# Male Youth Tobacco Usage Pattern in Banned Smoking Area in Comparison With Non-banned Smoking Area: A Cross-Sectional Study

## TL;DR

This study compares smoking behavior among male youth in Saudi Arabia in schools with and without smoking bans, finding lower smoking rates in banned areas.

## Contribution

The study provides empirical evidence on the effectiveness of school smoking bans in reducing youth smoking prevalence and influencing anti-smoking attitudes.

## Key findings

- Smoking prevalence was significantly lower in schools with smoking bans compared to those without.
- Students in banned areas were more resolute in refusing cigarettes and had greater awareness of smoking's harms.
- Banned areas reported fewer cigarette brand items and higher exposure to anti-smoking messages.

## Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the impact of smoking bans in schools on smoking prevalence and behavior among Saudi male youth aged 13-15 years.

Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted involving students from two intermediate schools in Jeddah - one with a smoking ban and the other without. Data collection utilized the Global Youth Tobacco Survey questionnaire, and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0.

Results: The study had a 93.9% response rate, with 659 students participating. Notably, a lower percentage of ever-smoking was observed in the banned area compared to the non-banned area (39.6% vs. 50.9%; p=0.002). Current smoking rates were also lower in the banned area (14.2% vs. 23.8%; p=0.014). Family and peer influences on smoking were reduced in the banned area, and more students discussed the harmful effects of smoking with family (72.8% vs. 59.8%; p=0.003). Students in the non-banned area found it easier to access cigarettes. A significantly higher percentage of students in the banned area were resolute in not smoking if offered a cigarette by their best friend (65.0% vs. 59.2%; p=0.006). Students in the non-banned area reported higher exposure to cigarette smoke at home and in other places compared to those in the banned area (15.8% vs. 10.8%; p=0.008), respectively. A higher percentage of smokers in the banned area expressed a desire to quit smoking, though the difference was not statistically significant. More anti-smoking media messages were reported in the banned area (35.6% vs. 33.6%; p=0.004). Fewer respondents in the banned area had items with cigarette brand logos (13.6% vs. 19.9%; p=0.03).

Conclusion: The findings underscore the effectiveness of smoking bans in schools in reducing smoking prevalence among students. This suggests a broader societal shift in attitudes toward smoking, highlighting the need for comprehensive bans as part of public health strategies. However, there remains a need for targeted interventions to address the complexities of smoking behavior in both banned and non-banned areas.