Question
• Define and describe the health behavior you are focusing on.( Smoking Among College students in California). In addition to a clear presentation of a specific health behavior, you should also describe the adverse consequences of this behavior in a defined population group. Particular attention should be paid to any particular conditions or disparities the behavior is associated with your chosen population.
• Select and rationalize the most appropriate health behavior theory from this course that explains the existence and/or persistence of this health behavior in the population-of-interest. Once you have defended your choice of theory, you should detail the various components of the health behavior that correspond with the major elements (e.g. theory essence statement, framework, constructs) of your chosen theory. In other words, you should provide a direct link between the factors that influence/contribute to/cause the behavior to occur with the key aspects of the theory.
• Once you have synthesized the theory with the behavior, you should recommend a specific strategy to change the adverse behavior (this could be suggesting a way to change a negative behavior to a positive one OR articulating a way that affected individuals cease engaging in risky behaviors; it really depends on the behavior you have chosen to focus on). This section should NOT come from outside research but rather a thoughtful and critical analysis that stems from your understanding of the theory you have chosen. In other words, you should not simply summarize recommendations that have been created by other health professionals or researchers.
• 1,500 or more
• Minimum of 5 references
Solution
Smoking among College Students in California
Smoking is a common habit across all ages in the population. Reports by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). Unfortunately, research shows that nearly all adult smokers develop the habit during their college life. For instance, prior studies conducted among college students in California revealed that the University of California and California State University campuses exhibited smoking rates of 10% and 14%, respectively (Fallin, Roditis & Glantz, 2015). Smoking in college can interfere with students’ performance and, to a larger extent, affect their physical health; thus, the construct of protection motivation theory should be the basis of developing strategies to discourage smoking in this population.
Adverse Consequences of Smoking
Smoking habits among college students pose a significant threat to their health. As observed by Halperin et al. (2010), growing evidence suggests that occasional smokers, such as college students, experience higher health risks. Some of these risks include, early onset of heart disease, shortness of breath, increased risks of lung cancer, lower level of lung function than non-smokers, and reduced rate of lung growth, which eventually leads to respiratory problems (“Tobacco Free Initiative,” n.d.). The habit may also interfere with students’ physical fitness. As suggested by WHO, smoking hurts young people’s performance and endurance (“Tobacco Free Initiative,” n.d.). For instance, college students who smoke may experience difficulties in completing physical exercises, such as competitive running. While some of these effects are short-term, they may deteriorate as individuals continue to smoke.
Apart from being a health hazard, smoking can also interfere with students’ academic performance. As hypothesized by Pennanen, Haukkala, Vries, and Vartiainen (2011), poor academic achievement is strongly related to the vice. Other studies also suggest that smoking reduces students’ attentiveness, cognitive, and memory functions, making it difficult for them to remember information (Kawafha, 2014). Due to the loss in memory functions associated with smoking, students may begin to experience a significant decline in their grades, which may worsen upon the onset of addiction. However, some studies report a negative correlation between smoking and academic performance. For instance, research conducted by Olagoke, Bamisile, and Owoyale (2015) in Cyprus International University revealed that majority of the smoking population in the college did not experience a loss of concentration in their academics. Contrary, the non-smoking students in the study registered a loss of concentration (Olagoke, Bamisile & Owoyale, 2015). The discrepancies between the two studies call for further research to ascertain whether there exists a strong correlation between poor academic performance and smoking among college students.
The Disparity of Smoking among College Students in California
Compared to other states in the United States, smoking among college students is lower in California. According to a study conducted by Fallin, Roditis, and Glantz (2015), only 10% to 14% of students in the state had been exposed to smoking within 30 days during their research. The reduction in rates of smoking in California colleges can be attributed to the introduction of Campus tobacco policies that define colleges and universities as smoke-free zones. Since the implementation of the policies, several colleges in California have experienced a significant decline in the cases of exposure to secondhand smoking and change in behavior of students who smoke.
Health Behavior Theory
The health behavior theory that best explains smoking among college students in California is the social ecological model. The model “recognizes individuals as embedded within larger social systems which, describe the interactive characteristics of individuals and environments that underlie health outcomes” (Golden & Earp, 2012, p.364). In other words, the model is based on the underlying assumptions that there exist several factors in the environment that influence certain behaviors, such as smoking and alcohol consumption. In addition, the model is appropriate in describing how environmental factors influence the disparity in smoking among college students in California.
Unlike other health behavior theories, the social ecological model lacks concepts that explain behavior. Instead, the constructs are replaced by five levels that influence health behavior. The first stage of the model is intrapersonal level elements, which are considered to be the foundation for explaining health behavior and a basis for related promotion interventions (Joanna, 2017). In this level, various components are created to influence health behaviors, including knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions. In the context of smoking, age can be considered a significant item that influences the habit. As observed by the California Youth Advocacy Network (2018), the young adult years (18-25) are a critical time in the development of tobacco addiction. Perhaps the onset of the behavior at this age could be attributed to influence by peers and exposure to an environment where smoking appears normal. Therefore, interpersonal factors, such as age, may explain why a significant fraction of the students involved in the study by Fallin, Roditis, and Glantz (2015) indulged in smoking.
The next set of factors that influence smoking in the social ecological model occur at the intrapersonal level. According to scholars, external factors such as the relationship that people have with relatives, friends, and peers influence their health behavior (Joanna, 2017). The same scenario applies to smoking in California-based colleges, whereby the existing tobacco-free policies limit the number of students who smoke on college premises. As a result, students are less exposed to peers who smoke, an aspect that reduces their chances of developing the habit. The phenomenon is evident from studies conducted by Fallin, Roditis, and Glantz (2015), which revealed that only 3% of students on tobacco-free campuses reported intentions to smoke in the next six months on campus compared with 9% to 12% on colleges with less comprehensive policies. The results from this study suggest that students in California-based colleges that have specific tobacco policies are less likely to smoke compared to their counterparts.
Institutional level factors also play a significant role in shaping the disparity of smoking among college students in California. As studies suggest, factors at the institutional or organizational level, such as rules, regulations, and policies of informal structures, can promote or constrain behavior. Over the past few years, colleges in California have been adopting 100% smoke-free policies that prohibit the use of tobacco products on college premises. By Spring 2008 and 2018, it is estimated that 5% and 59% of public colleges and universities in California were 100% smoke-free, respectively (California Youth Advocacy Network, 2018). The existence of the institutional policies can be attributed to the considerable decline in the rate of smoking among college students in the state. For instance, studies conducted among 1,309 college students in California revealed a substantial decrease in exposure to secondhand smoke and smoking cases on campus premises, from 81% to 38%, and 95% to 55%, respectively (Fallin, Roditis & Glantz, 2015). Findings from this study indicate that institutional-level factors, such as the tobacco-free policies constrain smoking among students on college premises.
The fourth level of social ecological model, community level, also has a significant influence on the reduced rate of smoking among college students in California. As literature suggests, social networks, norms, and standards of behavior that exist formally or informally among individuals are associated with specific behavior, some health-enhancing, and others do not (Joanna, 2017). For instance, community health initiatives are likely to contribute to a significant reduction in health issues such as smoking and alcoholism, which is a common scenario in California. For ages, the state has been on the frontline to promote programs that support tobacco cessation and change in community norms associated with tobacco use. An example is the CA Tobacco-Control Program that fosters an environment truly-free of tobacco (California Department of Public Health, n.d.). The existence of such initiatives in California may account for the significant decline in smoking among college students in the state compared to others that lack community-level actions that discourage the vice.
Recommendations
Despite the existence of community and institutional level factors that discourage tobacco use, a significant proportion of students continue to indulge in the practice. As is evident from research conducted by Fallin, Roditis, and Glantz (2015), the University of California and California State University campuses exhibited smoking rates of 10% and 14%, respectively, despite the implementation of tobacco-free policies in the premises. Notably, while institutional policies may help reduce the rate of smoking on college grounds, students may still indulge in smoking offsite and after leaving tobacco-free colleges. Therefore, a more strategic solution that helps to discourage the habit may be essential.
One the best strategies to help change smoking habits among college students in California would be enlightening the population about the life-threatening outcomes of the practice. The approach is based on the constructs of protection motivation theory, which suggests that fear can cause people to take protective action against a threat (Joanna, 2017). For instance, creating awareness about the long-term effects of smoking, such as risks of early onset of heart disease, increased risks of lung cancer, and respiratory problems, can help instill fear among students. Arguably, many would fear the idea of developing heart problems and lung cancer at an early stage. Inflicting fear among students would consequently motivate them to take protective actions, such as refraining from smoking or gradually reducing their smoking rate to avoid the threats associated with the practice.
Summary
Fallin, A., Roditis, M., & Glantz, S.A. (2015). Association of campus tobacco policies with secondhand smoke exposure, intentions to smoke on campus, and attitudes about outdoor smoking restrictions. American Journal of Public Health, 105(6), 1098-1100. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302251
In their article, Fallin, Roditis, and Glantz summarize findings of a survey conducted among 1,309 college students at institutions with tobacco-free policies in California. The scholars discovered that colleges with comprehensive tobacco-free policies had a lower rate of secondhand exposure to smoking and on-campus cases of tobacco use. Findings from the research also show that there is significant reduction in student’s intentions to smoke on campus, following the institution of the policies.
Olagoke, O.A., Bamisile, O., & Owoyale, O. (2015). Academic performance and cigarette smoke: Cyprus International University. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 6(6), 1777-1780. Retrieved from https://www.citefactor.org/journal/pdf/ACADEMIC-PERFORMANCE-AND-THE-MENACE-OF-CIGARETTE-SMOKE-CYPRUS-INTERNATIONAL-UNIVERSITY.pdf
In their study, Olagoke, Bamisile, and Owoyale explore the correlation between academic performance and cigarette smoking in college. The researchers issued questionnaires to both smokers and non-smokers in the area of study to elucidate the possible effects of smoking on students. Findings from the research revealed a lack of significant relationship between smoking and the level of concentration among students who smoked. On the other hand, non-smoking students argued that the practice led to the loss of concentration and other effects, such as irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.
References
California Department of Public Health (N.d.). “California tobacco control program” Retrieved from https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/Pages/CaliforniaTobaccoControlBranch.aspx
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (N.d.). Smoking and tobacco use. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/index.htm
“Tobacco free initiative (TFI)” (N.d.). World Health Organization. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/tobacco/control/populations/youth_health_effects/en/
California Youth Advocacy Network (2018). California College and University Smoke/tobacco-free Policy Report Card. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from https://www.ucop.edu/risk-services/_files/smoke-free/ca-tobacco-free-college-report-card-2018.pdf
Fallin, A., Roditis, M., & Glantz, S.A. (2015). Association of campus tobacco policies with secondhand smoke exposure, intentions to smoke on campus, and attitudes about outdoor smoking restrictions. American Journal of Public Health, 105(6), 1098-1100. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302251
Golden, S.D., & Earp, J.A. (2012). Social ecological approaches to individuals and their contexts: twenty years of health education and behavior health promotion interventions. Health Education and Behavior, 39(3), 364-372. doiI: 10.1177/1090198111418634
Halperin, A.C., Smith, S.S., Heiligenstein, E., Brown, D., & Fleming, M. (2010). Cigarette smoking and associated health risks among students at five universities. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 12(2), 96-104. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntp182
Joanna, H. (2017). Introduction to health behavior theory. Burlington, Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Kawafha, M. (2014). Factors affecting smoking and predictors of academic achievement among primary school children in Jordan. American Journal of Health Sciences, 5(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajhs.v5i1.8616
Olagoke, O.A., Bamisile, O., & Owoyale, O. (2015). Academic performance and cigarette smoke: Cyprus International University. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 6(6), 1777-1780. Retrieved from https://www.citefactor.org/journal/pdf/ACADEMIC-PERFORMANCE-AND-THE-MENACE-OF-CIGARETTE-SMOKE-CYPRUS-INTERNATIONAL-UNIVERSITY.pdf
Pennanen, M., Haukkala, A., Vries, H.D., & Vartiainen, E. (2011). Academic achievement and smoking: Is self-efficacy an important factor in understanding social inequalities in Finnish adolescents? Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 39(7), 714-722. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1403494811420484