Barriers to Creating Healthier Home Food Environments: Process Evaluation Results From 2 Home Food Environment Intervention Studies.

Few studies have identified barriers to creating a home environment more supportive of healthy eating. We examined barriers faced by participants in a randomized controlled trial and an adaptation study of the Healthy Homes/Healthy Families intervention, which uses health coaches to support low-income families in creating healthier home food environments. Coaches maintained logs of participant interactions as part of a process evaluation. We thematically analyzed logs from interactions with participants, mostly lower-income African American women (n = 114), to identify barriers for each of 8 healthy actions that serve as core elements of the intervention. Difficulty of changing current habits was a barrier for 5 of the healthy actions. No time/convenience and limited family support each influenced 2 of the healthy actions, with interpersonal barriers also stemming from social situations and visitors, including grandchildren. Cost and economic challenges were barriers for 3 of the actions. Hunger, cravings, and limited access to resources (eg, transportation, fresh fruits and vegetables) were each noted as barriers for 1 healthy action. Overall, these findings provide insight for how to better support families who are trying to improve their home food environments and highlight the need for multilevel interventions.

Promoting Healthier Home Food Environments Through 2-1-1: A Pilot and Feasibility Study.

Relatively few interventions target the home food environment of adults for weight gain prevention. Using a pretest/posttest design, this study describes the adaptation and pilot testing of Healthy Homes/Healthy Families, a research-tested home food environment intervention, for telephone delivery to 2-1-1 clients (n = 101). The Healthy Eating Index-2015, a measure of diet quality, improved significantly at 4-month follow-up, as did the home food environment, with energy consumption improving in the expected direction. Overall findings suggest the simplified intervention will still be effective, although results may be attenuated and additional efforts may be needed for participant retention among 2-1-1 clients.

Disseminating a Smoke-free Homes Program to Low Socioeconomic Status Households in the United States Through 2-1-1: Results of a National Impact Evaluation.

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.

Adaptation of a brief smoke-free homes intervention for American Indian and Alaska Native families.

BACKGROUND: The goal of adaptation is to maintain the effectiveness of the original intervention by preserving the core elements that account for its success while delivering an intervention that is tailored to the new community and/or cultural context. The current study describes the process of adapting an evidence-based smoke-free homes (SFH) intervention for use in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) households. METHODS: We followed a systematic adaptation process. We first assessed the community through focus groups coordinated in collaboration with tribal partners. Because our team included the original developers of the intervention, the steps of understanding the intervention, selecting the intervention and consulting with experts were simplified. Additional steps included consulting with stakeholders through a national work group and collaboratively deciding what needed adaptation. RESULTS: A number of key themes pertinent to the adaptation of the SFH intervention were identified in the focus groups. These included the gravity of messaging about commercial tobacco use; respect, familialism, and intergenerationalism; imagery, including significant symbolism, colors, and representative role models; whether and how to address traditional tobacco; and, barriers to a SFH not adequately addressed in the original materials. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptation of an intervention to create smoke-free homes in AI/AN families necessitated both surface structure changes such as appearance of role models and deep structure changes that addressed core values, and beliefs and traditions.

Steps Toward Scalability: Illustrations From a Smoke-Free Homes Program.

Scalable interventions remain effective across a range of real-world settings and can be modified to fit organizational and community context. "Smoke-Free Homes: Some Things are Better Outside" has been effective in promoting smoke-free home rules in low-income households in efficacy, effectiveness, generalizability, and dissemination studies. Using data from a dissemination study in collaboration with five 2-1-1 call centers in Ohio, Florida, Oklahoma, and Alabama (n = 2,345 households), this article examines key dimensions of scalability, including effectiveness by subpopulation, secondary outcomes, identification of core elements driving effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Evaluated by 2-1-1 staff using a pre-post design with self-reported outcomes at 2 months postbaseline, the program was equally effective for men and women, across education levels, with varying number of smokers in the home, and whether children were present in the home or not. It was more effective for nonsmokers, those who smoked fewer cigarettes per day, and African Americans. Creating a smoke-free home was associated with a new smoke-free vehicle rule (odds ratio [OR] = 3.38, confidence interval [CI 2.58, 4.42]), decreased exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers (b = -2.33, p < .0001), and increased cessation among smokers (OR = 5.8, CI [3.81, 8.81]). Use of each program component was significantly associated with success in creating a smoke-free home. Using an intent-to-treat effect size of 40.1%, program benefits from 5 years of health care savings exceed program costs yielding a net savings of $9,633 for delivery to 100 households. Cost effectiveness, subpopulation analyses, and identification of core elements can help in assessing the scalability potential of research-tested interventions such as this smoke-free homes program.

A Qualitative Study about Creating Smoke-free Home Rules in American Indian and Alaska Native Households.

Smoke-free homes can reduce exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) and support smoking cessation. The current study seeks to understand perspectives, including barriers and facilitators, on smoke-free homes among five American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities. Guided by a national work group of tribal partners, ten focus groups were conducted with AI/AN adult smokers and nonsmokers (n = 95) in Alaska, California, Michigan and Oklahoma, stratified by smoking status. The majority of participants lived in single unit detached homes (70.5%). Most of the nonsmokers had a smoke-free home rule (92.9%) and a majority of smokers did as well (64.7%). The most common reasons for smoke-free home rules were protecting children and grandchildren, including children with health problems. Challenges to a smoke-free home included weather and visitors who smoked, along with the inconvenience of going outside, the habit of smoking inside, the need to watch a young child, safety concerns, and smokers who break the rules. Respecting rules and respecting elders emerged as important themes. Traditional use of tobacco in the home was viewed as quite distinct from recreational or everyday use. Over half (58.2%) reported never using tobacco for ceremonial, prayer or traditional reasons in their homes. Given unique considerations for the adoption of smoke-free homes in AI/AN communities, particularly regarding the use of sacred tobacco for traditional, ceremonial, or medicinal purposes, it is important to learn which barriers and facilitators are similar to the general population and which may be unique to tribal communities in the U.S.

Moderators of Establishing a Smoke-Free Home: Pooled Data from Three Randomized Controlled Trials of a Brief Intervention.

Interventions to create smoke-free homes typically focus on parents, involve multiple counseling sessions and blend cessation and smoke-free home messages. Smoke-Free Homes: Some Things are Better Outside is a minimal intervention focused on smokers and nonsmokers who allow smoking in the home, and emphasizes creation of a smoke-free home over cessation. The purpose of this study is to conduct moderator analyses using pooled data from three randomized controlled trials of the intervention conducted in collaboration with 2-1-1 contact centers in Atlanta, North Carolina and Houston. 2-1-1 is a strategic partner for tobacco control as it connects over 15 million clients, largely socio-economically disadvantaged, to social and health resources each year. A total of 1506 2-1-1 callers participated across the three intervention trials. Outcomes from 6 months intent-to-treat analyses were used to examine whether sociodemographic variables and smoking-related characteristics moderated effectiveness of the intervention in establishing full home smoking bans. Intervention effectiveness was not moderated by race/ethnicity, education, income, children in the home or number of smokers in the home. Smoking status of the participant, however, did moderate program effectiveness, as did time to first cigarette. Number of cigarettes per day and daily versus nondaily smoking did not moderate intervention effectiveness. Overall, the intervention was effective across socio-demographic groups and was effective without respect to daily versus nondaily smoking or number of cigarettes smoked per day, although smoking status and level of nicotine dependence did influence effectiveness.

Development of a scale assessing Beliefs About ThirdHand Smoke (BATHS).

BACKGROUND: Similarly to secondhand smoke (SHS), thirdhand smoke (THS) beliefs may be correlated with smoking behaviors and smokefree policies in the home. Thus, there is a need to develop and validate measures to assess beliefs about THS. METHODS: A list of 19 items related to THS were generated by an expert panel and tested in a pilot study. Based on results from an exploratory factor analysis, two factors emerged: THS persistence in the environment and THS impact on health. The scale was reduced to nine items, which showed no differential item functioning by smoking status or smoking ban status in the home. The nine items and the two factor structure were tested in a validation sample from a smoke-free homes intervention that included THS educational materials. RESULTS: The 9-item scale showed excellent internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated good model fit for the two factor solution in a low-income population. Tests of construct validity indicated differences due to exposure to the smoke-free homes intervention, by smoking status, whether participants own or rent their home, and smoking ban status in the home. CONCLUSIONS: The BATHS scale offers researchers a valid and reliable tool to assess THS beliefs.

Minimal intervention delivered by 2-1-1 information and referral specialists promotes smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers: a Texas generalisation trial.

BACKGROUND: Replication of intervention research is reported infrequently, limiting what we know about external validity and generalisability. The Smoke Free Homes Program, a minimal intervention, increased home smoking bans by United Way 2-1-1 callers in randomised controlled trials in Atlanta, Georgia and North Carolina. OBJECTIVE: Test the programme's generalisability-external validity in a different context. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial (n=508) of English-speaking callers from smoking-discordant households (≥1 smoker and ≥1 non-smoker). 2-1-1 Texas/United Way HELPLINE call specialists serving the Texas Gulf Coast recruited callers and delivered three mailings and one coaching call, supported by an online tracking system. Data collectors, blind to study assignment, conducted telephone interviews 3 and 6 months postbaseline. RESULTS: At 3 months, more intervention households reported a smoke-free home (46.6% vs 25.4%, p<0.0001; growth model intent-to-treat OR=1.48, 95% CI 1.241 to 1.772, p<0.0001). At 6 months, self-reported full bans were 62.9% for intervention participants and 38.4% for controls (OR=2.19). Texas trial participants were predominantly women (83%), single-smoker households (76%) and African-American (65%); half had incomes ≤US$10 000/year (50%). Texas recruitment was <50% of the other sites. Fewer callers reported having a smoker in the household. Almost twice the callers with a household smoker declined interest in the programme/study. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings in a region with lower smoking rates and more diverse callers, including English-speaking Latinos, support programme generalisability and convey evidence of external validity. Our recruitment experience indicates that site-specific adjustments might improve recruitment efficiency and reach. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02097914, Results.

Do partial home smoking bans signal progress toward a smoke-free home?

Understanding who establishes partial home smoking bans, what these bans cover, and whether they are an intermediate step in going smoke-free would help to inform smoke-free home interventions. Participants were recruited from United Way of Greater Atlanta's 2-1-1 contact center. Data were collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months via telephone interview. Participants (n = 375) were mostly African American (84.2%) and female (84.3%). The majority (58.5%) had annual household incomes <$10,000. At baseline, 61.3% reported a partial smoking ban and 38.7% reported no ban. Existence of a partial ban as compared with no ban was associated with being female, having more than a high school education, being married and younger age. Partial bans most often meant smoking was allowed only in designated rooms (52.6%). Other common rules included: no smoking in the presence of children (18.4%) and smoking allowed only in combination with actions such as opening a window or running a fan (9.8%). A higher percentage of households with partial bans at baseline were smoke-free at 6 months (36.5%) compared with households with no bans at baseline (22.1%). Households with partial smoking bans may have a higher level of readiness to go smoke-free than households with no restrictions.