Coaching to create a smoke-free home in a brief secondhand smoke intervention

Expanding population-level interventions to help more low-income smokers quit: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low-income Americans have higher rates of smoking and a greater burden of smoking-related disease. In the United States, smokers in every state can access evidence-based telephone counseling through free tobacco quitlines. However, quitlines target smokers who are ready to quit in the next 30 days, which can exclude many low-income smokers. A smoke-free homes intervention may help engage smokers in tobacco control services who are not yet ready to quit. Previous research in low-income populations suggests that receiving a smoke-free homes intervention is associated with higher quit rates. This study tests whether, at a population level, expanding on quitlines to include a smoke-free homes intervention for smokers not ready to quit could engage more low-income smokers and increase long-term cessation rates.

METHODS

In a Hybrid Type 2 design, participants are recruited from 211 helplines in 9 states and randomly assigned to standard quitline or quitline plus smoke-free homes intervention arms. Participants in both arms are initially offered quitline services. In the quitline plus smoke-free homes condition, participants who decline the quitline are then offered a smoke-free homes intervention. Participants complete a baseline and follow-up surveys at 3 and 6 months. Those who have not yet quit at the 3-month follow-up are re-offered the interventions, which differ by study arm. The primary study outcome is self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence from smoking at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This real-world cessation trial involving 9 state tobacco quitlines will help inform whether offering smoke-free homes as an alternative intervention could engage more low-income smokers with evidence-based interventions and increase overall cessation rates. This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Study Identifier: NCT04311983).

The effects of community participation program on smoke-free homes in a suburban community of Thailand

INTRODUCTION

Smoking inside the home affects the health of both the smoker and family members via secondhand exposure. This research examined the impact of a community participation program on creating smoke-free homes in a suburban community in Thanyaburi district, Pathumthani province in Thailand.

METHODS

The study involved families, with a smoker in the home, that were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups each containing 27 families. The intervention group was administered with the community participation program for smoke-free homes for 5 sessions during the 6-month period of study. The program included providing information on secondhand smoking and harms, knowledge about quitting smoking and healthcare support, practice skills, campaigns in the community, visiting and encouraging, and reflecting and evaluation. The control group was normally treated by the community committee and health volunteers. Data collection was undertaken at baseline and at 6 months after implementation by an interview with questionnaires.

RESULTS

Our results show that after the implementation, the intervention group reported significantly higher mean score on skills in negotiating with smokers for a smoking-ban inside home and mean score on emotional support for non-smoking inside the home than those at baseline and those of the control group. The proportion having smoking ban home rules in the intervention group was significantly higher than at baseline and that of the control group (92.6% vs 18.5%). The proportion of smoke-free homes was higher in the intervention than in the control group (75% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that community participation programs for smoke-free home may be effective in raising awareness on the impact of secondhand smoke among family members and in working together to manage smoke-free home environments. The program may be applicable for further development within communities to achieve smoke-free homes.

Opportunities for Tailored Support to Implement Smoke-Free Homes: A Qualitative Study among Lower Socioeconomic Status Parents

With the aim of preventing children from being exposed to secondhand smoke, we examined to which level lower socio-economic status (SES) households had implemented home smoking rules and the factors that hampered parents in their process of change toward a complete smoke-free home (SFH). We conducted a qualitative study including semi-structured in-depth interviews with 14 parents of young children living in a lower SES neighborhood of a provincial town in the Netherlands. Interview transcripts were subjected to a qualitative content analysis. Three distinct levels of SFH implementation emerged: complete SFH, flexible SFH, and partial SFH. Differences between parents at these three levels essentially concerned: (1) the role of child-related moral considerations in their motivation for an SFH; (2) whether they felt they had the agency to set and enforce home smoking rules; (3) the difficulties they experienced in changing their smoking habit from smoking indoors to smoking outdoors. Parents also had different opinions about the role their children could play in facilitating the parental process of change. We conclude that the current level of SFH implementation may serve as a starting point for developing tailored interventions. Such interventions should probably address other factors than the commonly used awareness–knowledge–commitment approach.

Steps Toward Scalability: Illustrations From a Smoke-Free Homes Program

Scalable interventions remain effective across a range of real-world settings and can be modified to fit organizational and community context. "Smoke-Free Homes: Some Things are Better Outside" has been effective in promoting smoke-free home rules in low-income households in efficacy, effectiveness, generalizability, and dissemination studies. Using data from a dissemination study in collaboration with five 2-1-1 call centers in Ohio, Florida, Oklahoma, and Alabama (n = 2,345 households), this article examines key dimensions of scalability, including effectiveness by subpopulation, secondary outcomes, identification of core elements driving effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Evaluated by 2-1-1 staff using a pre-post design with self-reported outcomes at 2 months postbaseline, the program was equally effective for men and women, across education levels, with varying number of smokers in the home, and whether children were present in the home or not. It was more effective for nonsmokers, those who smoked fewer cigarettes per day, and African Americans. Creating a smoke-free home was associated with a new smoke-free vehicle rule (odds ratio [OR] = 3.38, confidence interval [CI 2.58, 4.42]), decreased exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers (b = -2.33, p < .0001), and increased cessation among smokers (OR = 5.8, CI [3.81, 8.81]). Use of each program component was significantly associated with success in creating a smoke-free home. Using an intent-to-treat effect size of 40.1%, program benefits from 5 years of health care savings exceed program costs yielding a net savings of $9,633 for delivery to 100 households. Cost effectiveness, subpopulation analyses, and identification of core elements can help in assessing the scalability potential of research-tested interventions such as this smoke-free homes program.

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.