RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
Older adults in long-term care (LTC) facilities suffer disproportionately from health conditions caused or worsened by secondhand smoke. Long-term care facilities in many states and municipalities permit smoking. Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights compiles data on smoke-free policies only in institutional facilities (e.g., nursing homes), but not in transitional (e.g., independent living) or community-based settings (e.g., adult day). A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted of smoke-free policies using cluster random sampling in Kentucky to compare differences in policy location of coverage and strength of smoke-free policies in institutional, transitional, and community-based LTC facilities by rural/urban status. Online or phone surveys of LTC administrators representing 306 facilities were conducted. Of the facilities sampled, 35.5% were institutional, 33.4% transitional, 25.1% community-based, and 6.0% multi-type. Only one in five (19.6%) facilities restricted smoking indoors and outdoors. Only 17.3% of the policies were comprehensive (i.e., prohibiting use of all tobacco products by all persons living, frequenting, or working in LTC facilities). Compared to transitional facilities, institutional and community-based facilities were more likely to have comprehensive policies and restrict smoking indoors and outdoors. Facilities located in rural communities were less likely to restrict smoking indoors or outdoors and less likely to have comprehensive smoke-free policies, reflecting a disparity in policy protections. Strong, consistent smoke-free policies and policy enforcement are needed to reduce the disparity in smoke-free protections for older adults, LTC employees, and visitors. More research is needed to investigate the best strategies for implementing and enforcing policies that completely restrict smoking in all LTC facilities.
