OBJECTIVE: To develop and test an intervention to reduce children's exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) at homes in Yerevan, Armenia. METHODS: A single-blind, randomized trial in 250 households with 2- to 6-year-old children tested anintensive intervention (counseling sessions, distribution of tailored educational brochures, demonstration of home air pollution, and 2 follow-up counseling telephone calls) against minimal intervention (distribution of standard leaflets). At baseline and 4-month follow-up, researchers conducted biomonitoring (children's hair) and surveys. The study used paired t tests, McNemar's test, and linear and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: After adjusting for baseline hair nicotine concentration, child's age and gender, the follow-up geometric mean (GM) of hair nicotine concentration in the intervention group was 17% lower than in the control group (P = .239). The GM of hair nicotine in the intervention group significantly decreased from 0.30 ng/mg to 0.23 ng/mg (P = .024), unlike in the control group. The follow-up survey revealed an increased proportion of households with smoking restrictions and decreased exposure of children to SHS in both groups. The adjusted odds of children's less-than-daily exposure to SHS at follow-up was 1.87 times higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P = .077). The GM of mothers' knowledge scores at follow-up was 10% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P = .006). CONCLUSIONS:Intensive intervention is effective in decreasing children's exposure to SHS through educating mothers and promoting smoking restrictions at home. However, superiority over minimal intervention to decrease children's exposure was not statistically significant.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test an intervention to reduce children's exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) at homes in Yerevan, Armenia. METHODS: A single-blind, randomized trial in 250 households with 2- to 6-year-old children tested an intensive intervention (counseling sessions, distribution of tailored educational brochures, demonstration of home air pollution, and 2 follow-up counseling telephone calls) against minimal intervention (distribution of standard leaflets). At baseline and 4-month follow-up, researchers conducted biomonitoring (children's hair) and surveys. The study used paired t tests, McNemar's test, and linear and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: After adjusting for baseline hair nicotine concentration, child's age and gender, the follow-up geometric mean (GM) of hair nicotine concentration in the intervention group was 17% lower than in the control group (P = .239). The GM of hair nicotine in the intervention group significantly decreased from 0.30 ng/mg to 0.23 ng/mg (P = .024), unlike in the control group. The follow-up survey revealed an increased proportion of households with smoking restrictions and decreased exposure of children to SHS in both groups. The adjusted odds of children's less-than-daily exposure to SHS at follow-up was 1.87 times higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P = .077). The GM of mothers' knowledge scores at follow-up was 10% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive intervention is effective in decreasing children's exposure to SHS through educating mothers and promoting smoking restrictions at home. However, superiority over minimal intervention to decrease children's exposure was not statistically significant.
Authors: Suzanne C Hughes; John Bellettiere; Benjamin Nguyen; Sandy Liles; Neil E Klepeis; Penelope J E Quintana; Vincent Berardi; Saori Obayashi; Savannah Bradley; C Richard Hofstetter; Melbourne F Hovell Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Melbourne F Hovell; John Bellettiere; Sandy Liles; Benjamin Nguyen; Vincent Berardi; Christine Johnson; Georg E Matt; John Malone; Marie C Boman-Davis; Penelope J E Quintana; Saori Obayashi; Dale Chatfield; Robert Robinson; Elaine J Blumberg; Weg M Ongkeko; Neil E Klepeis; Suzanne C Hughes Journal: Tob Control Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Nicola Brown; Tim Luckett; Patricia M Davidson; Michelle Di Giacomo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sasha G Hutchinson; Gerard van Breukelen; Constant P van Schayck; Brigitte Essers; S Katharine Hammond; Jean W M Muris; Frans J M Feron; Edward Dompeling Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Laura Rosen; David Zucker; Melbourne Hovell; Nili Brown; Amit Ram; Vicki Myers Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Elena Ratschen; Rebecca Thorley; Laura Jones; Magdalena Opazo Breton; Juliette Cook; Ann McNeill; John Britton; Tim Coleman; Sarah Lewis Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 7.552