Implementing an Evidence-based Tobacco Control Program at Five 2-1-1 Call Centers: An Evaluation Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Thompson, Tess; Kreuter, Matthew W.; Caito, Nicole M.; Williams, Rebecca S.; Escoffery, Cam; Fernández, María E.; Kegler, Michelle C.

doi:10.1093/ntr/ntx232

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since NBCCEDPs target low-income females, the current program focused on a sample that was disproportionately female, and the Sage participants were age 18 or older. Patient navigators followed a script based on previous research [ 12 , 17 , 18 ]. The script allowed patient navigators to confirm specific personal information concerning smoking status, living arrangements, and whether the household had comprehensive smoke-free rules.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were three surveys in total: baseline, and 3- and 6-month follow-up surveys. All survey questions were generated using verified metrics from the original SFHP materials [ 12 , 17 , 18 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Voluntary smoke-free rules in homes can reduce SHS and tobacco use [ 4 , 6 , 7 , 10 ]. Yet disparities in smoke-free home rules persist [ 4 , 6 , 11 , 12 ]. Low-SES populations are less likely to implement smoke-free home rules [ 4 , 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scalable evidence-based interventions (EBIs) exist that can increase smoke-free rules in homes [ 17 , 18 ]. However, these intervention materials have focused primarily on smoke-free rules in homes only [ 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Moreover, similar to many EBIs, limited research has tested implementation and dissemination of evidence-based smoke-free interventions in national programs that serve low-income populations and offer potential for population impact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The program recruited participants by using a referral system in collaboration with the 2-1-1 call center (i.e., operators recruit eligible participants who call 2-1-1 for unrelated reasons), and the intervention has increased smoke-free home rules among low-income populations through multiple 2-1-1 call centers [ 12 , 21 ]. Yet more research is needed on how the intervention translates across settings [ 12 ], and results for smoke-free cars have not been a central focus [ 18 ]. Adapting the program to address smoke-free rules in cars is an important area of research [ 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Reducing Socioeconomic Disparities in Comprehensive Smoke-Free Rules among Households with Children: A Pilot Intervention Implemented through a National Cancer Program

Parks

Kegler

Kingsbury

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most households with a smoker do not implement comprehensive smoke-free rules (smoke-free homes and cars), and secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure remains prevalent among children and low-socioeconomic status (SES) populations. This pilot project aimed to assess implementation feasibility and impact of an intervention designed to increase smoke-free rules among socioeconomically disadvantaged households with children. The pilot was implemented through Minnesota’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). NBCCEDPs provide cancer prevention services to low-income individuals experiencing health disparities. We successfully utilized and adapted the Smoke-Free Homes Program (SFHP) to address comprehensive smoke-free rules among households with children. We used two recruitment methods: (a) direct mail (DM) and (b) opportunistic referral (OR) by patient navigators in the NBCCEDP call center. We used descriptive statistics to assess implementation outcomes and hierarchical logistic regression models (HLM) to assess change in smoke-free rules and SHS exposure over the study period. There was no comparison group, and HLM was used to examine within-person change. A total of 64 participants were recruited. Results showed 83% of participants were recruited through DM. OR had a high recruitment rate, and DM recruited more participants with a low response rate but higher retention rate. Among recruited participants with data (n = 47), smoke-free home rules increased by 50.4 percentage points during the study period (p < 0.001). Among recruited participants who had a vehicle (n = 38), smoke-free car rules increased by 37.6 percentage points (p < 0.01) and comprehensive smoke-free rules rose 40.9 percentage points (p < 0.01). Home SHS exposure declined, and within-person increase in smoke-free home rules was significantly related to less home SHS exposure (p < 0.05). It is feasible to adapt and implement the evidence-based SFHP intervention through a national cancer program, but the current pilot demonstrated recruitment is a challenge. DM produced a low response rate and therefore OR is the recommended recruitment route. Despite low recruitment rates, we conclude that the SFHP can successfully increase comprehensive smoke-free rules and reduce SHS exposure among socioeconomically disadvantaged households with children recruited through a NBCCEDP.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reducing Socioeconomic Disparities in Comprehensive Smoke-Free Rules among Households with Children: A Pilot Intervention Implemented through a National Cancer Program

Parks

Kegler

Kingsbury

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Longitudinal experience of food insecurity & cigarette use in the early COVID-19 Pandemic, United States

Pike Moore,

Gunzler,

Spears

et al. 2024

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Bundy

Haardörfer

Kegler

et al. 2018

Nicotine &Amp; Tobacco Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Implementing an Evidence-based Tobacco Control Program at Five 2-1-1 Call Centers: An Evaluation Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Cited by 8 publications

References 20 publications

Reducing Socioeconomic Disparities in Comprehensive Smoke-Free Rules among Households with Children: A Pilot Intervention Implemented through a National Cancer Program

Reducing Socioeconomic Disparities in Comprehensive Smoke-Free Rules among Households with Children: A Pilot Intervention Implemented through a National Cancer Program

Longitudinal experience of food insecurity & cigarette use in the early COVID-19 Pandemic, United States

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About