BACKGROUND: This article describes one outcome of a randomized controlled trial of community action for cancer prevention. The aims of this article were to (a) explore the effectiveness of a community action program in decreasing community smoking rates in rural Australian towns and (b) describe the relationship between adult smoking quit and uptake rates and demographic variables. METHODS:In 1992, 20 towns were selected for randomization. Community action involved formation of community committees and utilization of access point networks to initiate and maintain intervention strategies. At post-test, outcomes were proportion of "quitters" from a cohort of self-described smokers, proportion of "uptakers" from a cohort of self-described nonsmokers, and "net effect." RESULTS: Differences in quit rate, uptake rate, and net effect for intervention compared to control condition favored the intervention in all cases, although mainly nonsignificant. Significantly more male smokers quit in intervention towns than in control towns [7.0% (95% CI: 0.6, 13.5)]. CONCLUSIONS: Given that CART utilized and improved upon strategies argued as effective in the literature, the limited success of the project in reducing adult smoking, considered in combination with COMMIT findings, suggests the need for further innovation in the field. Copyright American Health Foundation and Academic Press.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This article describes one outcome of a randomized controlled trial of community action for cancer prevention. The aims of this article were to (a) explore the effectiveness of a community action program in decreasing community smoking rates in rural Australian towns and (b) describe the relationship between adult smoking quit and uptake rates and demographic variables. METHODS: In 1992, 20 towns were selected for randomization. Community action involved formation of community committees and utilization of access point networks to initiate and maintain intervention strategies. At post-test, outcomes were proportion of "quitters" from a cohort of self-described smokers, proportion of "uptakers" from a cohort of self-described nonsmokers, and "net effect." RESULTS: Differences in quit rate, uptake rate, and net effect for intervention compared to control condition favored the intervention in all cases, although mainly nonsignificant. Significantly more male smokers quit in intervention towns than in control towns [7.0% (95% CI: 0.6, 13.5)]. CONCLUSIONS: Given that CART utilized and improved upon strategies argued as effective in the literature, the limited success of the project in reducing adult smoking, considered in combination with COMMIT findings, suggests the need for further innovation in the field. Copyright American Health Foundation and Academic Press.
Authors: Nancy E Schoenberg; Christina R Studts; Brent J Shelton; Meng Liu; Richard Clayton; Jordan Baeker Bispo; Nell Fields; Mark Dignan; Thomas Cooper Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2016-04-02