Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Nicotine Tob Res ; 22(4): 498-505, 2020 04 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30517679

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Poluição do Ar em Ambientes Fechados/prevenção & controle , Etnicidade/psicologia , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Política Antifumo/legislação & jurisprudência , Classe Social , Poluição por Fumaça de Tabaco/prevenção & controle , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Poluição do Ar em Ambientes Fechados/análise , Poluição do Ar em Ambientes Fechados/legislação & jurisprudência , Criança , Características da Família , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fumantes , Poluição por Fumaça de Tabaco/análise , Poluição por Fumaça de Tabaco/legislação & jurisprudência , Estados Unidos , Adulto Jovem
2.
PLoS One ; 11(11): e0165086, 2016.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27806060

RESUMO

This study examined the extent to which delivery of the minimal Smoke-Free Homes intervention by trained 2-1-1 information and referral specialists had an effect on the adoption of home smoking bans in low-income households. A randomized controlled trial was conducted among 2-1-1 callers (n = 500) assigned to control or intervention conditions. 2-1-1 information and referral specialists collected baseline data and delivered the intervention consisting of 3 mailings and 1 coaching call; university-based data collectors conducted follow-up interviews at 3 and 6 months post-baseline. Data were collected from June 2013 through July 2014. Participants were mostly female (87.2%), African American (61.4%), and smokers (76.6%). Participants assigned to the intervention condition were more likely than controls to report a full ban on smoking in the home at both 3- (38.1% vs 19.3%, p = < .001) and 6-month follow-up (43.2% vs 33.2%, p = .02). The longitudinal intent-to-treat analysis showed a significant intervention effect over time (OR = 1.31, p = .001), i.e. OR = 1.72 at 6 months. This study replicates prior findings showing the effectiveness of the minimal intervention to promote smoke-free homes in low-income households, and extends those findings by demonstrating they can be achieved when 2-1-1 information and referral specialists deliver the intervention. Findings offer support for this intervention as a generalizable and scalable model for reducing secondhand smoke exposure in homes.


Assuntos
Promoção da Saúde , Habitação , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar , Adulto , Características da Família , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , North Carolina/epidemiologia , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Inquéritos e Questionários
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA