Testing an Empowerment Intervention to Help Parents Make Homes Smoke-free: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Herbert, Rosemary; Gagnon, Anita J.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer; Rennick, Janet E.

doi:10.1007/s10900-011-9356-8

Cited by 14 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Seventy-five full-text articles were read. Forty-five studies were excluded for the following reasons: no relevant outcomes, 18 studies [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] ; the trial did not include a control group, 7 studies [56][57][58][59][60][61][62] ; the interventions were not aimed at parents of young children, 3 studies [63][64][65] ; the reporting period was ,1 month, 2 studies 66,67 ; data necessary for analysis were missing, 10 studies [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] ; the paper was a review article, 1 study 78 ; the article was a protocol, 2 studies 79,80 ; the article was a follow-up of a previous study, 1 study 81 ; there was no true control group (eg, 2 active interventions were compared), 1 study 82 .…”

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis of Parental Protection of Children From Tobacco Smoke Exposure

Rosen¹,

Myers²,

Hovell

et al. 2014

Pediatrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Worldwide, roughly 40% of children are exposed to the damaging and sometimes deadly effects of tobacco smoke. Interventions aimed at reducing child tobacco smoke exposure (TSE) have shown mixed results. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify effects of interventions aimed at decreasing child TSE.METHODS: Data sources included Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNet, and Embase. Controlled trials that included parents of young children were selected. Two reviewers extracted TSE data, as assessed by parentally-reported exposure or protection (PREP) and biomarkers. Risk ratios and differences were calculated by using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed.RESULTS: Thirty studies were included. Improvements were observed from baseline to follow-up for parentally-reported and biomarker data in most intervention and control groups. Interventions demonstrated evidence of small benefit to intervention participants at follow-up (PREP: 17 studies, n = 6820, relative risk 1.12, confidence interval [CI] 1.07 to 1.18], P , .0001). Seven percent more children were protected in intervention groups relative to control groups. Intervention parents smoked fewer cigarettes around children at follow-up than did control parents (P = .03). Biomarkers (13 studies, n = 2601) at follow-up suggested lower child exposure among intervention participants (RD 20.05, CI 20.13 to 0.03, P = .20).CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to prevent child TSE are moderately beneficial at the individual level. Widespread child TSE suggests potential for significant population impact. More research is needed to improve intervention effectiveness and child TSE measurement. KEY WORDS secondhand smoke exposure, tobacco smoke exposure, metaanalysis, systematic review, child ABBREVIATIONS CCR-cotinine/creatinine ratio CI-confidence interval CT-controlled trial PREP-parentally reported exposure or protection RCT-randomized controlled trial RD-relative difference RR-relative risk SHS-secondhand smoke THS-thirdhand smoke TSE-tobacco smoke exposure Dr Rosen conceptualized and designed the study, oversaw all aspects of the research, performed the systematic review of the literature, extracted data from the original studies, contributed to the statistical analysis, wrote sections of the manuscript, and edited the entire manuscript; Ms Myers contributed to systematically reviewing the literature, extracted data from the original articles, contributed to the data analysis, and contributed to the writing of the manuscript; Dr Hovell contributed to the design of the meta-analysis and interpretation of the data and edited the manuscript for scientific content; Dr Zucker assisted with various statistical issues in the analysis of the manuscript and edited the manuscript; Ms Ben Noach contributed to the design of the study, the systematic review of the literature, data extraction, data analysis, data interpretation, and writing of the m...

show abstract

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis of Parental Protection of Children From Tobacco Smoke Exposure

Rosen¹,

Myers²,

Hovell

et al. 2014

Pediatrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 35 studies, twenty were identified by the parallel review and excluded [ 37 – 41 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 50 – 54 , 58 – 61 , 66 , 68 , 69 ]. All but one of these [ 53 ] were found and excluded by Rosen.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 15 studies which were excluded by Rosen at the stage of full-text reading, 6 were excluded because there were no relevant outcomes. (Chan [ 38 ], Curry [ 41 ], Emmons [ 45 ], Hughes [ 50 ], Ralston 2008 [ 58 ], Winickoff [ 68 ]) Six studies were excluded because data necessary for meta-analysis review was missing [ 39 , 48 , 51 , 52 , 61 , 69 ]. All but one of these [ 61 ] were missing means, and/or standard deviations, and/or sample sizes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We found that omissions were attributable to: review scope (9 studies, 26 %) [ 40 , 42 – 44 , 46 , 47 , 56 , 64 , 70 ], outcomes of interest not measured (8 studies, 23 %) [ 38 , 41 , 45 , 50 , 54 , 58 , 59 , 68 ], exclusion of reports with inadequate reporting (6 studies, 17 %) [ 39 , 48 , 51 , 52 , 61 , 69 ], mixed or unclear reasons (3 studies, 8 %) [ 60 , 63 , 66 ], search strategies concerning filters, tagging, and keywords (3 studies, 8 %) [ 55 , 57 , 65 ], search strategies regarding sources: PUBMED not searched (2 studies, 6 %) [ 49 , 62 ]; discordant interpretation of same eligibility criteria (2 studies, 6 %) [ 37 , 53 ]; and non-identification due to non-specific study topic. (2 studies, 6 %) [ 36 , 67 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews

Rosen

Suhami

2016

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) form the foundation for guidelines and evidence-based policy in medicine and public health. Although similar systematic reviews may include non-identical sets of studies, and it is recognized that different sets of studies may lead to different conclusions, little work has been published on why SR study cohorts differ.MethodsWe took advantage of concurrent publication of two SRs on the same topic – prevention of child exposure to tobacco smoke - to understand why study cohorts differed in the two reviews. We identified all studies included in just one review, investigated validity of specified reasons for exclusions, and, using database records, explored reasons for study non-identification. We assessed review methods and discordancy, and attempted to assess whether changes in study cohorts would have changed conclusions.ResultsSixty-one studies were included in the two reviews. Thirty-five studies were present in just one review; of these, twenty were identified and excluded by the parallel review.Omissions were due to: review scope (9 studies, 26 %), outcomes of interest not measured (8 studies, 23 %), exclusion of reports with inadequate reporting (6 studies, 17 %), mixed or unclear reasons (3 studies, 8 %), search strategies concerning filters, tagging, and keywords (3 studies, 8 %), search strategies regarding sources (PUBMED not searched) (2 studies, 6 %); discordant interpretation of same eligibility criteria (2 studies, 6 %), and non-identification due to non-specific study topic (2 studies, 6 %). Review conclusions differed, but were likely due to differences in synthesis methods, not differences in study cohorts.ConclusionsThe process of study identification for SRs is part art and part science. While some differences are due to differences in review scope, outcomes measured, or reporting practices, others are caused by search methods or discrepancies in reviewer interpretations. Different study cohorts may or may not be a cause of differing SR results. Completeness of SR study cohorts could be enhanced by 1 – independent identification of studies by at least two reviewers, as recommended by recent guidelines, 2 - searching PUBMED with free-text keywords in addition to MEDLINE to identify recent studies, and 3 - Using validated search filters.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0118-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…One school-based study (Blanch et al, 2013) and one family-based study (Herbert et al, 2011) failed to detect a difference between the intervention and control groups. On the other hand, two hospital-based studies (Harutyunyan :http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.3.1235School-Based Intervention for Household Members towards a Smoke-Free Home: a Cluster Controlled Trial et al, 2013Yilmaz et al, 2013) and one family-based study (Kegler et al, 2015) reported significant effects of their interventions aiming to promote a SFH.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of a School-based Intervention Program on Attitude and Knowledge of Household Members Towards a Smoke-free Home: a Cluster Controlled Trial

Intarut

Chongsuvivatwong²,

McNeil³

2016

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A school-based smoke free home (SFH) program is useful in empowering the mother and child to reduce secondhand smoke exposure but the effects of pretesting on knowledge and attitude has been largely ignored. We aimed to test whether such a program can be effective in Southern Thailand with an additional assessment of the net effect of the pretest. Materials and Methods: A Solomon four-group design was used. Twelve rural primary schools were assigned to one of the four conditions (each with 3 schools): intervention with and without a pretest, control with and without the same pretest. The intervention was performed in the classroom and home over a period of 1 month. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 3 months after the intervention on whether the home was smoke free and related knowledge and attitude. Results: The intervention could lead to a smoke-free home without statistical significance. Attitude, knowledge and self-confidence on creating a smoke-free home, and self-confidence in avoidance of secondhand smoke exposure and persuading smokers to not smoke in their home were significantly improved. No pretest effect was observed. Conclusions: Gain in attitude, knowledge and self-confidence among family members from the brief school-based education should be enhanced by other measures.

show abstract

Testing an Empowerment Intervention to Help Parents Make Homes Smoke-free: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Cited by 14 publications

References 33 publications

Meta-analysis of Parental Protection of Children From Tobacco Smoke Exposure

Meta-analysis of Parental Protection of Children From Tobacco Smoke Exposure

The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews

Effects of a School-based Intervention Program on Attitude and Knowledge of Household Members Towards a Smoke-free Home: a Cluster Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About