Do partial home smoking bans signal progress toward a smoke-free home?

Helping low-income smokers quit: findings from a randomized controlled trial comparing specialized quitline services with and without social needs navigation

Background

Quitting smoking is especially challenging for low-income smokers due to high stress, high smoking prevalence around them, and limited support for quitting. This study aimed to determine whether any of three interventions designed specifically for low-income smokers would be more effective than standard tobacco quitline services: a specialized quitline, the specialized quitline with social needs navigation, or the standard quitline with social needs navigation.

Methods

Using a randomized 2 × 2 factorial design, low-income daily cigarette smokers (n = 1944) in Missouri, USA who called a helpline seeking assistance with food, rent or other social needs were assigned to receive Standard Quitline alone (n = 485), Standard Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (n = 484), Specialized Quitline alone (n = 485), or Specialized Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (n = 490). The target sample size was 2000, 500 per group. The main outcome was 7-day self-reported point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Multiple imputation was used to impute outcomes for those missing data at 6-month follow-up. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to assess differences between study groups.

Findings

Participants were recruited from June 2017 to November 2020; most were African American (1111 [58%]) or White (666 [35%]), female (1396 [72%]), and reported <$10,000 (957 [51%]) or <$20,000 (1529 [82%]) annual pre-tax household income. At 6-month follow-up (58% retention), 101 participants in the Standard Quitline group reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (20.8% of those assigned at baseline, 38.1% after imputation). Quit rates in the Specialized Quitline (90 quitters, 18.6%, 38.1%) and Specialized Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (103 quitters, 21.0%, 39.8%) were not different from the Standard Quitline. Quit rates for Standard Quitline + Social Needs Navigation (74 quitters, 15.3%, 30.1%) were significantly lower than Standard Quitline (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.50-0.98).

Interpretation

A specialized version of a state tobacco quitline was no more effective than standard quitline services in helping low-income smokers quit. Adding social needs navigation to a standard quitline decreased its effectiveness.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03194958.

Funding

National Cancer Institute: R01CA201429.

Tobacco-related risk perceptions, social influences and public smoke-free policies in relation to smoke-free home restrictions: findings from a baseline cross-sectional survey of Armenian and Georgian adults in a community randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

Given high prevalence of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure in Armenia and Georgia and quicker implementation of tobacco legislation in Georgia versus Armenia, we examined correlates of having no/partial versus complete smoke-free home (SFH) restrictions across countries, particularly smoking characteristics, risk perceptions, social influences and public smoking restrictions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey study design.

SETTING

28 communities in Armenia and Georgia surveyed in 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

1456 adults ages 18-64 in Armenia (n=705) and Georgia (n=751).

MEASUREMENTS

We used binary logistic regression to examine aforementioned correlates of no/partial versus complete SFH among non-smokers and smokers in Armenia and Georgia, respectively.

RESULTS

Participants were an average age of 43.35, 60.5% women and 27.3% smokers. In Armenia, among non-smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with being men (OR=2.63, p=0.001) and having more friend smokers (OR=1.23, p=0.002); among smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with being unmarried (OR=10.00, p=0.001), lower quitting importance (OR=0.82, p=0.010) and less favourable smoking attitudes among friends/family/public (OR=0.48, p=0.034). In Georgia, among non-smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with older age (OR=1.04, p=0.002), being men (OR=5.56, p<0.001), lower SHS risk perception (OR=0.43, p<0.001), more friend smokers (OR=1.49, p=0.002) and fewer workplace (indoor) restrictions (OR=0.51, p=0.026); among smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with being men (OR=50.00, p<0.001), without children (OR=5.88, p<0.001), daily smoking (OR=4.30, p=0.050), lower quitting confidence (OR=0.81, p=0.004), more friend smokers (OR=1.62, p=0.038) and fewer community restrictions (OR=0.68, p=0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Private settings continue to lack smoking restrictions in Armenia and Georgia. Findings highlight the importance of social influences and comprehensive tobacco legislation, particularly smoke-free policies, in changing household smoking restrictions and behaviours.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03447912.

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

BACKGROUND

Low-income Americans smoke cigarettes at higher rates and quit less than other groups.

METHODS

To increase their engagement in and success using evidence-based cessation methods, we tested two interventions using a 2x2 randomized factorial design: (1) telephone navigation to reduce financial strain and address social needs such as food, rent and utility payment; and (2) a specialized tobacco quitline designed for low-income smokers. From June 2017 to November 2020, we enrolled 1,944 low-income smokers in Missouri, USA, recruited through the Missouri 2-1-1 helpline, into the trial. This paper describes recruitment, key characteristics and life circumstances of this high-risk population.

RESULTS

After eligibility screening, 1,944 participants completed baseline and were randomized. Participants were racially diverse (58% African American), poor (51% < $10,000 annual pre-tax household income) and many reported less than high school education (30%). They reported a mean of 2.5 unmet social needs, especially childcare and paying bills, had high rates of stress, depressive symptoms and sleep problems, and most were in fair or poor health. There were few differences between these variables, and no differences between tobacco use and cessation variables, across the four study groups and between participants recruited pre and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial recruitment through the 2-1-1 helpline is feasible for reaching a population of low-income smokers. Low-income smokers face myriad daily challenges beyond quitting smoking. Cessation interventions need to account for and address these life circumstances.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03194958.

Changing Exposure Perceptions: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Intervention with Smoking Parents

Children who live with smokers are at risk of poor health, and of becoming smokers themselves. Misperceptions of the nature of tobacco smoke exposure have been demonstrated among parents, resulting in continued smoking in their children's environment. This study aimed to change parents' perceptions of exposure by providing information on second- and third-hand exposure and personalised information on children's exposure [NIH registry (NCT02867241)]. One hundred and fifty-nine families with a child < 8 years and at least one smoking parent were randomized into intervention (69), control (70), and enhanced control (20) groups. Reported exposure, parental smoking details, and a child hair sample were obtained at the start of the study and 6-8 months later. Parental perceptions of exposure (PPE) were assessed via a questionnaire. The intervention consisted of motivational interviews, feedback of home air quality and child's hair nicotine level, and information brochures. PPE were significantly higher at the study end (94.6 ± 17.6) compared to study beginning (86.5 ± 19.3) in intervention and enhanced control groups (t(72) = -3.950; p < 0.001). PPE at study end were significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the regular control group (p = 0.020). There was no significant interaction between time and group. Parallel changes in parental smoking behaviour were found. Parental perceptions of exposure were increased significantly post intervention, indicating that they can be altered. By making parents more aware of exposure and the circumstances in which it occurs, we can help parents change their smoking behaviour and better protect their children.

Impact of changes in home smoking bans on tobacco cessation among quitline callers

Home smoking bans may be an effective way to promote tobacco cessation among treatment seeking smokers. Few studies have examined this relationship in a quitline setting. Data were obtained from 14,296 adults who were enrolled in a state quitline between January 2011 and July 2016. This study investigated whether cessation rates varied by changes in home smoking ban implementation between enrollment and 7-month follow-up. The impact of changes in home smoking bans on cessation at follow-up was significantly modified by having other smokers living in the home at follow-up (P < 0.0001). Among callers who did not live with other smokers in the home, the highest odds ratio of 30-day cessation was for callers who reported bans at follow-up only (OR = 10.50, 95%CI: 8.00, 13.70), followed by callers who reported bans at both enrollment and follow-up (OR = 8.02, 95%CI: 6.27, 10.30) and callers who reported bans at enrollment only (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.47, 2.89) compared with callers with no home smoking bans. When callers reported that they lived with other smokers in the home, the effect of home smoking bans on cessation was much smaller. Quitlines should support the implementation of home smoking bans as a part of callers' goal setting activities to achieve tobacco cessation.

Using e-cigarettes in the home to reduce smoking and secondhand smoke: disadvantaged parents' accounts

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are subject to considerable public health debate. Most public health experts agree that for smokers who find it particularly challenging to quit, e-cigarettes may reduce harm. E-cigarette use in the home may also reduce children's secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, although e-cigarette vapour may pose risks. This is the first qualitative study to explore disadvantaged parents' views and experiences of e-cigarettes in relation to reducing SHS exposure in the home. Interviews with 25 disadvantaged parents from Edinburgh who smoked and had children aged 1-3 were conducted in 2013, with 17 re-interviewed in 2014. Accounts of e-cigarette perceptions and use were analysed thematically. E-cigarettes were seen by some as potentially valuable in helping quitting or reducing smoking in difficult circumstances, and protecting children from SHS when smoking outside is constrained. However, parents raised concerns about safety issues and continuing their nicotine addiction. In relation to children, concerns included possible health effects of the vapour, children playing with them and role-modelling e-cigarette use. While significant concerns remain about e-cigarettes, for some parents who find it challenging to quit or safely leave their children to smoke outside, e-cigarettes may offer potential for reducing the harm to them and their children.