1 / 30

Program Highlights, Evaluation & Surveillance 2002-2004

Program Highlights, Evaluation & Surveillance 2002-2004. Highlights from 2002-2004. Awarded grants to 25 agencies across Cuyahoga County Target areas included Cleveland (East and West), Lakewood, Warrensville Heights, Garfield Heights, Euclid, Cleveland Heights/University Heights.

blade
Download Presentation

Program Highlights, Evaluation & Surveillance 2002-2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Program Highlights, Evaluation & Surveillance 2002-2004

  2. Highlights from 2002-2004 • Awarded grants to 25 agencies across Cuyahoga County • Target areas included Cleveland (East and West), Lakewood, Warrensville Heights, Garfield Heights, Euclid, Cleveland Heights/University Heights

  3. Highlights 2002-2004 • Reached 2,414 fourth grade students with Word of Mouth Program (27 schools) • Reached 1,666 sixth grade students with the Life Skills Program (14 schools) • Enrolled 356 adults in the Freedom from Smoking Program in 12 sites across Cuyahoga County

  4. Highlights 2002-2004 • Conducted two vendor compliance check programs reaching 474 sites • Established 16 SHOUT teams • Launched a second media campaign

  5. School-Based Prevention4th & 5th graders: Word of Mouth6th graders: Life Skills Training

  6. Program Evaluation Methodology • Pre- and post-test design. Post-test is within one month following the program (short-term). • Pencil/paper questionnaire • Standardized questions • Changes over time examined. • No control group in Year 2 evaluation (added in Year 3).

  7. Word of Mouth(4th/5th grade) • 20% have been offered a cigarette in the past. • 8% have tried at least a puff or two of a cigarette. • 21% think that more than half of kids their age smoke. • 53% live with someone who smokes. • 8% do not think that smoking is harmful to their health. • Students who live with a smoker are more than 3 times more likely to have tried smoking than those who do not live with a smoker (12% vs. 3%). • Students who live with a smoker are also 3 times more likely to say they’ll probably smoke in the future (9% vs. 3%).

  8. Program Impact: Word of Mouth • Most of students begin the program with anti-tobacco beliefs. • However, among the small number of students who don’t the program does impact their beliefs. • Before the program started only 8% of students felt cigarettes were not harmful. However, 73% of these students changed their opinion after the program (compared to only 4% changing from harmful to not harmful). • Before the program started, only 6% of students said they would be smoking five years from now. However, over half (51%) of these students changed their mind after the program, as compared to only 3% who developed new intentions to smoke.

  9. Life Skills Training (6th graders) • 34% have been offered a cigarette or little cigar (41% males; 27% females). 18% have tried one or both of them. • 12% of 11 yr olds; 21% of 12 yr olds and 37% of 13+ yr olds have tried smoking. • Among those who have tried, 11% report that they now smoke everyday. • 81% say that at least one parent has told them not to smoke in the past 12 months. • 30% report that at least one of their 4 closest friends have tried smoking.

  10. Program Impact: Life Skills • Most of these students also begin the program with anti-tobacco beliefs. • Program does appear to have a short-term impact. • For example, only 10% of students felt it was safe to smoke for a few years as long as you quit after that. However, 74% of these students changed their opinion after the program (compared to only 7% changing from unsafe to safe). • Before the program started, only 6% of students said they intended smoke in the next year. However, 34% of these students changed their mind after the program, as compared to only 5% who developed new intentions to smoke.

  11. Smoking CessationFreedom From Smoking

  12. Nearly half (49%) of adults in Cuyahoga County who currently smoke have tried to quit at least once in the past year. - Source: 2003 Cuyahoga County BRFSS. 47% of Cuyahoga County high school smokers say that they have tried to quit in the past 12 months. -Source: 2003 Partnership Youth Tobacco Survey

  13. Adult Smoking Cessation Age when FSS participants started smoking regularly Use of Cessation Aids Among the 356 participants, % who had previously tried the following cessation aids: Nicotine patch 48% Nicotine gum 31% Pills (Zyban,Wellbutrin) 26% Inhaler/nasal (Nicotrol) 7% Lozenge (Commit) 9% Counseling (face-to-face) 5% Tobacco Quitline 6%

  14. Freedom from Smoking • Of the 356 enrolled in the FES program, over half completed at least 5 sessions and 43% completed a final survey on the 8th session. • Of these participants, 84% reported quitting during the program and 74% were still abstinent on the last session (8 weeks). • Current evaluation includes 30, 60, and 90 day follow ups.

  15. Adult Tobacco Surveillance 2003 Cuyahoga County Risk Behavior Survey Random Digit, Telephone-Based Survey 1,516 Cuyahoga County residents Aged 18 and Older, Aug-Oct, 2003 Data collected by ORC Macro and managed by the CASE Center for Health Promotion Research Dept. of Epidemiology and Biostatistics CASE School of Medicine

  16. Current Tobacco Users Adult Tobacco Use in Cuyahoga County: 2003 Cuyahoga County BRFSS

  17. Adult Cigarette Use: County, State & National Comparisons

  18. Other Tobacco Products: County, State & National Comparisons

  19. Prevalence of Total Tobacco Use Among Adults, Cuyahoga County, 2003 Highest: 41% Lowest: 22% Key for Prevalence Rates

  20. Prevalence of Cigarette Use Among Adults, Cuyahoga County, 2003 Highest: 42% Lowest: 16% Comparison: Ohio: 25.4% National: 22.1% Key for Prevalence Rates

  21. Prevalence of Cigars and Little Cigar Use Among Adults, Cuyahoga County, 2003 Highest: 18% Comparison (cigars only): Ohio: 7.2% National: 5.7% Lowest: 5% Key for Prevalence Rates

  22. Adolescent Surveillance Partnership Youth Tobacco Survey (PYTS) Grade 9-12

  23. Grade Level 30% 9th grade 28% 10th grade 22% 11th grade 19% 12th grade SES 25% Low (neither parent attended college) 54% Med (at least 1 parent attended some college) 21% High (at least 1 parent has graduate education) Gender 48% Female 52% Male Race 56% White 26% African-American 7% Hispanic 3% Asian 2% Multiracial 1% American Indian 1% Pacific Islander Demographics of Adolescent Sample Data provided by the Center for Adolescent Health, CASE www.adolhealth.org

  24. Prevalence of Students Who Are Currently Using Tobacco Data provided by the Center for Adolescent Health, CASE www.adolhealth.org

  25. Current Tobacco Use, by Product % White African-American Hispanic Data provided by the Center for Adolescent Health, CASE www.adolhealth.org

  26. Although only 16% of adolescents currently smoke cigarettes, an additional 47% appear to be susceptible to smoking in the future. Data provided by the Center for Adolescent Health, CASE www.adolhealth.org

  27. Parental Attitudes May Impact Student Tobacco Use % who have tried tobacco % who currently use tobacco Data provided by the Center for Adolescent Health, CASE www.adolhealth.org

  28. State and National Comparisons No tobacco related behaviors were reported at significantly higher rates in Cuyahoga County than in the state or nation. Data provided by the Center for Adolescent Health, CASE www.adolhealth.org

  29. Current Bidi Use Lifetime Cigarette Use Early Onset of Cigarette Use Regular Cigarette Use Current Bidi Use State and National Comparisons Better than US Better than Ohio Data provided by the Center for Adolescent Health, CASE www.adolhealth.org

  30. Year Three • Expand the delivery of youth prevention and adult smoking cessation programs. • Launch a pilot youth smoking cessation program. • Enhance program evaluation design with the addition of control groups. • Continue adult and youth surveillance.

More Related