The paper “ Evidence-Based Health Promotion Intervention - Smoking Prevention Program” is affecting the variant of a literature review on social science. Initiated as an act of pleasure or ritual, smoking, has in its clutch millions of lives today. Addiction to smoking, among teenagers, has made the situation grim. In a survey by Withers et al. (2000) in the UK, it was noted that among 2289 children aged 14-16 years, 44· 8% admitted to having smoked at some time, 14· 1% were regular smokers and 7· 3% of the total cohort smoked daily.
Considering the above situation, curbing this habit is essential to improve the health and education of teenagers. Health promotion and education play a vital role in addressing such social problems. According to the Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland (2007), Health promotion is a process directed towards enabling people to take action. Thus, health promotion is not something that is done on or to people; it is done by, with and for people either as individuals or as groups. The purpose of this activity is to strengthen the skills and capabilities of individuals to take action and the capacity of groups or communities to act collectively to exert control over the determinants of health and achieve positive change. There are several interventional strategies for addressing adolescent health promotion, school-based health education, parent training and family intervention, community mobilization, social marketing, peer intervention, community-based health education, etc.
(Department of Human Services 2000). According to de Vries et al. (2006), “ Smoking prevention programs using the social influence approach can be effective. Sustaining the effectiveness of smoking prevention studies is, therefore, the most important challenge for current smoking prevention research. ” NEED FOR A SMOKING INTERVENTION PROGRAMMEVarious smoking prevention programs instituted earlier had their own advantages and disadvantages.
School-based health programs have shown good outcomes. Youth recreation programs instituted in the United Kingdom were also successful. van Teijlingen developed, “ The Grampian Smoke busters club” , in 1998 involving 11-14-year-old children in Grampian. After four years of instituting the club, membership in smoke busters did not seem to reduce the smoking prevalence (van Teijlingen 1996). Peer-led teaching methods though promising were found to be inconclusive. In a study by Michell (1997), it was noted that, “ Most 13 years olds and many 11-year-olds have a clear and detailed grasp of their own social map, recognize the pecking order which is established amongst their peers and are aware of the different levels of risk-taking behavior, including smoking, adopted by different peer groups in their school year. ” Peer reputations, coping and self-concept have been the reasons behind smoking habits for many teenage girls.
When a friend smokes a cigarette, it induces curiosity and encourages the teenager to start the habit. The same concept of “ peer-impact” can be counter played to develop a smoking prevention program.
Peer-led programs must be initiated and developed to combat the fierce war against smoking habits in teenagers. According to Lindsey (1997 cited in Mellanby 2000), “ ... friends seek advice from friends and are also influenced by the expectations, attitudes, and behaviors of the groups to which they belong” . Underlying this is a concept that peer influence may be stronger than that of adults such as teachers or ‘ experts’ (Mellanby 2000).