RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This exploratory study described facilitators and barriers to reducing tobacco disparities in 2 small rural communities and identified ways to reduce tobacco use. METHODS: This was a descriptive design using qualitative methods. We created a resource database for 2 rural Kentucky counties, using a Culture of Health Framework. We recruited 16 organizational stakeholders serving low-socioeconomic populations and conducted focus groups and key informant interviews. We also completed key informant interviews with 7 tobacco users. Lastly, we tailored Community Action Plans for each county based on the data and then solicited feedback from the key stakeholders. FINDINGS: The 2 counties were similar in population size, but County A had fewer resources than County B, and the stakeholders expressed differences toward tobacco use and quitting. County A stakeholders talked most about the protobacco culture and that tobacco users accept the risks of smoking outweighing the benefits of quitting; they also expressed concerns about youth use and the influences of family, society, and industry. County B stakeholders described ambivalence about the health effects of use and quitting. County A's Action Plan identified an opportunity to build Community Health Worker-delivered tobacco treatment into a new school-based health center. County B's Action Plan focused on reaching tobacco users by providing incentives for participation and tailoring messages to different audiences. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco control resources and stakeholder perspectives vary in small rural communities, implying a need for tailored approaches. Tobacco users in rural areas are a critical population to target with cessation resources.
RESUMEN
Radon exposure is the second leading cause of lung cancer, yet few Americans test their homes for radon, particularly in rural areas. The academic team and community partners engaged the public library systems in four rural counties to offer digital radon detectors for check-out as a means of increasing the public's access to free radon testing. The check-out procedures and instructional materials were created through an iterative process, and library personnel were educated on radon and home radon testing prior to launching the lending program. Library patrons reported high usability, feasibility, and acceptability of the program. Library patron-staff interactions mainly included discussions about the logistics of radon testing. Given that public libraries are invested in making communities thrive and promoting health, providing library lending programs for radon detectors is a novel, feasible, and acceptable way to reduce the risk of lung cancer in the community.
