Which factors play a role in Dutch health promotion professionals’ decision to recruit actively primary schools to use a web-based smoking prevention programme?

BMC Research Notes

Hein de Vries²  Math Candel¹  Liesbeth Mercken²  Anke Oenema²  Henricus-Paul Cremers² 

[1] Department of Methodology and Statistics, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands;Department of Health Promotion, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands

关键词: Primary school;    Smoking prevention;    Decision-making;    Recruitment;   

Others  :  1140598
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-6-504

 received in 2013-03-11, accepted in 2013-11-23,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Municipal Health Promotion Organisations (MHPOs) play an important role in promoting and disseminating prevention programmes, such as smoking prevention programmes, in schools. This study identifies factors that may facilitate or hinder MHPOs’ willingness to recruit actively primary schools to use a smoking prevention programme.

Methods

In 2011, 31 Dutch MHPOs were invited to recruit schools to use a smoking prevention programme. All MHPO employees involved in smoking prevention activities (n = 68) were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing psychological factors and characteristics of their organisation that might affect their decision to be involved in active recruitment of schools. T-tests and multivariate analysis of variance assessed potential differences in psychological and organisational factors between active and non-active recruiters.

Results

A total of 45 professionals returned the questionnaire (66.2%). Active recruiters (n = 12) had more positive attitudes (p = 0.02), higher self-efficacy expectations (p < 0.01) and formulated more plans (p < 0.01) to recruit primary schools, compared with non-active recruiters. Organisational factors did not discriminate between active and non-active recruiters.

Conclusions

Primarily psychological factors seem to be associated with MHPOs’ decision to recruit schools actively. This indicates that creating more positive attitude, self-efficacy beliefs and formation of plans may help in getting more MHPOs involved in active recruitment procedures.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Cremers et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Warren CW, Jones NR, Peruga A, Chauvin J, Baptiste JP, Costa de Silva V, el Awa F, Tsouros A, Rahman K, Fishburn B, Bettcher DW, Asma S: Global youth tobacco surveillance, 2000–2007. MMWR Surveill Summ 2008, 57(1):1-28.
• [2]Eaton DK, Kann L, Kinchen S, Shanklin S, Ross J, Hawkins J, Harris WA, Lowry R, McManus T, Chyen D, Lim C, Brener ND, Wechsler H: Youth risk behavior surveillance–United States, 2007. MMWR Surveill Summ 2008, 57(4):1-131.
• [3]STIVORO: Smoking, the firm facts: Youth 2011 (Roken, de harde feiten: Jeugd 2011). Den Haag: Dutch Foundation on Smoking and Health; 2011.
• [4]Crone MR, Spruijt R, Dijkstra NS, Willemsen MC, Paulussen TG: Does a smoking prevention program in elementary schools prepare children for secondary school? Prev Med 2011, 52(1):53-59.
• [5]Hirschman RS, Leventhal H, Glynn K: The development of smoking behavior: Conceptualization and supportive cross-sectional survey data. J Appl Soc Psychol 1984, 14(3):184-206.
• [6]Paul SL, Blizzard L, Patton GC, Dwyer T, Venn A: Parental smoking and smoking experimentation in childhood increase the risk of being a smoker 20 years later: the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health Study. Addiction 2008, 103(5):846-853.
• [7]Ausems M, Mesters I, van Breukelen G, de Vries H: Short-term effects of a randomized computer-based out-of-school smoking prevention trial aimed at elementary schoolchildren. Prev Med 2002, 34(6):581-589.
• [8]Massey CJ, Dino GA, Horn KA, Lacey-McCracken A, Goldcamp J, Kalsekar I: Recruitment barriers and successes of the American Lung Association’s Not-On-Tobacco Program. J School Health 2003, 73(2):58-63.
• [9]De Jongh D, Blokdijk L, Leurs M: School Health Promotion and Prevention in The Netherlands. Vilnius: Health Promoting Schools Conference; 2009.
• [10]van Assema P, Brug J, Glanz K, Dolders M, Mudde A: Nationwide implementation of guided supermarket tours in The Netherlands: a dissemination study. Health Educ Res 1998, 13(4):557-566.
• [11]Boot NMWM, van Assema P, Hesdahl B, de Vries NK: Professional assistance in implementing school health policies. Health Educ 2010, 110(4):294-308.
• [12]Boot NMWM, van Assema P, Hesdahl B, Leurs M, de Vries NK: Health promotion and secondary education: marriage of convenience or true love? (Gezondheidsbevordering en voortgezet onderwijs: verstandshuwelijk of echte liefde?). J Health Sci (Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen) 2010, 88:135-143.
• [13]Boot NMWM, De Jongh D, Leurs M, de Vries NK: The healthy school as a methode for MHPOs with the introduction of health policy (De gezonde school als methode voor GGD’en bij de invoering van gezondheidsbeleid). J Health Sci (Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen) 2011, 89(4):222-228.
• [14]Owen N, Glanz K, Sallis JF, Kelder SH: Evidence-based approaches to dissemination and diffusion of physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med 2006, 31(4 Suppl):S35-S44.
• [15]Castle N: Innovation in nursing homes: which facilities are the early adopters? Gerontologist 2001, 41(2):161-172.
• [16]Moch M, Morse E: Size, centralization and organizational adoption of innovations. Am Sociol Rev 1977, 42(5):716-725.
• [17]Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York, NY: Free Press; 2003.
• [18]Koopman P, Pool J: Decision making in organizations. In Key Reviews in Manageral Psychology: Concepts and Research for Practice. Edited by Cooper CL, Robertson IT. Chichester: Wiley; 1994.
• [19]Willemsen MC, Meijer A, Jannink M: Applying a contingency model of strategic decision making to the implementation of smoking bans: a case study. Health Educ Res 1999, 14(4):519-531.
• [20]Segaar D, Bolman C, Willemsen M, de Vries H: Determinants of adoption of cognitive behavioral interventions in a hospital setting: example of a minimal-contact smoking cessation intervention for cardiology wards. Patient Educ Couns 2006, 61(2):262-271.
• [21]Segaar D, Bolman C, Willemsen M, de Vries H: Identifying determinants of protocol adoption by midwives: a comprehensive approach. Health Educ Res 2007, 22(1):14-26.
• [22]Pool J, Koopman P: Strategic decision making on organizations: a research model and some initial findings. In Organizational Change and Innovation: Psychological Perspectives and Practices in Europe. Edited by Hosking DM, Anderson N. London: Routledge; 1992.
• [23]de Vries H, Kremers SP, Smeets T, Brug J, Eijmael K: The effectiveness of tailored feedback and action plans in an intervention addressing multiple health behaviors. Am J Health Promot 2008, 22(6):417-425.
• [24]Cremers HP, Mercken L, Oenema A, de Vries H: A web-based computer-tailored smoking prevention programme for primary school children: intervention design and study protocol. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:277. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Vacha-Haase T, Thompson B: How to estimate and interpret various effect sizes. J Couns Psychol 2004, 51(4):473-481.
• [26]Davison AC, Hinkley DV: Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
• [27]Canty AJ, Ripley B: boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package version 1.3-4.   2012,  : .
• [28]Aarons GA: Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Ment Health Serv Res 2004, 6(2):61-74.
• [29]Aarons GA: Measuring provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice: consideration of organizational context and individual differences. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 2005, 14(2):255-271.
• [30]Orlandi MA: The diffusion and adoption of worksite health promotion innovations: an analysis of barriers. Prev Med 1986, 15(5):522-536.
• [31]Parcel G, Eriksen M, Lovato C, Gottlieb N, Brink S, Green L: The diffusion of school-based tobacco use prevention programs: project description and baseline data. Health Educ Res 1989, 4(1):111-124.
• [32]Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82(4):581-629.
• [33]Glisson C: The organizational context of children’s mental health services. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 2002, 5(4):233-253.
• [34]Rogers EM: Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addict Behav 2002, 27(6):989-993.
• [35]Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T: Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: literature review and Delphi study. Int J Qual Health Care 2004, 16(2):107-123.