The role of deans in implementing smoke-free campus policies: the case of medical schools in France.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1186/s12913-025-12415-3
Diane Geindreau, Anne Girault, Karine Gallopel-Morvan
{"title":"The role of deans in implementing smoke-free campus policies: the case of medical schools in France.","authors":"Diane Geindreau, Anne Girault, Karine Gallopel-Morvan","doi":"10.1186/s12913-025-12415-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Smoke-free campus (SFC) policies prohibit smoking and vaping on all university grounds and for all users. The literature on SFC shows that these policies reduce exposure to secondhand smoke and increase smoking cessation. Engagement from high-level leaders has been proven to be a key determinant in the SFC implementation process, but their attitudes toward SFC has rarely been investigated, and only in the USA. The aim of this research is to analyze deans' perceptions of SFC in medical schools in France, where smoking prevalence remains high despite broad awareness of the harms of tobacco.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used semi-structured interviews to explore medical school deans' perceptions of SFC implementation in France. Between October 2022 and January 2024, we interviewed 31 deans and two associate-deans, representing 31 out of the 35 medical schools in mainland France. Interviews were transcribed and the results were thematically analyzed using Nvivo 14, mobilizing the \"individuals domain\" from the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One school had a SFC policy, 6 were in the SFC implementation process, 23 had no SFC policy, and 1 had abandoned it. A majority of deans were unaware that a SFC goes beyond a smoking ban. However, 28 deans held a net-positive perception of SFC, arguing that it is a coherent multi-modal intervention and is effective in reducing smoking. However, SFC were also perceived as stigmatizing smokers and displacing the problem rather than solving it. Perceived barriers to SFC implementation were competing priorities, lack of funding, and opposition from smokers. Perceived facilitators of SFC implementation were access to existing resources, support from medical students, and natural legitimacy of medical schools. Deans felt they had a leadership role to play in initiating, promoting, and enforcing the SFC policy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SFC are poorly developed in medical schools in France, mostly because medical school deans prioritize other issues over smoking prevention and are under-aware of the benefits of SFC policy. However, they hold a net-positive opinion on SFC policy and express a willingness to implement it. We provide a set of practical strategies to help remove the main barriers to SFC implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"316"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11863392/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12415-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Smoke-free campus (SFC) policies prohibit smoking and vaping on all university grounds and for all users. The literature on SFC shows that these policies reduce exposure to secondhand smoke and increase smoking cessation. Engagement from high-level leaders has been proven to be a key determinant in the SFC implementation process, but their attitudes toward SFC has rarely been investigated, and only in the USA. The aim of this research is to analyze deans' perceptions of SFC in medical schools in France, where smoking prevalence remains high despite broad awareness of the harms of tobacco.

Methods: We used semi-structured interviews to explore medical school deans' perceptions of SFC implementation in France. Between October 2022 and January 2024, we interviewed 31 deans and two associate-deans, representing 31 out of the 35 medical schools in mainland France. Interviews were transcribed and the results were thematically analyzed using Nvivo 14, mobilizing the "individuals domain" from the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Results: One school had a SFC policy, 6 were in the SFC implementation process, 23 had no SFC policy, and 1 had abandoned it. A majority of deans were unaware that a SFC goes beyond a smoking ban. However, 28 deans held a net-positive perception of SFC, arguing that it is a coherent multi-modal intervention and is effective in reducing smoking. However, SFC were also perceived as stigmatizing smokers and displacing the problem rather than solving it. Perceived barriers to SFC implementation were competing priorities, lack of funding, and opposition from smokers. Perceived facilitators of SFC implementation were access to existing resources, support from medical students, and natural legitimacy of medical schools. Deans felt they had a leadership role to play in initiating, promoting, and enforcing the SFC policy.

Conclusions: SFC are poorly developed in medical schools in France, mostly because medical school deans prioritize other issues over smoking prevention and are under-aware of the benefits of SFC policy. However, they hold a net-positive opinion on SFC policy and express a willingness to implement it. We provide a set of practical strategies to help remove the main barriers to SFC implementation.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
院长在实施无烟校园政策中的作用:以法国医学院为例。
背景:无烟校园(SFC)政策禁止在所有大学场地和所有使用者吸烟和电子烟。关于SFC的文献表明,这些政策减少了二手烟暴露并增加了戒烟。高层领导的参与已被证明是SFC实施过程中的关键决定因素,但他们对SFC的态度很少被调查,而且只有在美国。本研究的目的是分析法国医学院院长对SFC的看法,尽管人们普遍意识到烟草的危害,但法国的吸烟率仍然很高。方法:我们采用半结构化访谈来探讨法国医学院院长对SFC实施的看法。在2022年10月至2024年1月期间,我们采访了31位院长和两位副院长,代表了法国大陆35所医学院中的31所。对访谈进行转录,并使用Nvivo 14对结果进行主题分析,从更新的实施研究统一框架中调动“个人域”。结果:1所学校制定了SFC政策,6所学校正在实施SFC政策,23所学校没有SFC政策,1所学校已经放弃SFC政策。大多数院长都没有意识到,SFC的作用不仅仅是禁止吸烟。然而,28位院长对SFC持正面看法,认为这是一种连贯的多模式干预措施,对减少吸烟有效。然而,SFC也被认为是对吸烟者的侮辱,取代了问题,而不是解决问题。实施SFC的障碍包括优先事项的竞争、资金的缺乏和吸烟者的反对。认为促进SFC实施的因素包括获得现有资源、医科学生的支持以及医学院的自然合法性。院长们认为,他们在发起、推广和执行证监会政策方面可以发挥领导作用。结论:SFC在法国的医学院发展较差,主要是因为医学院院长优先考虑其他问题而不是预防吸烟,并且对SFC政策的好处认识不足。然而,他们对证监会的政策持正面看法,并表示愿意实施该政策。我们提供了一套实用的策略来帮助消除SFC实施的主要障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Exploring cross-city hospital visiting trips for medical service evaluation in urban agglomeration areas based on automobile navigation data. The geographic digital divide among dementia caregivers in the U.S.: a cross-sectional study. Moral injury in a VUCA healthcare environment: ethical complexities and professional challenges for medical teams. Modification of Hospitalization Risk by Gender and Dementia Status Between the Ages of 85 and 95 in a German Cohort Based on Health Claims Data. Ten-year healthcare utilization patterns among patients with type 2 diabetes and degenerative spinal disorders: a nationwide comparative analysis using nationwide sample.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1