Evaluation of the impact of a smoke-free home initiative in Rotherham, a deprived district in Northern England

Allmark, Peter; Tod, Angela; McDonnell, Ann; Al-Alawy, Khamis; Mann, Kaye; Hollis, Emma; Qutishat, Dania; Williamson, Marcus; Iliff, Alison

doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckr072

Cited by 5 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A more recent review of interventions to create smoke-free homes during pregnancy or the neonatal period, typically based on counseling, was inconclusive due to poor study quality and the heterogeneity of outcomes reported [50]. Allmark and colleagues [51] reported evaluation results from an intervention similar to the one reported here, in which families who signed up for the program received a booklet and support materials. Although limited by no comparison group and a modest response rate, they found that among households that permitted some smoking at home before the initiative, about 78% became smoke-free after receiving the intervention program.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Pilot Study Results from a Brief Intervention to Create Smoke-Free Homes

Kegler

Escoffery

Bundy

et al. 2012

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Very few community-based intervention studies have examined how to effectively increase the adoption of smoke-free homes. A pilot study was conducted to test the feasibility, acceptability, and short-term outcomes of a brief, four-component intervention for promoting smoke-free home policies among low-income households. We recruited forty participants (20 smokers and 20 nonsmokers) to receive the intervention at two-week intervals. The design was a pretest-posttest with follow-up at two weeks after intervention. The primary outcome measure was self-reported presence of a total home smoking ban. At follow-up, 78% of participants reported having tried to establish a smoke-free rule in their home, with significantly more nonsmokers attempting a smoke-free home than smokers (P = .03). These attempts led to increased smoking restrictions, that is, going from no ban to a partial or total ban, or from a partial to a total ban, in 43% of the homes. At follow-up, 33% of the participants reported having made their home totally smoke-free. Additionally, smokers reported smoking fewer cigarettes per day. Results suggest that the intervention is promising and warrants a rigorous efficacy trial.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Pilot Study Results from a Brief Intervention to Create Smoke-Free Homes

Kegler

Escoffery

Bundy

et al. 2012

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, evidence suggests that the intervention could be directly linked to the observed decrease in asthma admissions. Firstly, an evaluation of TiRO 20 and other smoke-free home initiatives in the UK 8,9 showed that parents retain information concerning smoke-free homes, and in many cases implemented a change in their smoking behaviour. Secondly, the pro portion of children with reported second-hand smoke exposure decreased after TiRO, from 12% in 2014 to 6% in 2015 and 2018.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 The only other national smoke-free home initiative that we are aware of involved a smoke-free home pledge approach in the USA in 2001. 7 UK regional smoke free-home programmes exist 8,9 but the effect of TiRO and other smoke-free home initiatives on childhood health out comes has not been evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associations between a smoke-free homes intervention and childhood admissions to hospital in Scotland: an interrupted time-series analysis of whole-population data

Turner

Mackay

Dick

et al. 2020

The Lancet Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many children are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home and are at increased risk of asthma and other respiratory conditions. In Scotland, a public health mass-media campaign was launched on March 24, 2014, called Take it Right Outside (TiRO), with a focus on reducing the exposure of children to domestic second-hand smoke. In this study, our aim was to establish whether the TiRO campaign was followed by a decrease in hospital admissions for childhood asthma and other respiratory conditions related to second-hand smoke exposure across Scotland.Methods For an interrupted time-series analysis, data were obtained on all hospital admissions in Scotland between 2000 and 2018 for children aged younger than 16 years. We studied changes in the monthly incidence of admissions for conditions potentially related to second-hand smoke exposure (asthma, lower respiratory tract infection, bronchiolitis, croup, and acute otitis media) per 1000 children following the 2014 TiRO campaign, while considering national legislation banning smoking in public spaces from 2006. We considered asthma to be the primary condition related to second-hand smoke exposure, with monthly asthma admissions as the primary outcome. Gastroenteritis was included as a control condition. The analysis of asthma admissions considered subgroups stratified by age and area quintile of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivations (SIMD). Findings 740 055 hospital admissions were recorded for children. 138 931 (18•8%) admissions were for respiratory conditions potentially related to second-hand smoke exposure, of which 32 342 (23•3%) were for asthma. After TiRO in 2014, we identified a decrease relative to the underlying trend in the slope of admissions for asthma (-0•48% [-0•85 to -0•12], p=0•0096) in younger children (age <5 years), but not in older children (age 5-15 years). Asthma admissions did not change after TiRO among children 0-15 years of age when data were analysed according to area deprivation quintile. Following the 2006 legislation, independent of TiRO, asthma admissions decreased in both younger children (-0•36% [-0•67 to -0•05], p=0•021) and older children (-0•68% [-1•00 to -0•36], p<0•0001), and in children from the most deprived (SIMD 1; -0•49% [-0•87 to -0•11], p=0•011) and intermediate deprived (SIMD 3; -0•70% [-1•17 to -0•23], p=0•0043) area quintiles, but not in those from the least deprived (SIMD 5) area quintile.Interpretation Our findings suggest that smoke-free home interventions could be an important tool to reduce asthma admissions in young children, and that smoke-free public space legislation might improve child health for many years, especially in the most deprived communities.

show abstract

“…So far, most interventions to support parents in the implementation of an SFH have aimed at strengthening the children's, rather than the parents', self-efficacy and skills, although we are aware of some exceptions [20][21][22][23]. In order to improve the parents' self-efficacy and skills, interventions for parents with a partial SFH could, for instance, make use of enactive learning [31].…”

Section: Strengthening Personal Agencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A potential solution is to use interventions to support parents in the implementation of an SFH. Many of the current SFH interventions are school-based and offer information, education and/or a smoke-free promise for families to sign [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. In some other interventions, smoke-free home advisors provide individual coaching or community-wide SFH promotion [18][19][20][21]23,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities for Tailored Support to Implement Smoke-Free Homes: A Qualitative Study among Lower Socioeconomic Status Parents

Wijk

Overberg²,

Kunst

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the aim of preventing children from being exposed to secondhand smoke, we examined to which level lower socio-economic status (SES) households had implemented home smoking rules and the factors that hampered parents in their process of change toward a complete smoke-free home (SFH). We conducted a qualitative study including semi-structured in-depth interviews with 14 parents of young children living in a lower SES neighborhood of a provincial town in the Netherlands. Interview transcripts were subjected to a qualitative content analysis. Three distinct levels of SFH implementation emerged: complete SFH, flexible SFH, and partial SFH. Differences between parents at these three levels essentially concerned: (1) the role of child-related moral considerations in their motivation for an SFH; (2) whether they felt they had the agency to set and enforce home smoking rules; (3) the difficulties they experienced in changing their smoking habit from smoking indoors to smoking outdoors. Parents also had different opinions about the role their children could play in facilitating the parental process of change. We conclude that the current level of SFH implementation may serve as a starting point for developing tailored interventions. Such interventions should probably address other factors than the commonly used awareness–knowledge–commitment approach.

show abstract

Evaluation of the impact of a smoke-free home initiative in Rotherham, a deprived district in Northern England

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

Pilot Study Results from a Brief Intervention to Create Smoke-Free Homes

Pilot Study Results from a Brief Intervention to Create Smoke-Free Homes

Associations between a smoke-free homes intervention and childhood admissions to hospital in Scotland: an interrupted time-series analysis of whole-population data

Opportunities for Tailored Support to Implement Smoke-Free Homes: A Qualitative Study among Lower Socioeconomic Status Parents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About