The inclusion of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products in smoke-free home and car rules: A cross-sectional survey of adults in Armenia and Georgia.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding who includes e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs) in smoke-free home or car rules could inform public health interventions, particularly in countries with high smoking prevalence and recently implemented national smoke-free laws, like Armenia and Georgia. METHODS: In 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among 1468 adults in 28 Armenian and Georgian communities (mean age=42.92 years; 51.4% female, 31.6% past-month smoking). Multilevel regression (accounting for clustering within communities; adjusted for sociodemographics and cigarette use) examined e-cigarette/HTP perceptions (risk, social acceptability) and use intentions in relation to: 1) including e-cigarettes/HTPs in home and car rules among participants with home and car rules, respectively (logistic regressions); and 2) intention to include e-cigarettes/HTPs in home rules (linear regression, 1 = 'not at all' to 7 = 'extremely') among those without home rules. RESULTS: Overall, 72.9% (n=1070) had home rules, 86.5% of whom included e-cigarettes/HTPs; 33.9% (n=498) had car rules, 81.3% of whom included e-cigarettes/HTPs. Greater perceived e-cigarette/HTP risk was associated with including e-cigarettes/HTPs in home rules (AOR=1.28; 95% CI: 1.08-1.50) and car rules (AOR=1.46; 95% CI: 1.14-1.87) and next-year intentions to include e-cigarettes/HTPs in home rules (ß=0.38; 95% CI: 0.25-0.50). Lower e-cigarette/HTP use intentions were associated with including e-cigarettes/HTPs in home rules (AOR=0.75; 95% CI: 0.63-0.88). While perceived social acceptability was unassociated with the outcomes, other social influences were: having children and no other household smokers was associated with including e-cigarettes/HTPs in car rules, and having children was associated with intent to include e-cigarettes/HTPs in home rules. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to address gaps in home and car rules might target e-cigarette/HTP risk perceptions.

Examining local smoke-free coalitions in Armenia and Georgia: context and outcomes of a matched-pairs community-randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Local coalitions can advance public health initiatives such as smoke-free air but have not been widely used or well-studied in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted a matched-pairs community-randomised controlled trial in 28 communities in Armenia and Georgia (N=14/country) in which we helped establish local coalitions in 2019 and provided training and technical assistance for coalition activity promoting smoke-free policy development and enforcement (2019-2021). Surveys of ~1450 households (Fall 2018, May-June 2022) were conducted to evaluate coalition impact on smoke-free policy support, smoke-free home adoption, secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe), and coalition awareness and activity exposure, using multivariable mixed modelling. RESULTS: Bivariate analyses indicated that, at follow-up versus baseline, both conditions reported greater smoke-free home rates (53.6% vs 38.5%) and fewer days of SHSe on average (~11 vs ~12 days), and that intervention versus control condition communities reported greater coalition awareness (24.3% vs 12.2%) and activity exposure (71.2% vs 64.5%). Multivariable modelling indicated that intervention (vs control) communities reported greater rates of complete smoke-free homes (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 1.55, 95% confiedence interval [CI] 1.11 to 2.18, p=0.011) and coalition awareness (aOR 2.89, 95% CI 1.44 to 8.05, p=0.043) at follow-up. However, there were no intervention effects on policy support, SHSe or community-based activity exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Findings must be considered alongside several sociopolitical factors during the study, including national smoke-free policies implementation (Georgia, 2018; Armenia, 2022), these countries' participation in an international tobacco legislation initiative, the COVID-19 pandemic and regional/local war). The intervention effect on smoke-free homes is critical, as smoke-free policy implementation provides opportunities to accelerate smoke-free home adoption via local coalitions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03447912.

Community coalitions for smoke-free environments in Armenia and Georgia: A mixed methods analysis of coalition formation, implementation and perceived effectiveness.

Effective models for aligning public health and civil society at the local level have the potential to impact various global health issues, including tobacco. Georgia and Armenia Teams for Healthy Environments and Research (GATHER) is a collaboration between Armenia, Georgia and U.S. researchers involving a community randomized trial testing the impact of community coalitions to promote smoke-free policy adoption and compliance in various settings. Community Coalition Action Theory (CCAT) was used to guide and describe coalition formation, implementation and effectiveness. Mixed methods were used to evaluate 14 municipality-based coalitions in Georgia and Armenia, including semi-structured interviews (n = 42) with coalition leaders and active members, coalition member surveys at two timepoints (n = 85 and n = 83), and review of action plans and progress reports. Results indicated successful creation of 14 multi-sectoral coalitions, most commonly representing education, public health, health care, and municipal administration. Half of the coalitions created at least one smoke-free policy in specific settings (e.g., factories, parks), and all 14 promoted compliance with existing policies through no-smoking signage and stickers. The majority also conducted awareness events in school, health care, and community settings, in addition to educating the public about COVID and the dangers of tobacco use. Consistent with CCAT, coalition processes (e.g., communication) were associated with member engagement and collaborative synergy which, in turn, correlated with perceived community impact, skills gained by coalition members, and interest in sustainability. Findings suggest that community coalitions can be formed in varied sociopolitical contexts and facilitate locally-driven, multi-sectoral collaborations to promote health. Despite major contextual challenges (e.g., national legislation, global pandemic, war), coalitions were resilient, nimble and remained active. Additionally, CCAT propositions appear to be generalizable, suggesting that coalition-building guidance may be relevant for local public health in at least some global contexts.

Smoke-free home restrictions in Armenia and Georgia: motives, barriers and secondhand smoke reduction behaviors.

BACKGROUND: Promoting smoke-free homes (SFHs) in Armenia and Georgia is timely given high smoking and secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe) rates and recent national smoke-free policy implementation. This study examined theoretical predictors (e.g. motives, barriers) of SFH status, and among those without SFHs, past 3-month SFH attempts and intent to establish SFHs in the next 3 months. METHODS: Multilevel logistic regression analyzed these outcomes using 2022 survey data from 1467 adults (31.6% past-month smokers) in Armenia (n = 762) and Georgia (n = 705). Correlates of interest included SHSe reduction behaviors and SFH motives and barriers; models controlled for country, community, age, sex, smoking status and other smokers in the home. RESULTS: In this sample, 53.6% had SFHs (Armenia: 39.2%; Georgia: 69.2%). Among those without SFHs, one-fourth had partial restrictions, no smokers in the home and/or recent SFH attempts; 35.5% intended to establish SFHs; and ∼70% of multiunit housing residents supported smoke-free buildings. We documented common SHSe reduction behaviors (opening windows, limiting smoking areas), SFH motives (prevent smell, protect children/nonsmokers) and barriers (smokers' resistance). Correlates of SFHs were being from Georgia, other smokers in the home, fewer SHSe reduction behaviors, greater motives and fewer barriers. Among participants without SFHs, correlates of recent SFH attempts were other smokers in the home, greater SHSe reduction behaviors and SFH motives, and fewer barriers; correlates of SFH intentions were being female, greater SHSe reduction behaviors, greater motives, and fewer barriers. CONCLUSIONS: SFH interventions should address motives, barriers and misperceptions regarding SHSe reduction behaviors. Moreover, smoke-free multiunit housing could have a great population impact.

Tobacco-related risk perceptions, social influences and public smoke-free policies in relation to smoke-free home restrictions: findings from a baseline cross-sectional survey of Armenian and Georgian adults in a community randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: Given high prevalence of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure in Armenia and Georgia and quicker implementation of tobacco legislation in Georgia versus Armenia, we examined correlates of having no/partial versus complete smoke-free home (SFH) restrictions across countries, particularly smoking characteristics, risk perceptions, social influences and public smoking restrictions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study design. SETTING: 28 communities in Armenia and Georgia surveyed in 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 1456 adults ages 18-64 in Armenia (n=705) and Georgia (n=751). MEASUREMENTS: We used binary logistic regression to examine aforementioned correlates of no/partial versus complete SFH among non-smokers and smokers in Armenia and Georgia, respectively. RESULTS: Participants were an average age of 43.35, 60.5% women and 27.3% smokers. In Armenia, among non-smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with being men (OR=2.63, p=0.001) and having more friend smokers (OR=1.23, p=0.002); among smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with being unmarried (OR=10.00, p=0.001), lower quitting importance (OR=0.82, p=0.010) and less favourable smoking attitudes among friends/family/public (OR=0.48, p=0.034). In Georgia, among non-smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with older age (OR=1.04, p=0.002), being men (OR=5.56, p<0.001), lower SHS risk perception (OR=0.43, p<0.001), more friend smokers (OR=1.49, p=0.002) and fewer workplace (indoor) restrictions (OR=0.51, p=0.026); among smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with being men (OR=50.00, p<0.001), without children (OR=5.88, p<0.001), daily smoking (OR=4.30, p=0.050), lower quitting confidence (OR=0.81, p=0.004), more friend smokers (OR=1.62, p=0.038) and fewer community restrictions (OR=0.68, p=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Private settings continue to lack smoking restrictions in Armenia and Georgia. Findings highlight the importance of social influences and comprehensive tobacco legislation, particularly smoke-free policies, in changing household smoking restrictions and behaviours. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03447912.

Psychosocial Factors, Smoke-Free Restrictions, and Media Exposure in Relation to Smoking-Related Attitudes and Behaviors among Adults in Armenia and Georgia.

BACKGROUND: Perceived harm, social influences, smoke-free policies, and media exposure have been understudied in relation to tobacco-related attitudes/behaviors in aggregate or in low and middle-income countries; thus, this study examined these factors collectively in relation to smoking-related outcomes among Armenian and Georgian adults. METHODS: Using 2018 cross-sectional survey data (n = 1456), multivariable regression analyses examined these factors in relation to smoking status, perceived harm among nonsmokers, and readiness to quit and past-year quit attempts among smokers. RESULTS: Significant predictors (p < 0.05) of current smoking (27.3%) included lower perceived harm, more smoking friends, and fewer home and vehicle restrictions. Among nonsmokers, more home and restaurant/bar restrictions, fewer vehicle restrictions, greater anti-tobacco media exposure, and less pro-tobacco media exposure predicted greater perceived harm. Among smokers, greater perceived social acceptability of smoking, less anti-tobacco media exposure, and greater pro-tobacco media exposure predicted readiness to quit (12.7% of smokers). More smoking friends, more home restrictions, less anti-tobacco media exposure, and greater pro-tobacco media exposure predicted past-year quit attempts (19.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the importance of smoke-free policies but were counterintuitive regarding the roles of social and media influences, underscoring the need to better understand how to address these influences, particularly in countries with high smoking rates.

Smokers' and non-smokers' secondhand smoke experiences and interactions to reduce exposure in Armenia and Georgia.

INTRODUCTION: Armenia and Georgia have high rates of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe). Greater progress in recent smoke-free legislation in Georgia and Armenia provides a pivotal time for examining the impact on smokers' and non-smokers' experiences and interactions regarding SHSe. METHODS: Surveys were conducted in 28 communities in Armenia (n=705) and Georgia (n=751) in 2018 and assessed past 30-day SHSe and smoking in different contexts, as well as attitudes toward and interactions regarding SHSe. RESULTS: In this sample (mean age 43.4 years, SD=13.5; 60.5% female; 27.3% smokers), SHSe among non-smokers was usually in homes (42.7%), cars (42.4%), and outdoor public places (38.2%); smokers also reported smoking usually in these places (70.0%, 62.1%, and 60.0%, respectively). Smokers indicated greater likelihood of putting out cigarettes and non-smokers indicated greater likelihood of asking smokers to put them out in places where smoking was prohibited versus allowed (76.5% vs 57.3%, and 46.6% vs 30.7%, respectively). Moreover, 89.9% of smokers indicated being very likely to put out cigarettes around small children if asked and 75.8% indicated trying to minimize SHSe. While 39.7% of participants reported seeing requests to smokers to put out cigarettes in the past 6 months, only 23.3% of smokers reported being asked to do so. Non-smokers in Georgia versus Armenia reported greater likelihood of engaging in behaviors to lower SHSe (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Smoke-free legislation may catalyze more behaviors to lower SHSe, particularly among non-smokers; however, private settings (e.g. homes) remain prominent SHSe sources. Public health efforts must consider implications of such policies on SHSe in private settings.

Smokers' and Nonsmokers' Receptivity to Smoke-Free Policies and Pro- and Anti-Policy Messaging in Armenia and Georgia.

Garnering support for smoke-free policies is critical for their successful adoption, particularly in countries with high smoking prevalence, such as Armenia and Georgia. In 2018, we surveyed 1456 residents (ages 18-64) of 28 cities in Armenia (n = 705) and Georgia (n = 751). We examined support for cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)/heated tobacco product (HTP) smoke-free policies in various locations and persuasiveness of pro- and anti-policy messaging. Participants were an average age of 43.35, 60.5% female, and 27.3% current smokers. Nonsmokers versus smokers indicated greater policy support for cigarette and ENDS/HTP and greater persuasiveness of pro-policy messaging. Armenians versus Georgians generally perceived pro- and anti-policy messaging more persuasive. In multilevel linear regression, sociodemographics (e.g., female) and tobacco use characteristics (e.g., smoking less frequently, higher quitting importance) correlated with more policy support. Greatest policy support was for healthcare, religious, government, and workplace settings; public transport; schools; and vehicles carrying children. Least policy support was for bar/restaurant outdoor areas. The most compelling pro-policy message focused on the right to clean air; the most compelling anti-policy message focused on using nonsmoking sections. Specific settings may present challenges for advancing smoke-free policies. Messaging focusing on individual rights to clean air and health may garner support.

Examining smoke-free coalitions in Armenia and Georgia: baseline community capacity.

Local coalitions can advance public health initiative but have not been widely used or well-studied in low- and middle-income countries. This paper provides (i) an overview of an ongoing matched-pairs community-randomized controlled trial in 28 communities in Armenia and Georgia (N = 14/country) testing local coalitions to promote smoke-free policies/enforcement and (ii) characteristics of the communities involved. In July-August 2018, key informants (e.g. local public health center directors) were surveyed to compare their non-communicable disease (NCD) and tobacco-related activities across countries and across condition (intervention/control). More than half of the informants (50.0-57.1%) reported their communities had programs addressing hypertension, diabetes, cancer and human papilloma virus, with 85.7% involving community education and 32.1% patient education programs. Eleven communities (39.3%) addressed tobacco control, all of which were in Georgia. Of those, all included public/community education and the majority (72.7-81.8%) provided cessation counseling/classes, school/youth prevention programs, healthcare provider training or activities addressing smoke-free environments. Informants in Georgia versus Armenia perceived greater support for tobacco control from various sectors (e.g. government, community). No differences were found by condition assignment. This paper provides a foundation for presenting subsequent analyses of this ongoing trial. These analyses indicate wide variability regarding NCD-related activities and support across communities and countries.