk of a collegestudent and the smoking rate has statistical significance (P＜0.001); college students’monthly consumption level and smoking situations have statistical significance (P＜0.001); the difference between college students’ time to fall asleep and the sleep hoursand the smoking situations has statistical significance (P＜0.001).(3) In this survey,totaling551students admitted their state in smoking, at the rate of5.56±5.12(cigarettes)per student per day on average; of the smoking551students, those generally purchasingcigarettes at the price lower than five yuan per pack account for20.8%, those at the priceof5-10yuan per pack for60.7%, those at the price of10-15for12%, those at the priceover15yuan for6.5%; those purchasing cigarettes by cartons account for11.3%, thoseby packs for79.3%, those wanting cigarettes from others account for6.4%, those beingoffered cigarettes for3.1%; of smokers, those thinking they have addicted themselves tosmoking account for37.6%, those thinking they have not addicted themselves to smokingfor41.6%, those unsure account for20.9%; of smokers, those often smoking indoorsaccount for59.9%, those often smoking outdoors for40.1%.(4) Of the college studentsnot smoking, to the question “you don’t smoke at present. But if you do works of diseasecontrol in the future, will you smokeâ€, those answering "surely not" account for78.2%,those answering "maybe not" for10.3%, those answering "maybe will" for9.6%, andthose answering "surely will" for1.9%; Of the college students not smoking, to thequestion “you don’t smoke at present. But if your best friend offers one to you, will you smokeâ€, those answering "surely not" account for78.9%, those answering "maybe not"for9.4%, those answering "maybe will" for9.9%, those answering "surely will" for1.7%;(5) Single-factor logistic regression analysis shows that sex, ethnic groups, mother’seducational level, average monthly consumption level, health status, time to fall asleepand sleep hours, number of being drunk, number of class cut, number of dispute withothers and examination situations are influencing factors for smoking or not; multiplelogistic regression analysis shows that sex, grade, test scores, average monthly expenses,time to fall asleep, sleep hours, cases of being drunk and cases of class cut are factorsinfluencing college students’ smoking.2. Survey on the college students’ attitude andbehaviour toward tobacco control (1) In this survey, most of the college students retainedan approval and active attitude towards tobacco control;(2) Through comparison ofattitudes towards tobacco control of college students of different sexes, different ethnicgroups, different majors and different grades, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); through comparison of attitudes towards tobacco control of college studentswith different health status, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.05); thedifference of college students’ attitude towards tobacco control due to number of class cut,disputes with others and failures in examination in recent half a year has statisticalsignificance (P＜0.001); analysis of many factors influencing attitude towards tobaccocontrol finds that smoking or not, number of being drunk, time to fall asleep, number ofclass cut and sex are all factors influencing attitude towards tobacco control.(3) In termsof having or having not tobacco control class, campus smoke-free activity and attentionto tobacco control among different colleges’ students, the difference has statisticalsignificance (P＜0.001); in terms of having or having not tobacco control class amongdifferent-sex college students, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.05); interms of attention to tobacco control, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of study of tobacco control class by college students from differentethnic groups, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms ofparticipation in campus smoke-free campaign, the difference has no statisticalsignificance; in terms of attention to tobacco control, the difference has statisticalsignificance (P＜0.001); in terms of having tobacco control class, joining campussmoke-free campaign and attention to tobacco control among college students of differentmajors, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of having tobaccocontrol class, joining campus smoke-free campaign and attention to tobacco controlamong college students of different grades, the difference has statistical significance (P＜ 0.001); in terms of attention to tobacco control among college students with differenthealth status, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.05); in terms of havingtobacco control class and attention to tobacco control among college students withdifferent study situations, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.05); in terms ofattention to tobacco control among college students with different smoking situations, thedifference has statistical significance (P＜0.05); in terms of the way of different-sexcollege students treating families’ smoking and treating relatives’ or friends’ smoking, thedifference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of minding surroundingsmoking and the attitude towards smoking in their own dormitory of different-sex collegestudents, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of the way ofdifferent-ethnic-groups college students treating relatives’ or friends’ smoking, thedifference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of minding surroundingsmoking and the measures against smoking in their own dormitory ofdifferent-ethnic-groups college students, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of the way of different-major college students treating families’ smokeand treating relatives’ or friends’ smoking, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of minding surrounding smoking and the measures against smoking attheir home and in their dormitory of different-major college students, the difference hasstatistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of the way of different-grade college studentstreating families’ smoking and treating relatives’ or friends’ smoking, the difference hasstatistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of the way of non-smoking college studentstreating families’ smoking and treating relatives’ or friends’ smoking, the difference hasstatistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of minding surrounding smoking and themeasures against smoking at their home and in their dormitory of smoking andnon-smoking college students, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001).(4)In terms of different-sex, different-ethnic-groups and different-major college students’attitude towards tobacco control activity, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001); in terms of the attitude towards participation in tobacco control of smoking andnon-smoking college students, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001).3.Appraisal on building of tobacco control capacity for public healthy3.1Smoke-freecampus campaign: design the plan of tobacco control advocacy behaviour; establishsmoke-free campus promotion organization in the school, scheme and collect the subjectsand mark of tobacco control advocacy behaviour; make ceremony for starting theprogram to attract Media’s attention; make propaganda trough the campus newspaper, campus magazine, campus networks, campus radio station, student corporation, socialmedia, etc; make wide propaganda in the college, carry out public advocacy campaign oncampus; introduce smoke-free policies and make them implemented.3.2Tobacco controlcurriculum teaching: bring tobacco control teaching into the teaching plan of the college,take16teaching hours, teach students knowledge on smoking harm, methods and skillson abstaining from smoking, tobacco control advocacy theory by school teaching,discussion, debating and lecture, etc. Students are arranged in groups to completesmoke-free campus plan, and each group write a sum-up thesis.3.3Survey on students’tobacco control (1) Smoking rate of college students majoring in public health is7.8%.(2)Different-sex college students majoring in public health have different smoking rate, andthe difference has statistical significance (P＜0.001), different-sex, different-smoking-behaviour college students majoring in public health have different scores on attitudetowards tobacco control advocacy, and the differences have statistical significance (P＜0.001);(3) There is correlation between the smoking behaviour of college studentsmajoring in public health and the factors such as sex, father’s educational level, mother’seducational level, father’s occupation, mother’s occupation and being drunk or not inrecent half a year, and the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.05); father’seducational level, father’s occupation and being drunk or not in recent half a year arenegative factors influencing smoking behaviour of college students majoring in publichealth, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.05); sex, mother’s occupation andmother’s educational level are positive factors influencing smoking behaviour of collegestudents majoring in public health, the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.05).(4)The advocacy behaviour of college students majoring in public health to smokingrelatives and friends influences their advocacy to their smoking families in the samemanner, and the two types of advocacy are remarkably correlated; difference existsbetween individual’s monthly consumption level, attitude towards tobacco controladvocacy, advocacy behaviour to smoking families and students’ tobacco controladvocacy behaviour, having statistical significance; the advocacy behaviour of collegestudents majoring in public health to their smoking families also influences theiradvocacy behaviour to their relatives and friends, and the two types of advocacy areremarkably correlated.(5) In terms of the attitude towards FCTC’s key measures fortobacco control, the intervention-group students’ supporting rate for tobacco control inpublic place, marking Smoking Harms Your Health on cigarette pack and lifting cigaretteprice goes higher; in terms of attitude towards banning tobacco ads, the intervention group shows decreasing supporting rate.(6) In terms of college students majoring inpublic health from three colleges in the control group, their scores on attitude towardsFCTC’s key measures for tobacco control and on the attitude in the second measurementare slightly higher than that of the first measurement, but the difference between thescores on attitude towards tobacco control as specified in the first measurement and thesecond measurement has no statistical significance (P＞0.05).(7) Within-group effectvariance was used for analysis and check, finding the difference in scores on threemeasurements of attitude towards tobacco control in the northern College A in theintervention group has statistical significance (P＜0.05); within-group multiplecomparison shows that: score on attitude towards tobacco control of the interventiongroup in the third measurement is remarkably higher than that in the first measurement (P＜0.05); within-group effect variance was used for analysis and check, finding that thedifference in scores on attitude towards tobacco control in the southeast College A in theintervention group has statistical significance (P＜0.05); within-group multiplecomparison shows that: score on the attitude in the second measurement of theintervention group is remarkably higher than that in the first measurement (P＜0.05),score on the attitude in the the third measurement of the intervention group is remarkablyhigher than that in the first measurement (P＜0.05); within-group effect variance wasused for analysis and check, finding that the difference in scores on attitude towardstobacco control of Xinjiang Medical University in the intervention group has statisticalsignificance (P＜0.05); within-group multiple comparison shows that: score on theattitude in the third measurement of the intervention group is higher than that in thesecond (P＜0.05).(8) In terms of smoke-free advocacy activity in the medical school, theintervention-group students and the control-group students presented different-levelincrease of the supporting rate in attitude towards implementing smoke-free measures incampus, attitude towards setting a good example in saying no to smoking, and attitudetowards prohibiting students from smoking.(9) Within-group effect variance was usedfor analysis and check, finding that the difference in scores on attitude towards thecollege’s smoke-free advocacy activity in the northern College A of the interventiongroup has statistical significance (P＜0.05); within-group multiple comparison showsthat: score on the attitude in the third measurement of the intervention group isremarkably higher than that in the first measurement (P＜0.05), and score on the attitudein the third measurement of the intervention group is higher than that in the secondmeasurement (P＜0.05); within-group effect variance was used for analysis and check, finding that the difference in score on attitude towards college smoke-free advocacyactivity of students in southeast College A of the intervention group has statisticalsignificance (P＜0.05); within-group multiple comparison shows that: score on theattitude in second measurement of the the intervention group is higher than that in thefirst measurement (P＜0.05); within-group effect variance was used for analysis andcheck, finding that the difference in score on attitude towards campus smoke-freeadvocacy activity of students in Xinjiang Medical University in the intervention grouphas statistical significance (P＜0.05); within-group multiple comparison shows that:score on the attitude in the third measurement of the intervention group is higher than thatin the second measurement (P＜0.05).(10) within-group effect variance was used foranalysis and check, finding that the difference in three-times scores on attitude towardscampus tobacco control of students in northern College A of the intervention group hasstatistical significance (P＜0.05); within-group multiple comparison shows that: score onthe attitude in the third measurement of the intervention group is remarkably higher thanthat in the first measurement (P＜0.05); within-group effect variance was used foranalysis and check, finding that the difference in three-times scores on attitude towardscampus tobacco control of students in southeast College A of the intervention group hasstatistical significance (P＜0.05); within-group multiple comparison shows that: score onthe attitude in the second measurement of the intervention group is remarkably higherthan that in the first measurement (P＜0.05), score on attitude in the third measurement isremarkably higher than that in the first measurement (P＜0.05); within-group effectvariance was used for analysis and check, finding that the difference in three-times scoreson attitude towards campus tobacco control of students in Xinjiang Medical University ofthe intervention group has statistical significance (P＜0.05), within-group multiplecomparison shows that: score on attitude in the third measurement is higher than that inthe first measurement (P＜0.05), score on attitude in the third measurement is higher thanthat in the first measurement (P＜0.05).(11) The difference between the results of thefirst, second and third measurement by students of Xinjiang Medical University of theirsmoking relatives or friends has statistical significance (P＜0.05); the results from threemeasurements by college students majoring in public health in the intervention group oftheir attitude towards advocacy to their smoking relatives or friends are not fully equal,so the difference has statistical significance (P＜0.05). Conclusions:1.(1) This surveyfinds that smoking rate of male college students is clearly higher than that of femalecollege students. Of college students in Xinjiang, smoking situations were compared on the basis of different sex, different ethnic groups, different majors, different grade,different health status, different study situations, different habits and differentconsumption level, from which all the differences have statistical significance (P＜0.001);(2) Analysis of single factor of the factors influencing college students’ smoking findsthat correlation exists between college students’ smoking and eight factors, namely sex,ethnic groups, mother’s educational level, average monthly expenses, sleep hours andtime to fall asleep, number of being drunk, disputes with others and failure inexamination.(3) Multiple logistic regression method was used to explore relevant factorsinfluencing college students’ smoking, finding the results that correlation exists betweenstudents’ smoking and the factors such as sex, grade, average monthly expenses, sleephours and time to fall asleep, number of being drunk, number of class cutting, and failurein examination or not, and all the differences concerned have statistical significance.2.(1)76.4%of college students agreed with tobacco control in public places and marking“Smoking Harms Your Health†on cigarette pack;82.8%of college students agreed withprohibiting tobacco ads;67.0%of college students approved university to refuse anycharity and subsidies to research from tobacco industry;60.6%of college students agreedwith lifting cigarette price;86.3%of college students agreed with implementation ofsmoke-free measures in campus;84.7%of college students agreed with setting a goodexample in saying no to smoking.86.3%of college students agreed with prohibitingstudents from smoking.(2) Single factor variance analysis method was adopted, findingthat attitude towards tobacco control by college students of different sex, different ethnicgroups, different major and different grade has statistical significance comparatively (P＜0.001). Attitude towards tobacco control by different-health-status college students hasstatistical significance comparatively (P＜0.05). Attitude towards tobacco control bycollege students of class cutting, disputes with others or failure in examination hasstatistical significance comparatively (P＜0.001).(3) Analysis of multiple factorsinfluencing attitude towards tobacco control finds that smoking or not, number of beingdrunk, time to fall asleep, number of class cut and sex are all factors influencing attitudetowards tobacco control.(4) This study finds that of the8colleges or universities,352students had tobacco control class, accounting for10.25%of the students;482studentsparticipated in campus smoke-free activity, accounting for14.04%;2570college studentspaid attention to tobacco control, accounting for74.84%, of which2195students paidattention to tobacco control occasionally,372often and845never, accounting for24.61%. The difference in the way treating surrounding smoking by college students of different sex, different ethnic groups, different major, different grade and differentsmoking situations has statistical significance (P＜0.001).(5) The difference in the wishand interest in participating in tobacco control activities of college students of differentsex, different ethnic groups, different major and different smoking situations hasstatistical significance (P＜0.001).3.3.1Found and carry out smoke-free campaignunder the theory of advocacy including policy advocacy and the public advocacy, whichproved that it is feasible the mode of intervention on tobacco control in colleges.3.2Offerstudents majoring in public health tobacco control curriculum, which proved it is feasiblethat promote the students’ capacity on tobacco control advocacy in three aspectsincluding theory, knowledge and skill.3.3(1) Single factor analysis finds that two factorsof sex and smoking behaviour are correlated with students’ attitude towards tobaccocontrol advocacy; multi-factor analysis finds that correlation exists between students’smoking behaviour and six factors, namely sex, mother’s educational level, father’seducational level, father’s occupation, mother’s occupation and number of being drunk.(2)Advocacy of students majoring in public health to smoking relatives and friends caninfluence their advocacy to the smoking families in the same manner, and the two typesof advocacy are strikingly correlated; correlation exists between students’ tobacco controladvocacy behaviour and the factors such as individual’s monthly consumption level,attitude towards tobacco control advocacy behaviour and advocacy among smokingfamilies.(3) Attitude of the students majoring in public health of the intervention grouptowards FCTC’s key measures for tobacco control and towards smoke-free advocacyactivity in the medical school develops in positive direction, and clear change has takenplace in tobacco control advocacy behaviour.(4) Results of this study show that “theproject of building advocacy capacity for tobacco control among the public healthworkforce in China†is feasible and effective. |
PDF Full Text Request