Advertisement

Systematic Review of Mentoring to Prevent or Reduce Tobacco Use by Adolescents

      Abstract

      Background

      Surveys conducted 1998 to 2008 (530,849 13- to 15-year-olds, 100 countries) by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found increased tobacco use.

      Objectives

      To conduct a systematic review of mentoring to prevent/reduce youth smoking.

      Data Sources

      Eight electronic peer-reviewed databases and gray literature searched through January 2013.

      Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants, and Interventions

      Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials, included children or adolescents, employed mentoring (consistent companionship, support, guidance to develop youth competence and character), and reported tobacco use.

      Study Appraisal/Synthesis Methods

      Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and full-text studies. Disagreements were resolved through consensus.

      Results

      Four randomized controlled trials were identified. Two studies focused exclusively on tobacco outcomes; the other 2 reported on both drug and tobacco use reductions. Only 1 study reported that mentoring (by peers) reduced adolescent smoking. Heterogeneity of both participants and outcome measures did not permit meta-analysis.

      Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings

      There is limited literature on this topic. Further research achieving sample sizes required by power computations, minimizing attrition, and ascertaining mentoring content and achievements from mentor and mentee perspectives is needed.

      Keywords

      What's New
      This systematic review evaluates the literature on the effectiveness of mentoring to prevent or reduce youth smoking. We identified only 4 randomized controlled trials. Three were underpowered, and only 1 found that mentoring prevented or reduced tobacco use.
      The World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) surveys of the smoking behavior of 530,849 13- to 15-year-olds during 1998–2008 in 6 WHO world regions found lower prevalences (monthly tobacco use) in Southeast Asia, Eastern Mediterranean, and Africa, with 10% to 20% of boys and <10% of girls smoking and higher prevalences in the Americas, the Western Pacific, and Europe, with 10% to 20% of boys and girls smoking and in more countries per region.
      Over the decade, cigarette smoking increased in 27 of 100 survey sites and decreased at 10 sites, and other tobacco products increased at 33 sites and decreased at 13 sites.
      • Warren C.W.
      • Lea V.
      • Lee J.
      • et al.
      Change in tobacco use among 13–15 year olds between 1999 and 2008: findings from the Global Youth Tobacco Survey.
      The highest rates were in poorer Eastern European countries. Tobacco-attributable deaths are expected to increase from 5.4 million in 2005 to 8.3 million in 2030.
      • Mathers C.D.
      • Loncar D.
      Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030.
      Interventions to prevent or reduce youth smoking include programs based in the school, with the family, and in the community, as well as restrictions of tobacco sales. The Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of school interventions to prevent smoking found that for never-smokers (49 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 142,447 youth) for studies with a follow-up of <1 year, intervention curricula compared to no-intervention control groups were not effective in preventing smoking initiation (odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–1.05), although the combined social competence and social influences curricula (6 RCTs) showed a statistically significant effect in preventing smoking (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28–0.87).

      Thomas R, McLellan J. School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(4):CD001293.

      All 36 RCTs with follow-up of >1 year showed an overall significant effect favoring intervention (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82–0.96) as also did the social competence curricula (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30–0.88) and the combined social competence and social influences curricula (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28–0.87). Sensitivity analyses for RCTs at low risk of selection or attrition bias did not change these conclusions.

      Thomas R, McLellan J. School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(4):CD001293.

      There were no differences between tobacco-focused and multifocal interventions. There is no evidence that school not-smoking competitions are effective.
      • Thomas R.E.
      Smoking in children and adolescents.
      A Cochrane review found significantly higher quit rates (8% to 20%) in 3 of 5 studies for the intervention compared to the control after 12 months, but minimal impact on community prevalence rates (<1 in 500 smokers quit), with concern that deception affected results.
      • Cahill K.
      • Perera R.
      Quit and Win contests for smoking cessation.
      The Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of family interventions found 22 RCTs (24 comparisons). Four of the 9 that compared a family intervention to control found significant positive effects, 1 of 5 which compared a family to a school intervention, none of the 7 which added a family to a school intervention, both of those which were used a family risk reduction intervention, and the one that compared a family to a home safety intervention found no effect.
      • Thomas R.E.
      • Baker P.
      • Lorenzetti D.
      Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents.
      There is minimal evidence any community interventions are effective.
      • Thomas R.E.
      Smoking in children and adolescents.
      A Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of interventions with indigenous youth (defined as people who have inhabited a country for thousands of years) found 2 RCTs (1505 youth) but drew no conclusions.
      • Carson K.V.
      • Brinn M.P.
      • Labiszewski N.A.
      • et al.
      Interventions for tobacco use prevention in Indigenous youth.
      Of 9 RCTs to prevent shops selling tobacco to minors, 4 of the 6 that randomized shops and all 3 that randomized communities to the intervention found significant decreases in sales to minors.
      • Thomas R.E.
      Smoking in children and adolescents.
      There are estimates of the cost-effectiveness of interventions in communities, schools, and mentoring to prevent youth smoking. The Communities That Care RCT assessed public health interventions in 24 communities in 7 US states to reduce the prevalence of adolescent behavior and health problems. For students followed from grades 5 through 8, net benefit was estimated at $5250 per youth ($812 from preventing smoking and $4438 from preventing delinquency).
      • Kuklinski M.R.
      • Briney J.S.
      • Hawkins J.D.
      • et al.
      Cost–benefit analysis of communities that care outcomes at eighth grade.
      The PASE smoking prevention program in 80 schools (6700 students) in Barcelona estimated for each student prevented from smoking the health care benefits were €1997.57; indirect benefits (productivity losses) were €21,260.80.
      • Hormigo Amaro J.
      • Garcia-Altes A.
      • Lopez M.J.
      • et al.
      [Cost–benefit analysis of a school-based smoking prevention program].
      Dijkstra et al
      • Dijkstra M.
      • Mesters I.
      • De Vries H.
      • et al.
      Effectiveness of a social influence approach and boosters to smoking prevention.
      in Holland compared a social influences intervention (peer-led discussions in 32 schools) with a control (20 schools). The incremental cost-effectiveness of preventing smoking was estimated as €19,900 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).
      • Vijgen S.M.
      • van Baal P.H.
      • Hoogenveen R.T.
      • et al.
      Cost-effectiveness analyses of health promotion programs: a case study of smoking prevention and cessation among Dutch students.
      In Project Toward No Tobacco Use in 48 Junior High schools in California (6716 7th graders), for 770 who received the combined 2-year social influences curriculum estimated savings preventing established smoking were $13,316 per life-year and $8482 per QALY.
      • Wang L.Y.
      • Crossett L.S.
      • Lowry R.
      • et al.
      Cost-effectiveness of a school-based tobacco-use prevention program.
      The peer mentoring study of Campbell and colleagues
      • Campbell R.
      • Starkey F.
      • Holliday J.
      • et al.
      An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
      • Starkey F.
      • Moore L.
      • Campbell R.
      • et al.
      ASSIST. Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial.
      cost £32 (95% CI 29.70–33.80) per student. The incremental cost per student not smoking after 2 years was £1500 (95% CI 699–9947).
      • Hollingworth W.
      • Cohen D.
      • Hawkins J.
      • et al.
      Reducing smoking in adolescents: cost-effectiveness results from the cluster randomized ASSIST (A Stop Smoking In Schools Trial).
      Costs of implementing proven mentoring interventions would include only organization maintenance and mentors’ expenses.
      Youth who smoke incur a prolonged burden. For those in the United States during 1975–1979 who began smoking in adolescence, the median quitting age for male subjects was 33 years (after 16 years’ smoking) and 37 years for female subjects (after 20 years’ smoking).
      • Pierce J.P.
      • Gilpin E.
      How long will today’s new adolescent smoker be addicted to cigarettes?.
      Sixty percent of US smokers aged 12 to 18 reported quitting attempts. The 1993 Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey reported 18% of 10- to 18-year-old monthly smokers and 74% of daily smokers said that it would be “really hard to quit.”

      CDC. Current Trends Reasons for Tobacco Use and Symptoms of Nicotine Withdrawal Among Adolescent and Young Adult Tobacco Users–United States, 1993. MMWR. October 21, 1994;43(41):745–750.

      There is no systematic review of mentoring to prevent or reduce youth tobacco use. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of mentoring to prevent or reduce youth tobacco use.

      Methods

      Literature Search

      Eight electronic peer reviewed databases (CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Eric, Medline, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts), and ClinicalTrials.gov and the gray literature were searched through January 2013 (Figure 1, Figure 2). Reference lists of included studies were scanned to identify additional studies. Two authors independently assessed abstracts and full texts for inclusion/exclusion criteria.

      Definition of Mentoring

      MENTOR, the National Mentoring Partnership organization, provides the simplest definition of youth mentoring: “A personal relationship in which a caring individual provides consistent companionship, support, and guidance aimed at developing the competence and character of a child or adolescent.”
      • Keller T.E.
      Youth mentoring: theoretical and methodological issues.
      Mentoring may vary in the age difference from the mentor, mentor roles, and intensity of emotional relationship, as well as whether the mentor provides knowledge, coaching, advocacy, friendship, acceptance, and support.
      • Eby L.T.
      • Rhodes J.E.
      • Allen T.D.
      Definition and evolution of mentoring.
      Youth mentoring can also differ in focus on relationships or on instrumental outcomes. Relationship-focused mentoring may be either youth-centered or prescriptive. Youth-centered mentoring emphasizes kindness, nonjudgmental help, and avoidance of criticism/lectures, in hopes that the youth may disclose problems with the mentor. In prescriptive mentoring, the mentor establishes the ground rules and works to change the youth to achieve the mentor’s goals. Techniques may include praise but also pointing out mistakes and showing disappointment. In instrumental mentoring, the mentor challenges the youth to set goals, and the youth may appreciate the help provided to achieve skills, find opportunities, and develop character and social and occupational skills that the mentee values. Each mentorship is likely to be unique.
      • Eby L.T.
      • Rhodes J.E.
      • Allen T.D.
      Definition and evolution of mentoring.
      Youth mentoring differs from teacher–student, advisor–advisee, supervisor–subordinate, and coach–client relationships in organizations because the scope can extend beyond career/academics to social and personal development, and mentoring about drug/alcohol use, delinquency, and abuse and violence. The participants usually show mutuality and informality, mutual goal setting, and limited power difference.
      • Eby L.T.
      • Rhodes J.E.
      • Allen T.D.
      Definition and evolution of mentoring.
      Because youth mentoring relationships can be varied and complex,
      • Morrow K.V.
      • Styles M.B.
      Building Relationships With Youth in Program Settings: A Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters.
      we considered other definitions that attempted to capture these dimensions.
      The definition of Bronfenbrenner et al is cited by Hamilton et al.
      • Hamilton S.F.
      • Hamilton M.A.
      Final Report on a Mentoring Program for Youth.
      as:A mentor is an older, more experienced person who seeks to further the development of character and competence in a younger person by guiding the latter in acquiring mastery of progressively more complex skills and tasks in which the mentor is already proficient. The guidance is accomplished through demonstration, instruction, challenge, and encouragement on a more or less regular basis over an extended period of time. In the course of this process, the mentor and young person develop a special bond of mutual commitment. In addition, the young person’s relationship to the mentor takes on an emotional character of respect, loyalty and identification.
      • Hamilton S.F.
      • Hamilton M.A.
      Final Report on a Mentoring Program for Youth.
      The definition of Eby et al is as follows:A sustained relationship between a caring, supportive adult and youth. . . . In this relationship the adult provides ongoing guidance, instruction, and encouragement aimed at developing the competence and character of the protégé. Over the course of their time together, the mentor and protégé often develop a special bond of mutual commitment, respect, identification, and loyalty which facilitates the youth’s transition into adulthood. . . . A mentor provides guidance and support in various areas of life such as academics, career-planning, and decision-making, and social interactions. Interactions between mentor and youth may revolve around leisure activities, academic assistance, and personal concerns (eg, peer relationships, parental relationships). Mentors can fulfill the role of teacher, role model, friend and ally, and in some cases serve as surrogate parents for youth. . . . Youth mentors can provide both emotional and instrumental support in an effort to help youth effectively navigate through predictable yet difficult developmental transitions.
      • Eby L.T.
      • Rhodes J.E.
      • Allen T.D.
      Definition and evolution of mentoring.
      We found these 2 definitions as too prescriptive for a systematic review, as they could exclude mentoring interventions of interest. Instead, we used the MENTOR organization definition, which we operationalized as part of our search terms resulting in the following key concepts for our literature search: children (age 6 to 12) or adolescents (age 13 to 18), mentor (peer or adult), relationship (consistent, companionship, support and guidance), and tobacco outcome data.
      We planned separate analyses for RCTs that compared an intervention to a control group and those that compared 2 interventions. Because studies of tobacco use by children and adolescents have varying outcome measures (monthly, weekly, or daily frequency; number of cigarettes smoked per period; or an index) we planned to meta-analyze RCTs if participants, interventions, and outcome measures were sufficiently similar to make pooling appropriate, and if heterogeneity as measured by I2 was <50%. If comparable outcome measures were not used, we planned to dichotomize baseline never-users into never/began to use, and smokers into declined/unchanged or increased. We planned to explore clinical heterogeneity (differences in participants, interventions, and outcomes) and methodological heterogeneity (study design and risk of bias) if there were sufficient studies.

      Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

      Two reviewers independently assessed each study. Studies were included if they were RCTs, included children or adolescents, employed mentoring (consistent companionship, support, guidance to develop youth competence and character), and reported tobacco use.
      Studies were excluded if they were counseling, or interventions to improve parent–child relationships. Two reviewers independently evaluated abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. Two authors independently extracted data (using longest follow-up) and assessed study risk of bias using Cochrane Handbook criteria.
      • Higgins J.
      • Green S.
      Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Ver 5.1.0.
      In cases of uncertainty, we contacted study authors for clarification. No review protocol was registered.

      Results

      Literature Search

      We assessed 4227 abstracts and 359 full-text articles, and included 4 RCTs (Fig. 3).

      Description of Included RCTs

      Albrecht et al
      • Albrecht S.A.
      • Caruthers D.
      • Patrick T.
      • et al.
      A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention for pregnant adolescents.
      randomized 143 pregnant smoking adolescents to either the Teen FreshStart program (8 weeks’ cognitive behavioral therapy to promote/maintain smoking abstinence, delivered by doctors or nurse practitioners), or the Teen FreshStart Plus Buddy program (participants brought a nonsmoking peer to “reinforce smoking cessation strategies and provide social support throughout the study”), or the control group (educational materials on smoking in pregnancy). Bartle-Haring et al
      • Bartle-Haring S.
      • Slesnick N.
      • Collins J.
      • et al.
      The utility of mentoring homeless adolescents: a pilot study.
      randomly assigned 90 homeless youth in a US city (of whom 29 were 14 to 18) either to substance abuse treatment plus mentoring or to substance abuse treatment for 6 months. The mentors were asked to help the youth set goals; access Medicaid, housing, and food resources; identify rewarding recreational activities and alternative support systems; and then transition to alternative support systems. Bodin et al
      • Bodin M.
      • Leifman H.
      A randomized effectiveness trial of an adult-to-youth mentoring program in Sweden.
      randomized 128 14-year-olds in 28 schools in suburban Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö to either mentoring by the MENTOR Foundation (pairs chose their own activities) or to the control group (research staff called 6 times a year about the “frequency and perceived quality of contacts with nonparental adults”). The MENTOR Foundation’s purpose is health promotion/drug abuse prevention among young people. Campbell and colleagues, in a cluster randomized controlled trial (C-RCT), randomized schools in England and Wales either to “normal smoking education” (29 schools, 5562 students), or “normal smoking education” plus the 10-week ASSIST peer mentoring (30 schools, 5481 pupils). Students nominated 17.5% of their peers as “respected,” “looked up to,” and “good leaders in sports and other group activities,” and these “influential peers” were trained to “use informal contacts with peers in their school year group to encourage them not to smoke” (Table 1).
      • Campbell R.
      • Starkey F.
      • Holliday J.
      • et al.
      An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
      • Starkey F.
      • Moore L.
      • Campbell R.
      • et al.
      ASSIST. Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial.
      Table 1Description of Included Studies and Results
      StudyStudy ParticipantsDuration and Follow-upIntervention ElementsOutcomes of InterestResults: Intervention(s) Versus Control
      Albrecht
      • Albrecht S.A.
      • Caruthers D.
      • Patrick T.
      • et al.
      A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention for pregnant adolescents.
      2006
      Pregnant smoking adolescents aged 14 to 19 y (n = 143) in 5 hospital in 2 community prenatal clinics in Pittsburgh.Total study duration 8 wk; follow-up at 8 wk and 1 yIntervention 1: Teen FreshStart: cognitive behavioral therapy group program with information on smoking in pregnancy delivered by nurse practitioners and PhD nurses. Intervention 2: Teen FreshStart Plus Buddy: participants brought a nonsmoking peer with them to the program to reinforce smoking cessation strategies and provide social support. Control: usual care: provision of educational materials on smoking in pregnancyCigarettes per day (self-report); smoking history questionnaire; saliva cotinine levelDifference at 8 wk and 1 y between intervention 1, intervention 2, and control: no significant differences
      Bartle-Haring
      • Bartle-Haring S.
      • Slesnick N.
      • Collins J.
      • et al.
      The utility of mentoring homeless adolescents: a pilot study.
      2012
      Homeless adolescents (n = 90) in a US cityTotal study duration 6 mo; 6-mo evaluation at completion of interventionSubstance use treatment and mentoring group: rapport building and goal setting, social stability, reinforcers (recreational activities and support systems). Substance use treatment only group. No control groupTobacco use (tool not specified)E-mail from Dr Bartle-Haring (January 15, 2012): results noted for 28 youth at 6-mo evaluation: “Number of mentoring sessions nonsignificant in predicting the variation in the slopes for drug use, alcohol use, and tobacco use . . . age did not matter for either the intercepts or slopes.”
      Bodin
      • Bodin M.
      • Leifman H.
      A randomized effectiveness trial of an adult-to-youth mentoring program in Sweden.
      2011
      Students (aged 14 y) from 28 schools with self-reported need for additional adult contact in Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö (n = 128)Total study duration 12 mo; average follow-up at completion of intervention: intervention = 396 d, control = 400 dIntervention: mentoring organized by Swedish branch of Mentoring Foundation: pairs chose own activities. Control: research staff conducted 5-min phone calls 6 times over the course of a year to ask about “frequency and perceived quality of contacts with nonparental adults”Tobacco use (tool not specified)12-mo follow-up compared to baseline: intervention compared to control: tobacco user, OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.71–4.24, P = .22
      Campbell
      • Campbell R.
      • Starkey F.
      • Holliday J.
      • et al.
      An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
      2008
      All students in Year 8 (12- to 13-year-olds) from 59 schools in England and Wales. Intervention n = 5562; control n = 5481Total study duration 10 wk; follow-up at completion of intervention, and at 1 y and 2 yIntervention: ASSIST Peer Mentoring Intervention: using trained peer-nominated Year 8 students to provide encouragement not to smoke. Control: usual smoking education and policies for tobacco controlPrevalence of smoking in the past week (self-report). Some saliva samples taken to assess misreportingDifference in smoking: intervention compared to control: at 1-y follow-up: significant difference (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59–0.99); at 2-y follow-up: no significant difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72–1.01). Using a 3-tier multilevel model with data from all 3 follow-ups, significant difference (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64–0.96)

      Risk of Bias

      The studies of Bodin et al and Campbell and colleagues were rated low risk for random sequence generation.
      • Campbell R.
      • Starkey F.
      • Holliday J.
      • et al.
      An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
      • Starkey F.
      • Moore L.
      • Campbell R.
      • et al.
      ASSIST. Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial.
      • Bodin M.
      • Leifman H.
      A randomized effectiveness trial of an adult-to-youth mentoring program in Sweden.
      Only the study of Campbell and colleagues
      • Campbell R.
      • Starkey F.
      • Holliday J.
      • et al.
      An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
      • Starkey F.
      • Moore L.
      • Campbell R.
      • et al.
      ASSIST. Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial.
      was rated low risk on allocation concealment. No study described blinding, and all were rated unclear. No study made a differential analysis of attrition (Bartle-Haring et al
      • Bartle-Haring S.
      • Slesnick N.
      • Collins J.
      • et al.
      The utility of mentoring homeless adolescents: a pilot study.
      was rated high risk and the other 3 as unclear risk). All studies were assessed as low risk for selective reporting and other biases (Fig. 4).

      Outcomes

      Albrecht et al,
      • Albrecht S.A.
      • Caruthers D.
      • Patrick T.
      • et al.
      A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention for pregnant adolescents.
      at 8 weeks and 1 year after randomization, found no significant differences between the Teen FreshStart, the Teen FreshStart Plus Buddy, and the control groups. Bartle-Haring et al
      • Bartle-Haring S.
      • Slesnick N.
      • Collins J.
      • et al.
      The utility of mentoring homeless adolescents: a pilot study.
      found no difference either for the whole sample or the subgroup of 29 14- to 18-year-olds. Bodin et al
      • Bodin M.
      • Leifman H.
      A randomized effectiveness trial of an adult-to-youth mentoring program in Sweden.
      found no significant differences (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.71–4.24; P = .22) of being a “tobacco user” (not further defined) for the intervention compared to the control group at the 12-month follow-up. Campbell and colleagues
      • Campbell R.
      • Starkey F.
      • Holliday J.
      • et al.
      An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
      • Starkey F.
      • Moore L.
      • Campbell R.
      • et al.
      ASSIST. Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial.
      found a significant difference at the 1-year follow-up (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59–0.99) of smoking in the intervention compared to the control group, no significant difference at the 2-year follow up (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72–1.01); and a significant result for a 3-tier multilevel model with data from all 3 follow-ups (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64–0.96) (Table 1).
      Three studies were underpowered.
      • Albrecht S.A.
      • Caruthers D.
      • Patrick T.
      • et al.
      A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention for pregnant adolescents.
      • Bartle-Haring S.
      • Slesnick N.
      • Collins J.
      • et al.
      The utility of mentoring homeless adolescents: a pilot study.
      • Bodin M.
      • Leifman H.
      A randomized effectiveness trial of an adult-to-youth mentoring program in Sweden.
      Albrecht et al
      • Albrecht S.A.
      • Caruthers D.
      • Patrick T.
      • et al.
      A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention for pregnant adolescents.
      estimated 180 participants were required “to detect differences in proportions” (not further specified) with a power of 80% (no alpha level specified) and randomized 143. Bodin et al
      • Bodin M.
      • Leifman H.
      A randomized effectiveness trial of an adult-to-youth mentoring program in Sweden.
      estimated 200 youth would provide power of 0.80 to detect a small effect size difference of 0.10 with an alpha of 0.05, and randomized 128. She commented post hoc that “the study was underpowered with a 60% chance of detecting a small effect size between groups.” Bartle-Haring et al
      • Bartle-Haring S.
      • Slesnick N.
      • Collins J.
      • et al.
      The utility of mentoring homeless adolescents: a pilot study.
      did not perform a power computation, but the 29 subjects in the 14- to 18-year-old group are too few to draw conclusions. Campbell and colleagues
      • Campbell R.
      • Starkey F.
      • Holliday J.
      • et al.
      An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
      • Starkey F.
      • Moore L.
      • Campbell R.
      • et al.
      ASSIST. Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial.
      estimated the study would have 80% power to detect a 4.3% difference in weekly smoking among all students, assuming control group prevalence at 12 months was 15%. With 33 schools per group, the study was powered to detect either a 7.5% or 8.5% difference, depending on loss to follow-up (10% or 15%, respectively), and although “only 59 of 66 schools agreed to randomisation . . . the average size of the year group was much larger than was anticipated.”

      Discussion

      We identified only 4 RCTs that tested mentoring to prevent or reduce tobacco use in children/adolescents, and only 1 reported a positive effect.
      Mentors received training in 3 RCTs. In the study of Bartle-Haring et al,
      • Bartle-Haring S.
      • Slesnick N.
      • Collins J.
      • et al.
      The utility of mentoring homeless adolescents: a pilot study.
      the mentors received 1 day of training and a structured plan. In the study of Bodin et al,
      • Bodin M.
      • Leifman H.
      A randomized effectiveness trial of an adult-to-youth mentoring program in Sweden.
      the mentors received 2 days of training about mentoring principles (empathy, responsiveness, building trust, respect for youth values, active listening, open-ended questioning, goal setting, teenager characteristics) and suggestions for activities, and meetings with parents and mentees. In the study of Campbell and colleagues,
      • Campbell R.
      • Starkey F.
      • Holliday J.
      • et al.
      An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
      • Starkey F.
      • Moore L.
      • Campbell R.
      • et al.
      ASSIST. Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial.
      peer mentors received 2 days of instruction about smoking, communication skills (verbal and nonverbal communication, listening skills, expressing feelings and ideas, group work, team building, cooperation and negotiation, and empathy and sensitivity to others), and personal development (confidence, self-esteem, assertiveness, decision making, prioritizing, attitudes to risk taking, exploration of personal values, and problem solving).
      Limitations of the studies are the failure to achieve desired sample sizes (3 of the included RCTs were underpowered), randomize using strong methods (only Bodin et al
      • Bodin M.
      • Leifman H.
      A randomized effectiveness trial of an adult-to-youth mentoring program in Sweden.
      and Campbell and colleagues
      • Campbell R.
      • Starkey F.
      • Holliday J.
      • et al.
      An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
      • Starkey F.
      • Moore L.
      • Campbell R.
      • et al.
      ASSIST. Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial.
      described a strong method), conceal allocation (only Campbell and colleagues
      • Campbell R.
      • Starkey F.
      • Holliday J.
      • et al.
      An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
      • Starkey F.
      • Moore L.
      • Campbell R.
      • et al.
      ASSIST. Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial.
      concealed allocation), and perform attrition analyses to ensure there are no differential losses from intervention and control groups (no study performed an attrition analysis). However, none selectively reported study results. The adequacy of mentor training was not measured, and mentors and mentees were not debriefed to discover what worked well during mentoring sessions. Campbell and colleagues noted the peer facilitators talked mostly with their friends and other peer facilitators and focused their activity toward the beginning of the intervention.
      For the future of mentoring, one issue is whether there are enough mentors to make mentoring feasible. In a US Midwestern city, 770 first-year high schoolers were surveyed regarding their mentoring relationships. Of those who reported having a mentor, 36% stated their mentors were extended family members, 10% reported mentors from organizations, and 7% identified a godparent as a significant mentor.
      • Zimmerman M.A.
      • Bingenheimer J.B.
      • Notaro P.C.
      Natural mentors and adolescent resiliency: a study with urban youth.
      A 1998 national US telephone survey found that a third of US adults considered that they had mentored a youth.
      • Commonwealth Fund
      Mentoring Makes a Difference: Findings from the Commonwealth Fund 1998 Survey of Adults Mentoring Young People.
      A second issue is whether adolescents are receptive to mentoring. When 965 adolescents in 4 US cities were asked about quitting smoking, 86% of nonsmokers and 33% of smokers agreed very strongly/strongly that it would be helpful to talk to a trusted adult or adolescent about quitting.
      • Patten C.A.
      • Lopez K.
      • Thomas J.L.
      • et al.
      Reported willingness among adolescent nonsmokers to help parents, peers, and others to stop smoking.
      A third issue is the focus of the mentoring relationship in regard to tobacco. A study of 1689 Ontario grade 8 students found 93% of male and 84% of female smokers said their best friend had tried smoking, and 72% male and 83% female smokers had “many” best friends who smoked.
      • van Roosmalen E.H.
      • McDaniel S.A.
      Peer group influence as a factor in smoking behavior of adolescents.
      However, 69% of male and 61% of female nonsmokers said their best friend had not tried smoking, and only 14% male and 20% female nonsmokers had many best friends who smoked.
      • van Roosmalen E.H.
      • McDaniel S.A.
      Peer group influence as a factor in smoking behavior of adolescents.
      A study of 353 junior high school students in Wisconsin found 15% of the sample comprised 56% of the smokers, and smoking behavior was the best discriminator of which of 4 social groups in the school the students affiliated with.
      • Mosbach P.
      • Leventhal H.
      Peer group identification and smoking: implications for intervention.
      A feasible goal for mentors is reflecting on peer influences and with which social groups the mentee associates.
      A fourth issue is how large an effect can be expected from mentoring. A systematic review identified 55 mentoring programs for youth during 1970–1998.
      • DuBois D.L.
      • Holloway B.E.
      • Valentine J.C.
      • et al.
      Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: a meta-analytic review.
      The average standardized (fixed effects) effect size was d = 0.14 (95% CI 0.10–0.18) and random effects, d = 0.18 (95% CI 0.11–0.25). When 48 moderators were tested, effect sizes (fixed effects) were significantly larger for studies with ongoing training of mentors, monitoring of implementation, mentor from a profession, structured activities for mentors (all P < .05), parental support, fewer than 65 youths (both P < .01), and 6 or more theory-based or 4 or more empirically based best practices (both P < .001). However, there were no significant differences in effect sizes between the 5 outcomes of interest: problem/high risk behaviors (d = 0.21), career/employment (d = 0.22), social competence (d = 0.15), academic/educational (d = 0.11), and emotional/psychological (d = 0.10). Within the 15 studies of high-risk behaviors, the results for tobacco were not presented separately.
      Thus, modest effects at best may be expected from mentoring programs that train and monitor mentors and have carefully structured interventions. Further research incorporating adequate sample sizes, minimizing attrition, and reporting on mentoring content and achievements from mentor and mentee perspectives is needed.

      Acknowledgments

      Supported in part by a grant from the Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative .

      References

        • Warren C.W.
        • Lea V.
        • Lee J.
        • et al.
        Change in tobacco use among 13–15 year olds between 1999 and 2008: findings from the Global Youth Tobacco Survey.
        Glob Health Promot. 2009; 16: 38
        • Mathers C.D.
        • Loncar D.
        Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030.
        PLoS Med. 2006; 3: e442
      1. Thomas R, McLellan J. School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(4):CD001293.

        • Thomas R.E.
        Smoking in children and adolescents.
        in: Handbook of Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Psychology. Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ2012: 493-520
        • Cahill K.
        • Perera R.
        Quit and Win contests for smoking cessation.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; : CD004986
        • Thomas R.E.
        • Baker P.
        • Lorenzetti D.
        Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; : CD004493
        • Carson K.V.
        • Brinn M.P.
        • Labiszewski N.A.
        • et al.
        Interventions for tobacco use prevention in Indigenous youth.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; : CD009325
        • Kuklinski M.R.
        • Briney J.S.
        • Hawkins J.D.
        • et al.
        Cost–benefit analysis of communities that care outcomes at eighth grade.
        Prev Sci. 2012; 13: 150-161
        • Hormigo Amaro J.
        • Garcia-Altes A.
        • Lopez M.J.
        • et al.
        [Cost–benefit analysis of a school-based smoking prevention program].
        Gac Sanit. 2009; 23: 311-314
        • Dijkstra M.
        • Mesters I.
        • De Vries H.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of a social influence approach and boosters to smoking prevention.
        Health Educ Res. 1999; 14: 791-802
        • Vijgen S.M.
        • van Baal P.H.
        • Hoogenveen R.T.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness analyses of health promotion programs: a case study of smoking prevention and cessation among Dutch students.
        Health Educ Res. 2008; 23: 310-318
        • Wang L.Y.
        • Crossett L.S.
        • Lowry R.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of a school-based tobacco-use prevention program.
        Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001; 155: 1043-1050
        • Campbell R.
        • Starkey F.
        • Holliday J.
        • et al.
        An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial.
        Lancet. 2008; 371: 1595-1602
        • Starkey F.
        • Moore L.
        • Campbell R.
        • et al.
        ASSIST. Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a school-based peer-led anti-smoking intervention in the UK: the ASSIST cluster randomised trial.
        BMC Public Health. 2005; 5: 43
        • Hollingworth W.
        • Cohen D.
        • Hawkins J.
        • et al.
        Reducing smoking in adolescents: cost-effectiveness results from the cluster randomized ASSIST (A Stop Smoking In Schools Trial).
        Nicotine Tob Res. 2012; 14: 161-168
        • Pierce J.P.
        • Gilpin E.
        How long will today’s new adolescent smoker be addicted to cigarettes?.
        Am J Public Health. 1996; 86: 253-256
      2. CDC. Current Trends Reasons for Tobacco Use and Symptoms of Nicotine Withdrawal Among Adolescent and Young Adult Tobacco Users–United States, 1993. MMWR. October 21, 1994;43(41):745–750.

        • Keller T.E.
        Youth mentoring: theoretical and methodological issues.
        in: Allen T.D. Eby L.T. The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK2007: 23-47
        • Eby L.T.
        • Rhodes J.E.
        • Allen T.D.
        Definition and evolution of mentoring.
        in: Allen T.D. Eby L.T. The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK2007: 7-20
        • Morrow K.V.
        • Styles M.B.
        Building Relationships With Youth in Program Settings: A Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters.
        Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia1995
        • Hamilton S.F.
        • Hamilton M.A.
        Final Report on a Mentoring Program for Youth.
        Cornell University Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Ithaca, NY1990
        • Higgins J.
        • Green S.
        Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Ver 5.1.0.
        Cochrane Collaboration, 2011
        • Albrecht S.A.
        • Caruthers D.
        • Patrick T.
        • et al.
        A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention for pregnant adolescents.
        Nurs Res. 2006; 55: 402-410
        • Bartle-Haring S.
        • Slesnick N.
        • Collins J.
        • et al.
        The utility of mentoring homeless adolescents: a pilot study.
        Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2012; 38: 350-358
        • Bodin M.
        • Leifman H.
        A randomized effectiveness trial of an adult-to-youth mentoring program in Sweden.
        Addict Res Theory. 2011; 19: 438-447
        • Zimmerman M.A.
        • Bingenheimer J.B.
        • Notaro P.C.
        Natural mentors and adolescent resiliency: a study with urban youth.
        Am J Community Psychol. 2002; 30: 221-243
        • Commonwealth Fund
        Mentoring Makes a Difference: Findings from the Commonwealth Fund 1998 Survey of Adults Mentoring Young People.
        Commonwealth Fund, New York, NY1998
        • Patten C.A.
        • Lopez K.
        • Thomas J.L.
        • et al.
        Reported willingness among adolescent nonsmokers to help parents, peers, and others to stop smoking.
        Prev Med. 2004; 39: 1099-1106
        • van Roosmalen E.H.
        • McDaniel S.A.
        Peer group influence as a factor in smoking behavior of adolescents.
        Adolescence. 1989; 24: 801-816
        • Mosbach P.
        • Leventhal H.
        Peer group identification and smoking: implications for intervention.
        J Abnorm Psychol. 1988; 97: 238-245
        • DuBois D.L.
        • Holloway B.E.
        • Valentine J.C.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: a meta-analytic review.
        Am J Community Psychol. 2002; 30: 157-197