Literature DB >> 30517679

Disseminating a Smoke-free Homes Program to Low Socioeconomic Status Households in the United States Through 2-1-1: Results of a National Impact Evaluation.

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.   

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.
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 30517679      PMCID: PMC7368345          DOI: 10.1093/ntr/nty256

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res        ISSN: 1462-2203            Impact factor:   4.244


  41 in total

1.  Determinants and consequences of smoke-free homes: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey.

Authors:  R Borland; H-H Yong; K M Cummings; A Hyland; S Anderson; G T Fong
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Standards of Evidence for Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Scale-up Research in Prevention Science: Next Generation.

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

3.  The case for funding more intervention research in public health--policy maker and researcher perspectives.

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

4.  Counseling to reduce children's secondhand smoke exposure and help parents quit smoking: a controlled trial.

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

5.  Dual home screening and tailored environmental feedback to reduce radon and secondhand smoke: an exploratory study.

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

6.  Secondhand smoke exposure at home among one billion children in 21 countries: findings from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS).

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

7.  A Minimal Intervention to Promote Smoke-Free Homes among 2-1-1 Callers: North Carolina Randomized Effectiveness Trial.

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

Review 8.  A framework for scaling up health interventions: lessons from large-scale improvement initiatives in Africa.

Authors:  Pierre M Barker; Amy Reid; Marie W Schall
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  Minimal intervention delivered by 2-1-1 information and referral specialists promotes smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers: a Texas generalisation trial.

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

10.  mHealth Intervention is Effective in Creating Smoke-Free Homes for Newborns: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study in China.

Authors:  Shaohua Yu; Zongshuan Duan; Pamela B Redmon; Michael P Eriksen; Jeffrey P Koplan; Cheng Huang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  4 in total

1.  A cross-sectional study of the relationship of proximal smoking environments and cessation history, plans, and self-efficacy among low-income smokers.

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

Review 2.  Expanding Implementation Research to Prevent Chronic Diseases in Community Settings.

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

3.  Stress, depression, sleep problems and unmet social needs: Baseline characteristics of low-income smokers in a randomized cessation trial.

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

4.  Reducing Socioeconomic Disparities in Comprehensive Smoke-Free Rules among Households with Children: A Pilot Intervention Implemented through a National Cancer Program.

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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.