Smoke-free home restrictions in Armenia and Georgia: motives, barriers and secondhand smoke reduction behaviors

BACKGROUND

Promoting smoke-free homes (SFHs) in Armenia and Georgia is timely given high smoking and secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe) rates and recent national smoke-free policy implementation. This study examined theoretical predictors (e.g. motives, barriers) of SFH status, and among those without SFHs, past 3-month SFH attempts and intent to establish SFHs in the next 3 months.

METHODS

Multilevel logistic regression analyzed these outcomes using 2022 survey data from 1467 adults (31.6% past-month smokers) in Armenia (n = 762) and Georgia (n = 705). Correlates of interest included SHSe reduction behaviors and SFH motives and barriers; models controlled for country, community, age, sex, smoking status and other smokers in the home.

RESULTS

In this sample, 53.6% had SFHs (Armenia: 39.2%; Georgia: 69.2%). Among those without SFHs, one-fourth had partial restrictions, no smokers in the home and/or recent SFH attempts; 35.5% intended to establish SFHs; and ∼70% of multiunit housing residents supported smoke-free buildings. We documented common SHSe reduction behaviors (opening windows, limiting smoking areas), SFH motives (prevent smell, protect children/nonsmokers) and barriers (smokers' resistance). Correlates of SFHs were being from Georgia, other smokers in the home, fewer SHSe reduction behaviors, greater motives and fewer barriers. Among participants without SFHs, correlates of recent SFH attempts were other smokers in the home, greater SHSe reduction behaviors and SFH motives, and fewer barriers; correlates of SFH intentions were being female, greater SHSe reduction behaviors, greater motives, and fewer barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

SFH interventions should address motives, barriers and misperceptions regarding SHSe reduction behaviors. Moreover, smoke-free multiunit housing could have a great population impact.

Lung Effects of Household Air Pollution

Biomass fuel smoke, secondhand smoke, and oxides of nitrogen are common causes of household air pollution (HAP). Almost 2.4 billion people worldwide use solid fuels for cooking and heating, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. Wood combustion for household heating is also common in many areas of high-income countries, and minorities are particularly vulnerable. HAP in low- and middle-income countries is associated with asthma, acute respiratory tract infections in adults and children, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, tuberculosis, and respiratory mortality. Although wood smoke exposure levels in high-income countries are typically lower than in lower-income countries, it is similarly associated with accelerated lung function decline, higher prevalence of airflow obstruction and chronic bronchitis, and higher all-cause and respiratory cause-specific mortality. Household air cleaners with high-efficiency particle filters have mixed effects on asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outcomes. Biomass fuel interventions in low-income countries include adding chimneys to cookstoves, improving biomass fuel combustion stoves, and switching fuel to liquid petroleum gas. Still, the impact on health outcomes is inconsistent. In high-income countries, strategies for reducing biomass fuel-related HAP are centered on community-level woodstove changeout programs, although the results are again inconsistent. In addition, initiatives to encourage home smoking bans have mixed success in households with children. Environmental solutions to reduce HAP have varying success in reducing pollutants and health problems. Improved understanding of indoor air quality factors and actions that prevent degradation or improve polluted indoor air may lead to enhanced environmental health policies, but health outcomes must be rigorously examined.

Measuring for change: A multi-centre pre-post trial of an air quality feedback intervention to promote smoke-free homes

INTRODUCTION

Second-hand smoke exposure in the home is a serious cause of ill-health for children. Behaviour change interventions have been developed to encourage parents to keep homes smoke-free. This study evaluates a novel air quality feedback intervention using remote air quality monitoring with SMS and email messaging to promote smoke-free homes among families from deprived areas.

METHODS

This paper presents a pre-post study of this intervention. Using internet connected monitors developed with the Dylos DC1700, daily SMS and weekly email feedback provided for 16 days to participants recruited in four European countries. Participants were recruited based on their stage of change, in order to target those most able to achieve smoke-free homes. The primary outcome measure was median change in mean fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) concentration between baseline and follow-up periods, while secondary outcome measures included change in time over the World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline limit for PM_2.5 exposure over 24 h (25 µg/m³) in those periods and the number of homes where PM_2.5 concentrations reduced. Telephone interviews were conducted with participants in Scotland post-intervention to explore intervention experience and perceived effectiveness.

RESULTS

Of 86 homes that completed the intervention study, 57 (66%) experienced pre-post reductions in measured PM_2.5. The median reduction experienced was 4.1 µg/m³ (a reduction of 19% from baseline, p = 0.008). Eight homes where concentrations were higher than the WHO guideline limit at baseline fell below that level at follow-up. In follow-up interviews, participants expressed positive views on the usefulness of air quality feedback.

DISCUSSION

Household air quality monitoring with SMS and email feedback can lead to behaviour change and consequent reductions in SHS in homes, but within the context of our study few homes became totally smoke-free.

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

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.

Family and carer smoking control programmes for reducing children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke

BACKGROUND

Children's exposure to other people's tobacco smoke (environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS) is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes for children. Parental smoking is a common source of children's exposure to ETS. Older children in child care or educational settings are also at risk of exposure to ETS. Preventing exposure to ETS during infancy and childhood has significant potential to improve children's health worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce exposure of children to environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register and conducted additional searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), and the Social Science Citation Index & Science Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We conducted the most recent search in February 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled trials, with or without random allocation, that enrolled participants (parents and other family members, child care workers, and teachers) involved in the care and education of infants and young children (from birth to 12 years of age). All mechanisms for reducing children's ETS exposure were eligible, including smoking prevention, cessation, and control programmes. These include health promotion, social-behavioural therapies, technology, education, and clinical interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies and extracted data. Due to heterogeneity of methods and outcome measures, we did not pool results but instead synthesised study findings narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and we assessed all evidence to be of low or very low quality based on GRADE assessment. We judged nine studies to be at low risk of bias, 35 to have unclear overall risk of bias, and 34 to have high risk of bias. Twenty-one interventions targeted populations or community settings, 27 studies were conducted in the well-child healthcare setting and 26 in the ill-child healthcare setting. Two further studies conducted in paediatric clinics did not make clear whether visits were made to well- or ill-children, and another included visits to both well- and ill-children. Forty-five studies were reported from North America, 22 from other high-income countries, and 11 from low- or middle-income countries. Only 26 of the 78 studies reported a beneficial intervention effect for reduction of child ETS exposure, 24 of which were statistically significant. Of these 24 studies, 13 used objective measures of children's ETS exposure. We were unable to pinpoint what made these programmes effective. Studies showing a significant effect used a range of interventions: nine used in-person counselling or motivational interviewing; another study used telephone counselling, and one used a combination of in-person and telephone counselling; three used multi-component counselling-based interventions; two used multi-component education-based interventions; one used a school-based strategy; four used educational interventions, including one that used picture books; one used a smoking cessation intervention; one used a brief intervention; and another did not describe the intervention. Of the 52 studies that did not show a significant reduction in child ETS exposure, 19 used more intensive counselling approaches, including motivational interviewing, education, coaching, and smoking cessation brief advice. Other interventions consisted of brief advice or counselling (10 studies), feedback of a biological measure of children's ETS exposure (six studies), nicotine replacement therapy (two studies), feedback of maternal cotinine (one study), computerised risk assessment (one study), telephone smoking cessation support (two studies), educational home visits (eight studies), group sessions (one study), educational materials (three studies), and school-based policy and health promotion (one study). Some studies employed more than one intervention. 35 of the 78 studies reported a reduction in ETS exposure for children, irrespective of assignment to intervention and comparison groups. One study did not aim to reduce children's tobacco smoke exposure but rather sought to reduce symptoms of asthma, and found a significant reduction in symptoms among the group exposed to motivational interviewing. We found little evidence of difference in effectiveness of interventions between the well infant, child respiratory illness, and other child illness settings as contexts for parental smoking cessation interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A minority of interventions have been shown to reduce children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and improve children's health, but the features that differentiate the effective interventions from those without clear evidence of effectiveness remain unclear. The evidence was judged to be of low or very low quality, as many of the trials are at a high risk of bias, are small and inadequately powered, with heterogeneous interventions and populations.

Meta-analysis of parental protection of children from tobacco smoke exposure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Worldwide, roughly 40% of children are exposed to the damaging and sometimes deadly effects of tobacco smoke. Interventions aimed at reducing child tobacco smoke exposure (TSE) have shown mixed results. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify effects of interventions aimed at decreasing child TSE.

METHODS

Data sources included Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNet, and Embase. Controlled trials that included parents of young children were selected. Two reviewers extracted TSE data, as assessed by parentally-reported exposure or protection (PREP) and biomarkers. Risk ratios and differences were calculated by using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included. Improvements were observed from baseline to follow-up for parentally-reported and biomarker data in most intervention and control groups. Interventions demonstrated evidence of small benefit to intervention participants at follow-up (PREP: 17 studies, n = 6820, relative risk 1.12, confidence interval [CI] 1.07 to 1.18], P < .0001). Seven percent more children were protected in intervention groups relative to control groups. Intervention parents smoked fewer cigarettes around children at follow-up than did control parents (P = .03). Biomarkers (13 studies, n = 2601) at follow-up suggested lower child exposure among intervention participants (RD -0.05, CI -0.13 to 0.03, P = .20).

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to prevent child TSE are moderately beneficial at the individual level. Widespread child TSE suggests potential for significant population impact. More research is needed to improve intervention effectiveness and child TSE measurement.

Family and carer smoking control programmes for reducing children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke

BACKGROUND

Children's exposure to other people's cigarette smoke (environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS) is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes for children. Parental smoking is a common source of children's exposure to ETS. Older children are also at risk of exposure to ETS in child care or educational settings. Preventing exposure to cigarette smoke in infancy and childhood has significant potential to improve children's health worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce exposure of children to ETS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and conducted additional searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, and The Social Science Citation Index & Science Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). Date of the most recent search: September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials with or without random allocation. Interventions must have addressed participants (parents and other family members, child care workers and teachers) involved with the care and education of infants and young children (aged 0 to 12 years). All mechanisms for reduction of children's ETS exposure, and smoking prevention, cessation, and control programmes were included. These include health promotion, social-behavioural therapies, technology, education, and clinical interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies and extracted data. Due to heterogeneity of methodologies and outcome measures, no summary measures were possible and results were synthesised narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies were judged to be at low risk of bias, 27 studies were judged to have unclear overall risk of bias and 23 studies were judged to have high risk of bias. Seven interventions were targeted at populations or community settings, 23 studies were conducted in the 'well child' healthcare setting and 24 in the 'ill child' healthcare setting. Two further studies conducted in paediatric clinics did not make clear whether the visits were to well or ill children, and another included both well and ill child visits. Thirty-six studies were from North America, 14 were in other high income countries and seven studies were from low- or middle-income countries. In only 14 of the 57 studies was there a statistically significant intervention effect for child ETS exposure reduction. Of these 14 studies, six used objective measures of children's ETS exposure. Eight of the studies had a high risk of bias, four had unclear risk of bias and two had a low risk of bias. The studies showing a significant effect used a range of interventions: seven used intensive counselling or motivational interviewing; a further study used telephone counselling; one used a school-based strategy; one used picture books; two used educational home visits; one used brief intervention and one study did not describe the intervention. Of the 42 studies that did not show a significant reduction in child ETS exposure, 14 used more intensive counselling or motivational interviewing, nine used brief advice or counselling, six used feedback of a biological measure of children's ETS exposure, one used feedback of maternal cotinine, two used telephone smoking cessation advice or support, eight used educational home visits, one used group sessions, one used an information kit and letter, one used a booklet and no smoking sign, and one used a school-based policy and health promotion. In 32 of the 57 studies, there was reduction of ETS exposure for children in the study irrespective of assignment to intervention and comparison groups. One study did not aim to reduce children's tobacco smoke exposure, but rather aimed to reduce symptoms of asthma, and found a significant reduction in symptoms in the group exposed to motivational interviewing. We found little evidence of difference in effectiveness of interventions between the well infant, child respiratory illness, and other child illness settings as contexts for parental smoking cessation interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While brief counselling interventions have been identified as successful for adults when delivered by physicians, this cannot be extrapolated to adults as parents in child health settings. Although several interventions, including parental education and counselling programmes, have been used to try to reduce children's tobacco smoke exposure, their effectiveness has not been clearly demonstrated. The review was unable to determine if any one intervention reduced parental smoking and child exposure more effectively than others, although seven studies were identified that reported motivational interviewing or intensive counselling provided in clinical settings was effective.