Sean Semple1, Stephen Turner2, Rachel O'Donnell3, Lynn Adams4, Tracy Henderson4, Shirley Mitchell4, Susan Lyttle4, Amanda Amos5. 1. Institute for Social Marketing, Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom. Electronic address: sean.semple@stir.ac.uk. 2. Respiratory Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom. 3. RCO Consulting, 1 Thorters Place, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. 4. Tobacco Control, NHS Lanarkshire, Hamilton, Scotland, United Kingdom. 5. Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if low-cost air-quality monitors providing personalised feedback of household second-hand smoke (SHS) concentrations plus standard health service advice on SHS were more effective than standard advice in helping parents protect their child from SHS. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial of a personalised intervention delivered to disadvantaged mothers who were exposed to SHS at home. Changes in household concentrations of fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) were the primary outcome. METHODS: Air-quality monitors measured household PM2.5 concentrations over approximately 6 days at baseline and at one-month and six-months post-intervention. Data on smoking and smoking-rules were gathered. Participants were randomised to either Group A (standard health service advice on SHS) or Group B (standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback). Group B participants received personalised air-quality feedback after the baseline measurement and at 1-month. Both groups received air-quality feedback at 6-months. RESULTS:120 mothers were recruited of whom 117 were randomised. Follow up was completed after 1-month in 102 and at 6-months in 78 participants. There was no statistically significant reduction in PM2.5 concentrations by either intervention type at 1-month or 6-months, nor significant differences between the two groups at 1-month (p = 0.76) and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Neither standard advice nor standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback were effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations in deprived households where smoking occurred. Finding ways of identifying homes where air-quality feedback can be a useful tool to change household smoking behaviour is important to ensure resources are targeted successfully.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine if low-cost air-quality monitors providing personalised feedback of household second-hand smoke (SHS) concentrations plus standard health service advice on SHS were more effective than standard advice in helping parents protect their child from SHS. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial of a personalised intervention delivered to disadvantaged mothers who were exposed to SHS at home. Changes in household concentrations of fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) were the primary outcome. METHODS: Air-quality monitors measured household PM2.5 concentrations over approximately 6 days at baseline and at one-month and six-months post-intervention. Data on smoking and smoking-rules were gathered. Participants were randomised to either Group A (standard health service advice on SHS) or Group B (standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback). Group B participants received personalised air-quality feedback after the baseline measurement and at 1-month. Both groups received air-quality feedback at 6-months. RESULTS: 120 mothers were recruited of whom 117 were randomised. Follow up was completed after 1-month in 102 and at 6-months in 78 participants. There was no statistically significant reduction in PM2.5 concentrations by either intervention type at 1-month or 6-months, nor significant differences between the two groups at 1-month (p = 0.76) and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Neither standard advice nor standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback were effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations in deprived households where smoking occurred. Finding ways of identifying homes where air-quality feedback can be a useful tool to change household smoking behaviour is important to ensure resources are targeted successfully.
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: Vincent Berardi; Georgiana Bostean; Lydia Q Ong; Britney S Wong; Bradley N Collins; Melbourne F Hovell Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2021-11-27
Authors: Vincent Berardi; Bradley N Collins; Laura M Glynn; Stephen J Lepore; E Melinda Mahabee-Gittens; Karen M Wilson; Melbourne F Hovell Journal: Tob Prev Cessat Date: 2022-06-22