Łucja T Bundy1, Regine Haardörfer1, Michelle C Kegler1, Shadé Owolabi1, Carla J Berg1, Cam Escoffery1, Tess Thompson2, Patricia Dolan Mullen3, Rebecca Williams4, Mel Hovell5, Tanya Kahl6, Dayanne Harvey7, Adrianne Price8, Donnie House9, Becky W Booker10, Matthew W Kreuter2. 1. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory Prevention Research Center, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 2. George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. 3. School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, TX. 4. Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC. 5. Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health, Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 6. Info Line, Akron, OH. 7. Heart of Florida United Way, Orlando, FL. 8. United Way 2-1-1, Cleveland, OH. 9. Community Service Council, Tulsa, OK. 10. United Ways of Alabama, Montgomery, AL.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Given homes are now a primary source of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in the United States, research-tested interventions that promote smoke-free homes should be evaluated in real-world settings to build the evidence base for dissemination. This study describes outcome evaluation results from a dissemination and implementation study of a research-tested program to increase smoke-free home rules through US 2-1-1 helplines. METHODS: Five 2-1-1 organizations, chosen through a competitive application process, were awarded grants of up to $70 000. 2-1-1 staff recruited participants, delivered the intervention, and evaluated the program. 2-1-1 clients who were recruited into the program allowed smoking in the home, lived in households with both a smoker and a nonsmoker or child, spoke English, and were at least 18 years old. Self-reported outcomes were assessed using a pre-post design, with follow-up at 2 months post baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2345 households (335-605 per 2-1-1 center) were enrolled by 2-1-1 staff. Most participants were female (82%) and smokers (76%), and half were African American (54%). Overall, 40.1% (n = 940) reported creating a full household smoking ban. Among the nonsmoking adults reached at follow-up (n = 389), days of SHS exposure in the past week decreased from 4.9 (SD = 2.52) to 1.2 (SD = 2.20). Among the 1148 smokers reached for follow-up, 211 people quit, an absolute reduction in smoking of 18.4% (p < .0001), with no differences by gender. CONCLUSIONS: Among those reached for 2-month follow-up, the proportion who reported establishing a smoke-free home was comparable to or higher than smoke-free home rates in the prior controlled research studies. IMPLICATIONS: Dissemination of this brief research-tested intervention via a national grants program with support from university staff to five 2-1-1 centers increased home smoking bans, decreased SHS exposure, and increased cessation rates. Although the program delivery capacity demonstrated by these competitively selected 2-1-1s may not generalize to the broader 2-1-1 network in the United States, or social service agencies outside of the United States, partnering with 2-1-1s may be a promising avenue for large-scale dissemination of this smoke-free homes program and other public health programs to low socioeconomic status populations in the United States.
INTRODUCTION: Given homes are now a primary source of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in the United States, research-tested interventions that promote smoke-free homes should be evaluated in real-world settings to build the evidence base for dissemination. This study describes outcome evaluation results from a dissemination and implementation study of a research-tested program to increase smoke-free home rules through US 2-1-1 helplines. METHODS: Five 2-1-1 organizations, chosen through a competitive application process, were awarded grants of up to $70 000. 2-1-1 staff recruited participants, delivered the intervention, and evaluated the program. 2-1-1 clients who were recruited into the program allowed smoking in the home, lived in households with both a smoker and a nonsmoker or child, spoke English, and were at least 18 years old. Self-reported outcomes were assessed using a pre-post design, with follow-up at 2 months post baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2345 households (335-605 per 2-1-1 center) were enrolled by 2-1-1 staff. Most participants were female (82%) and smokers (76%), and half were African American (54%). Overall, 40.1% (n = 940) reported creating a full household smoking ban. Among the nonsmoking adults reached at follow-up (n = 389), days of SHS exposure in the past week decreased from 4.9 (SD = 2.52) to 1.2 (SD = 2.20). Among the 1148 smokers reached for follow-up, 211 people quit, an absolute reduction in smoking of 18.4% (p < .0001), with no differences by gender. CONCLUSIONS: Among those reached for 2-month follow-up, the proportion who reported establishing a smoke-free home was comparable to or higher than smoke-free home rates in the prior controlled research studies. IMPLICATIONS: Dissemination of this brief research-tested intervention via a national grants program with support from university staff to five 2-1-1 centers increased home smoking bans, decreased SHS exposure, and increased cessation rates. Although the program delivery capacity demonstrated by these competitively selected 2-1-1s may not generalize to the broader 2-1-1 network in the United States, or social service agencies outside of the United States, partnering with 2-1-1s may be a promising avenue for large-scale dissemination of this smoke-free homes program and other public health programs to low socioeconomic status populations in the United States.
Authors: Denise C Gottfredson; Thomas D Cook; Frances E M Gardner; Deborah Gorman-Smith; George W Howe; Irwin N Sandler; Kathryn M Zafft Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2015-10
Authors: Andrew J Milat; Lesley King; Chris Rissel; Adrian Bauman; Sally Redman Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2012-11-08 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Melbourne F Hovell; Joy M Zakarian; Georg E Matt; Sandy Liles; Jennifer A Jones; C Richard Hofstetter; Sarah N Larson; Neal L Benowitz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-10-29 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Ellen J Hahn; Mary Kay Rayens; Sarah E Kercsmar; Sarah M Adkins; Ashton Potter Wright; Heather E Robertson; Gwendolyn Rinker Journal: J Environ Health Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.179
Authors: Lazarous Mbulo; Krishna Mohan Palipudi; Linda Andes; Jeremy Morton; Rizwan Bashir; Heba Fouad; Nivo Ramanandraibe; Roberta Caixeta; Rula Cavaco Dias; Trudy M A Wijnhoven; Mina Kashiwabara; Dhirendra N Sinha; Edouard Tursan d'Espaignet Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Rebecca S Williams; Jana H Stollings; Łucja Bundy; Regine Haardörfer; Matthew W Kreuter; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Mel Hovell; Marti Morris; Michelle C Kegler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Patricia Dolan Mullen; Lara S Savas; Łucja T Bundy; Regine Haardörfer; Mel Hovell; Maria E Fernández; Jo Ann A Monroy; Rebecca S Williams; Matthew W Kreuter; David Jobe; Michelle C Kegler Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Rachel Widome; Patrick J Hammett; Anne M Joseph; Diana J Burgess; Janet L Thomas; Jessie E Saul; Barbara Clothier; Steven S Fu Journal: J Smok Cessat Date: 2019-07-22
Authors: Stephanie Mazzucca; Elva M Arredondo; Deanna M Hoelscher; Debra Haire-Joshu; Rachel G Tabak; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Ross C Brownson Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 21.870
Authors: Rachel Garg; Amy McQueen; Christina Roberts; Taylor Butler; Lauren M Grimes; Tess Thompson; Charlene Caburnay; Jennifer Wolff; Irum Javed; Kelly M Carpenter; Jordyn G Wartts; Cindy Charles; Valerie Howard; Matthew W Kreuter Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2021-11-11
Authors: Michael J Parks; Michelle C Kegler; John H Kingsbury; Iris W Borowsky Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.390