David A Hurtado1, Cassandra A Okechukwu2, Orfeu M Buxton3, Leslie Hammer1, Ginger C Hanson4, Phyllis Moen5, Laura C Klein3, Lisa F Berkman6. 1. Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 2. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, USA. 5. Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 6. Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies have linked work-family issues with cigarette consumption. This study examined the 6-month effects on cigarette consumption of a work-family supportive organisational intervention among nursing home workers. METHODS: Group randomised controlled trial where 30 nursing homes across New England states were randomly assigned to either usual practice or to a 4-month intervention aimed at reducing work-family conflict via increased schedule control and family supportive supervisory behaviours (FSSB). Cigarette consumption was based on self-reported number of cigarettes per week, measured at the individual level. RESULTS: A total of 1524 direct-care workers were enrolled in the trial. Cigarette consumption was prevalent in 30% of the sample, consuming an average of 77 cigarettes/week. Smokers at intervention sites reduced cigarette consumption by 7.12 cigarettes, while no reduction was observed among smokers at usual practice sites (b=-7.12, 95% CI -13.83 to -0.40, p<0.05) (d=-0.15). The majority of smokers were US-born White nursing assistants, and among this subgroup, the reduction in cigarette consumption was stronger (b=-12.77, 95% CI -22.31 to -3.22, p<0.05) (d=-0.27). Although the intervention prevented a decline in FSSB (d=0.08), effects on cigarette consumption were not mediated by FSSB. CONCLUSIONS: Cigarette consumption was reduced among smokers at organisations where a work-family supportive intervention was implemented. This effect, however, was not explained by specific targets of the intervention, but other psychosocial pathways related to the work-family interface. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02050204; results. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Observational studies have linked work-family issues with cigarette consumption. This study examined the 6-month effects on cigarette consumption of a work-family supportive organisational intervention among nursing home workers. METHODS: Group randomised controlled trial where 30 nursing homes across New England states were randomly assigned to either usual practice or to a 4-month intervention aimed at reducing work-family conflict via increased schedule control and family supportive supervisory behaviours (FSSB). Cigarette consumption was based on self-reported number of cigarettes per week, measured at the individual level. RESULTS: A total of 1524 direct-care workers were enrolled in the trial. Cigarette consumption was prevalent in 30% of the sample, consuming an average of 77 cigarettes/week. Smokers at intervention sites reduced cigarette consumption by 7.12 cigarettes, while no reduction was observed among smokers at usual practice sites (b=-7.12, 95% CI -13.83 to -0.40, p<0.05) (d=-0.15). The majority of smokers were US-born White nursing assistants, and among this subgroup, the reduction in cigarette consumption was stronger (b=-12.77, 95% CI -22.31 to -3.22, p<0.05) (d=-0.27). Although the intervention prevented a decline in FSSB (d=0.08), effects on cigarette consumption were not mediated by FSSB. CONCLUSIONS: Cigarette consumption was reduced among smokers at organisations where a work-family supportive intervention was implemented. This effect, however, was not explained by specific targets of the intervention, but other psychosocial pathways related to the work-family interface. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02050204; results. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Celia A Watt; Jill W Lassiter; Jennifer R Boyle; Jessica A Kulak; Deborah Ossip-Klein Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2009-03-28 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Priscila T P Rocco; Isabela M Bensenor; Rosane H Griep; Sandhi M Barreto; Arlinda B Moreno; Airlane P Alencar; Paulo A Lotufo; Itamar S Santos Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 5.501