Community-Based Tobacco Smoking Cessation Programmes Among Adolescents in Sarawak: Lesson Learned from Process Evaluation
Abstract
Introduction: This study evaluated the effectiveness of community-based quit-smoking interventions using the 5A’s and 3A’s modules.
Methods: The study was conducted between 2020 and 2021 in Samarahan and Asajaya District, Sarawak, Malaysia. The study included 519 participants out of 600 individuals, and both facilitators and observers evaluated the process. The process evaluation assessed various components: fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, reach, satisfaction, context, justification for intervention withdrawal, facilitator influence on sessions, and intervention feedback.
Results: The study found that most facilitators executed more than 85% of both session modules, achieving at least 75% of the objectives. Most participants of both sessions were positively and actively engaged and would recommend intervention to others. The participants reported positive feedback. However, 26.3% of participants withdrew from the second session due to inconvenient timing. The observer’s fidelity evaluations of both intervention sessions were fully implemented according to plans, achieving over 75% of their objectives. Observers acknowledged active and engaged participants during both intervention sessions and regarded all facilitators as appropriate and positive toward participants. The process evaluation showed that the interventions were administered well, and smoking adolescents demonstrated a willingness to quit smoking due to the outcomes of this intervention.
Conclusion: The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of community-based interventions for quitting smoking and highlight the importance of evaluating the process of interventions to understand their relationship with outcomes. The study’s results can inform the development and implementation of future interventions to reduce smoking incidence among adolescents.
References
Mackay J, Erikson M, Ross H. The tobacco atlas. New York, NY: The American Cancer Society. Inc; 2013
Gowing LR, Ali RL, Allsop S, Marsden J, Turf EE, West R, et al. Global statistics on addictive behaviours: 2014 status report. Addiction. 2015;110(6):904-19.https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12899
Yahya NA, Saub R, Md Nor M. A randomized control trial of smoking cessation interventions conducted by dentists. Sains Malaysiana. 2018;47(1):131-40
Abildgaard JS, Saksvik P, Nielsen K. How to Measure the Intervention Process? An Assessment of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Data Collection in the Process Evaluation of Organizational Interventions. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1380.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01380
World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2011: warning about the dangers of tobacco: Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.
Lim KH, Teh CH, Pan S, Ling MY, Yusoff MFM, Ghazali SM, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with smoking among adults in Malaysia: Findings from the National Health and Morbidity Survey (NHMS) 2015. Tob Induc Dis. 2018;16:01.https://doi.org/10.18332/tid/82190
Arrazola RA, Ahluwalia IB, Pun E, de Quevedo IG, Babb S, Armour BS. Current tobacco smoking and desire to quit smoking among students aged 13–15 years—global youth tobacco survey, 61 countries, 2012–2015. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2017;66(20):533
World Health Organization. Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) Indonesia Report, 2014. New Delhi: WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2015 2015.
Aris T, Abd Ghani A, MF MY, Robert T, Tee G, NH MH, et al. Tobacco & E-cigarette Survey Among Malaysian Adolescent (TECMA) 2016. 2016
West R. Tobacco smoking: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychol Health. 2017;32(8):1018-36.https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2017.1325890
Papadakis S, Vaiopoulou J, Kalogiannakis M, Stamovlasis D. Developing and exploring an evaluation tool for educational apps (ETEA) targeting kindergarten children. Sustainability. 2020;12(10):4201
NCSCT. Stop Smoking Service Client Satisfaction Questionnaire. England and Wales: National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training,; 2021.
Bteddini D, Afifi R, Haddad P, Jbara L, Alaouie H, Al Aridi L, et al. Process evaluation and challenges of implementation of a school-based waterpipe tobacco smoking prevention program for teens in Lebanon. Tob Prev Cessat. 2017;3:11.https://doi.org/10.18332/tpc/70087
Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6(2):134-47.https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839904273387
Darker CD, Burke E, Castello S, O’Sullivan K, O’Connell N, Vance J, et al. A process evaluation of ‘We Can Quit’: a community-based smoking cessation intervention targeting women from areas of socio-disadvantage in Ireland. BMC public health. 2022;22(1):1528.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13957-5
European Union. The use of the 5 & 3A's protocol 2022 [Available from: https://smokingcessationtraining.com/contents/use-5-3-protocol-smoking-cessation/.
Hassandra M, Zourbanos N, Kofou G, Gourgoulianis K, Theodorakis Y. Process and outcome evaluation of the “No more smoking! It's time for physical activity” program. Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2013;2(4):242-8.https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2013.06.001
Utap MS, Tan C, Su AT. Effectiveness of a brief intervention for smoking cessation using the 5A model with self-help materials and using self-help materials alone: A randomised controlled trial. Malays Fam Physician. 2019;14(2):2-9
Wee LH, West R, Tee GH, Yeap L, Chan CMH, Ho BK, et al. Effectiveness of training stop-smoking advisers to deliver cessation support to the UK national proposed standard versus usual care in Malaysia: a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2021;116(8):2150-61.https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15346
Krebs P, Norcross J, Nicholson J, Prochaska J. Stages of Change. 2019. p. 296-328.https://doi.org/10.1093/med-psych/9780190843960.003.0010
Limbani F, Goudge J, Joshi R, Maar MA, Miranda JJ, Oldenburg B, et al. Process evaluation in the field: Global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries. BMC public health. 2019;19(1):953.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7261-8
Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. The Implementation Research Logic Model: A method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implementation Science. 2020;15(1):84.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01041-8
Kneale D, Thomas J, Harris K. Developing and Optimising the Use of Logic Models in Systematic Reviews: Exploring Practice and Good Practice in the Use of Programme Theory in Reviews. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0142187-e.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142187
Parsons J, Gokey C, Thornton M. Indicators of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts in security and justice programming. Vera Institute of Justice. 2013
Mowbray CT, Holter MC, Teague GB, Bybee D. Fidelity Criteria: Development, Measurement, and Validation. The American Journal of Evaluation. 2003;24(3):315-40.https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(03)00057-2
Rowbotham S, Conte K, Hawe P. Variation in the operationalisation of dose in implementation of health promotion interventions: insights and recommendations from a scoping review. Implementation Science. 2019;14(1):56.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0899-x
Binnie J, Boden Z. Non-attendance at psychological therapy appointments. Mental Health Review Journal. 2016;21(3):231-48.https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-12-2015-0038
IBM SPSS. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. 28 ed. Armonk, New York, USA: IBM SPSS; 2021
Nam CS, Ross A, Ruggiero C, Ferguson M, Mui Y, Lee BY, et al. Process Evaluation and Lessons Learned From Engaging Local Policymakers in the B'More Healthy Communities for Kids Trial. Health Educ Behav. 2019;46(1):15-23.https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198118778323
Haynes A, Brennan S, Redman S, Williamson A, Gallego G, Butow P. Figuring out fidelity: a worked example of the methods used to identify, critique and revise the essential elements of a contextualised intervention in health policy agencies. Implement Sci. 2016;11:23.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0378-6
Åvitsland A, Ohna SE, Dyrstad SM, Tjomsland HE, Lerum Ø, Leibinger E. The process evaluation of a school-based physical activity intervention: Influencing factors and potential consequences of implementation. Health Education. 2020;120(2):121-39.https://doi.org/10.1108/HE-01-2020-0004
Puschel K, Thompson B, Coronado G, Huang Y, Gonzalez L, Rivera S. Effectiveness of a brief intervention based on the '5A' model for smoking cessation at the primary care level in Santiago, Chile. Health promotion international. 2008;23(3):240-50.https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dan010
Tesema AA, Reta EY, Seid SS. Knowledge on Active Participation in Classroom among Nursing and Midwifery Students. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn). 2020;14(3):352-61
Holla N, Brantley E, Ku L. Physicians' Recommendations to Medicaid Patients About Tobacco Cessation. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(6):762-9.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.07.013
Office of United States Public Health Service. Interventions for Smoking Cessation and Treatments for Nicotine Dependence. Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General [Internet]. 2020
Bee Kiau H, Nor Azlin A, Wong Yi Wah E, Zarihah MZ, Rasimah I, Salmah N, et al. Training Module for Health Care Providers Management in quit smoking programme. 1 ed: Bahagian Pembangunan Kesihatan Keluarga; 2015 2015. 146 p
Margolis KA, Bernat JK, Keely O’Brien E, Delahanty JC. Online Information About Harmful Tobacco Constituents: A Content Analysis. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2017;19(10):1209-15.https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntw220
Dawood OT, Rashan MA, Hassali MA, Saleem F. Knowledge and perception about health risks of cigarette smoking among Iraqi smokers. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2016;8(2):146-51.https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.171738
Leshargie CT, Alebel A, Kibret GD, Birhanu MY, Mulugeta H, Malloy P, et al. The impact of peer pressure on cigarette smoking among high school and university students in Ethiopia: A systemic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0222572.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222572
Mena JA, Ampadu GG, Prochaska JO. The Influence of Engagement and Satisfaction on Smoking Cessation Interventions: A Qualitative Study. Subst Use Misuse. 2017;52(3):322-31.https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2016.1225765
Ministry of Health Malaysia. Clinical practice guidelines on treatment of tobacco use disorder. Kuala Lumpur: Tobacco Control Unit & FCTC Secretariat Non-Communicable Disease Section Disease Control Division 2016. Contract No.: MOH/P/PAK/331.16(GU)
Nowak M, Papiernik M, Mikulska A, Czarkowska-Paczek B. Smoking, alcohol consumption, and illicit substances use among adolescents in Poland. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2018;13(1):42.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-018-0179-9
Sealock T, Sharma S. Smoking Cessation: StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL); 2018 2021.
Kim DJ, Kim SJ. Impact of nearby smoking on adolescent smoking behavior in Korea. Medicine. 2018;97(45):e13125.https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013125
van den Brand FA, Nagtzaam P, Nagelhout GE, Winkens B, van Schayck CP. The Association of Peer Smoking Behavior and Social Support with Quit Success in Employees Who Participated in a Smoking Cessation Intervention at the Workplace. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(16):2831.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162831
Soulakova JN, Tang CY, Leonardo SA, Taliaferro LA. Motivational Benefits of Social Support and Behavioural Interventions for Smoking Cessation. J Smok Cessat. 2018;13(4):216-26.https://doi.org/10.1017/jsc.2017.26
Patten CA, Clinic M, Goggin K, Harris KJ, Richter K, Williams K, et al. Relationship of Autonomy Social Support to Quitting Motivation in Diverse Smokers. Addiction research & theory. 2016;24(6):477-82.https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2016.1170815
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Public Health and Pharmacy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Journal of Public Health and Pharmacy retain the copyright of their work. The journal applies a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), which grants the following rights:
-
Copyright Retention: Authors retain the copyright of their work, maintaining full control over their intellectual property without restrictions.
-
Right of First Publication: Authors grant the journal the right of first publication of their work. This ensures that the work is initially published and credited in Journal of Public Health and Pharmacy.
-
License to Share and Reuse: The work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, allowing others to copy, distribute, remix, and build upon the work for any purpose, even commercially, as long as proper credit is given to the authors, and any new creations are licensed under the same terms.
