K Siddiqi1, R Sarmad, R A Usmani, A Kanwal, H Thomson, I Cameron. 1. Nuffield Centre for International Health and Development, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, 101 Clarendon Road, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LJ, UK. hssks@leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Second-hand tobacco smoke is a serious health hazard. We tested the fidelity and feasibility of the Smoke-Free Homes (SFH) intervention and looked for preliminary evidence of its effectiveness in imposing smoking restrictions in homes in Pakistan. METHODS: SFH was piloted and adapted for Pakistan. The adapted SFH intervention was then delivered to primary schoolchildren, community leaders and health professionals in a semi-rural Union Council. We carried out a survey before and after the intervention to assess adult smoking behaviour and restrictions at homes. We also carried out focus group discussions with stakeholders to determine the appropriateness and acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: We found the adapted SFH intervention feasible and appropriate in a typical semi-rural setting in Pakistan. The proportion of smoke-free homes increased from 43% (95%CI 37.4-48.2) to 85% (95%CI 80.9-89.2) after the intervention. The number of households with at least one smoker decreased from 57.5% (95%CI 52.1-62.9) to 38.4% (95%CI 32.7-44.1). There was a reduction in self-reported adult smoking prevalence from 44% (95%CI 39-48) to 28% (95%CI 24-33) in males. CONCLUSION: SFH has the potential to influence adult smoking behaviour in households. This approach needs to be further evaluated to establish its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and to ascertain its long-term sustainability.
BACKGROUND: Second-hand tobacco smoke is a serious health hazard. We tested the fidelity and feasibility of the Smoke-Free Homes (SFH) intervention and looked for preliminary evidence of its effectiveness in imposing smoking restrictions in homes in Pakistan. METHODS: SFH was piloted and adapted for Pakistan. The adapted SFH intervention was then delivered to primary schoolchildren, community leaders and health professionals in a semi-rural Union Council. We carried out a survey before and after the intervention to assess adult smoking behaviour and restrictions at homes. We also carried out focus group discussions with stakeholders to determine the appropriateness and acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: We found the adapted SFH intervention feasible and appropriate in a typical semi-rural setting in Pakistan. The proportion of smoke-free homes increased from 43% (95%CI 37.4-48.2) to 85% (95%CI 80.9-89.2) after the intervention. The number of households with at least one smoker decreased from 57.5% (95%CI 52.1-62.9) to 38.4% (95%CI 32.7-44.1). There was a reduction in self-reported adult smoking prevalence from 44% (95%CI 39-48) to 28% (95%CI 24-33) in males. CONCLUSION: SFH has the potential to influence adult smoking behaviour in households. This approach needs to be further evaluated to establish its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and to ascertain its long-term sustainability.