1 / 26

Brief Interventions to Create Smoke-Free Home Policies in Low-Income Households

Brief Interventions to Create Smoke-Free Home Policies in Low-Income Households. Cam Escoffery, PhD, MPH Michelle C. Kegler, DrPH, MPH. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University. Secondhand Smoke (SHS). EPA Class A Carcinogen

nixie
Download Presentation

Brief Interventions to Create Smoke-Free Home Policies in Low-Income Households

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. Brief Interventions to Create Smoke-Free Home Policies in Low-Income Households Cam Escoffery, PhD, MPH Michelle C. Kegler, DrPH, MPH Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University

  2. Secondhand Smoke (SHS) • EPA Class A Carcinogen • Causes Premature Death in Nonsmokers • Lung cancer • Heart disease • Especially Harmful to Children • Increases occurrence of severe asthma and SIDS • Ear infections

  3. Disease Burden of SHS Source: International Agency for Research on Cancer & CA EPA, Air Resources Board, 2005

  4. Exposure to SHS in the U.S. • Detectable serum cotinine declined from 83.9% of nonsmokers(1988-1994) to 46.4% (1999 -2004) in U.S. population (≥ 4 years of age) • Children aged 4-11 had the smallest decline in exposure to SHS (60.5%) with detectable serum cotinine in 1999-2004 • African Americans more likely to have detectable serum cotinine in 1999-2004; 70.5% compared to 43.0% in non-Hispanic whites and 40.0% in Mexican Americans Note: cotinine is the primary proximate metabolite of nicotine and is an objective biomarker of exposure Source: CDC. Disparities in secondhand smoke exposure-United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2004, MMWR, 2008; 57(27):744-747.

  5. Smoke-Free Home • Private sphere equivalent of a clean indoor air ordinance • Household smoking bans are usually unwritten rules • Voluntary in nature • Total ban definition (Smoke-Free Home): • Smoking is not allowed anywhere inside the home • Partial ban definition: • Smoking allowed in some places or at some times

  6. Prevalence of Household Smoking Bans • Nationwide 78.1% of households had total bans in 2008 • 84.7% of non-smokers report a ban • 45.0% of smokers report a ban • Socioeconomic and demographic factors • Higher SES had more bans • African Americans less likely to have bans than other racial and ethnic groups • Presence of children likely to increase ban adoption Source: CDC, 2009

  7. Rationale for Intervention Smoke-free homes: • Reduce exposure to secondhand smoke in adult nonsmokers and children • May help smokers to quit • May disrupt the smoking initiation process

  8. Smoke-Free Home Interventions To Date • Tobacco control movement focused on policy approach to multi-family dwellings • Smoke-free home efforts part of comprehensive tobacco control and tend to include awareness via media campaigns and smoke-free home pledges (not typically evaluated as stand-alone interventions) • Intervention research often clinic-based, relatively intensive and/or emphasizes cessation • Community Guide concluded “insufficient evidence” for community education to promote smoke-free homes

  9. New Project • NCI funding (State and Community Tobacco Control Policy and Media Research-U01) • Builds on work of CPCRN 2-1-1 work group • Key partners include: • University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (Williams & Ribisl) • University of Texas-Houston (Mullen & Fernandez) • Washington University-St. Louis (Kreuter) • Emory University and Tobacco Technical Assistance Consortium-Atlanta • 2-1-1 organizations in four states • State tobacco control programs in four states

  10. Study Aims • Formative research on intervention materials and key messages • Conduct an efficacy trial of the SFH intervention in the Atlanta area 2-1-1 • Conduct effectiveness studies in North Carolina and Houston • Disseminate the intervention

  11. Formative Research Plans • Focus groups (2 with smokers and 2 with nonsmokers) • Key messages • Relevance, cultural appropriateness of materials • Interviews with 2-1-1 callers (n=20) • Interviews with 2-1-1 line agents (n=10)

  12. Intervention Components At 2 week Intervals • Mailing of Smoke-free Homes Kit (5-step guide, pledge, sign, challenges and solutions, reasons to go smoke-free) • Telephone counseling to motivate & address barriers • Mailing of photonovella • Mailing of newsletter, stickers and third hand smoke info

  13. Intervention Strategies Change Process Model of Behavior ChangeBrief Intervention to Create Smoke-free Home Policies in Low-Income Households • Stage of Change • Pre-contemplation • Contemplation • Preparation (Step 1-Decide) • Intervention Targets • Behavioral Capability • Self-efficacy • Outcome expectations for SFH • Smoking behavior • Intervention Components • Mailing 1: A five step guide to making your home smoke-free; Reasons to have a smoke-free home (SFH); Facts about SHS and SFHs; Pledge; Signs • Brief telephone counseling • Mailing #2: Challenges and Solutions Booklet; Photo –novella • Mailing #3: Newsletter; Thirdhand smoke fact sheet; SFH stickers • Discuss with household members (Step 2) • Barriers • Negotiation • Support • Change Strategies • Persuasion • Role modeling • Goal setting • Environmental cues • Reinforcement • Set date/Go smoke-free • (Step 3 and 4) • Cues • Maintain smoke-free home • (Step 5)

  14. Eligible Participants for Trials • Current smoker or live with a smoker • Allow at least some smoking in the home • Live with a nonsmoker or child • Speak English • Expect to live in the same household for the next six months, and not be in crisis

  15. Flow of Efficacy Trial

  16. Flow of Intervention Study (Cont’d)

  17. Outcomes • Primary Outcomes • Presence of a self-reported ban • Air nicotine in sub-sample • Secondary Outcomes • Weekly and daily SHS exposure • Self-efficacy to restrict smoking in the home • Beliefs about SHS

  18. Secondary Outcomes (Smokers) • Smoking status • Cessation attempts • Cigarette consumption

  19. Dissemination Plans • Develop an implementation toolkit for SFH intervention • Conduct a national grants program to encourage adoption among 2-1-1 systems nationwide • Use TTAC infrastructure to disseminate SFH intervention to tobacco control community • Adapt and pilot SFH intervention in other populations and/or channels that reach low-income populations

  20. Examples of Dissemination Questions • What factors affect the uptake of the SFH intervention by 2-1-1 centers? • What factors (e.g., organizational, external forces) influence quality implementation of the intervention? • What is the extent of fidelity to the core elements in implementation or of adaptation? • Is the SFH intervention sustained over time in the 2-1-1 centers? What factors are associated with program maintenance?

  21. Ideas for Dissemination Research?

More Related