mHealth Intervention is Effective in Creating Smoke-Free Homes for Newborns: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study in China

Yu, Shuai; Duan, Zongshuan; Redmon, Pamela; Eriksen, Michael P.; Koplan, Jeffrey P.; Huang, Cheng

doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08922-x

Cited by 27 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Electronic and hand searching identified 550 records, with 493 references remaining after the removal of duplicates. Based on title and abstract screening, 103 relevant articles were retrieved for full-text assessment, with the final inclusion of 16 primary controlled trials [ 5 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ] (associated with 41 articles, Table S1 ). Twelve of these trials had previously been identified by Behbod and colleagues [ 27 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Full trial characteristics are shown in Table S2 (including population, sample size, details of the intervention and control, outcome measures, and process indicators). Twelve trials [ 5 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 52 ] were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three were cluster RCTs [ 40 , 50 , 51 ], and one was a non-randomised controlled trial [ 43 ]. Most trials were conducted in the USA [ 5 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 51 ], with the remaining trials in China [ 38 , 39 , 41 , 52 ], Germany [ 46 ], and Spain [ 50 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic Review of Behaviour Change Techniques within Interventions to Reduce Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure for Children

Brown

Gentry

Bauld

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children are particularly vulnerable to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). There is no routine support to reduce ETS in the home. We systematically reviewed trials to reduce ETS in children in order to identify intervention characteristics and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to inform future interventions. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register from January 2017 to June 2020 to update an existing systematic review. We included controlled trials to reduce parent/caregiver smoking or ETS in children <12 years that demonstrated a statistically significant benefit, in comparison to less intensive interventions or usual care. We extracted trial characteristics; and BCTs using Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1. We defined “promising” BCTs as those present in at least 25% of effective interventions. Data synthesis was narrative. We included 16 trials, of which eight were at low risk of bias. All trials used counselling in combination with self-help or other supporting materials. We identified 13 “promising” BCTs centred on education, setting goals and planning, or support to reach goals. Interventions to reduce ETS in children should incorporate effective BCTs and consider counselling and self-help as mechanisms of delivery.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Behaviour Change Techniques within Interventions to Reduce Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure for Children

Brown

Gentry

Bauld

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the six papers that assessed efforts to test smoke-free home interventions involving fathers, all but one were conducted in Asian countries (three in China, one in India, one in Iran) [33,[41][42][43][44], with the remaining study conducted in Turkey [45]. Three were randomised controlled trials (RCT) assessing the feasibility of providing families with different counselling/educational interventions [41,44,45]. Two studies used a repeated cross-sectional design to assess the impacts of a ban on smoking in public places on home-smoking levels comparing pre-and post-ban survey data and home-smoking behaviour [42,43].…”

Section: Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One RCT conducted in China (Changchun) [44] assessed whether an intervention that incorporated traditional and mobile-phone based education could assist families in creating a smoke-free home for infants. Non-smoking mothers of newborns and fathers received counselling at the same time, which facilitated spousal interaction and support, and encouraged the mothers to be the change agents.…”

Section: Education and Mobile-health Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fathers’ Views and Experiences of Creating a Smoke-Free Home: A Scoping Review

O’Donnell

Angus

McCulloch

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enabling parents to create a smoke-free home is one of the key ways that children’s exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) can be reduced. Smoke-free home interventions have largely targeted mothers who smoke, and there is little understanding of the barriers and facilitators that fathers experience in creating a smoke-free home. Systematic searches combining terms for fathers, homes, and SHS exposure were run in April 2019 in Web of Science’s Citation Indices, PsycINFO, and PubMed for English-language studies published since 2008. The searches identified 980 records for screening, plus 66 records from other sources. Twelve studies reported in 13 papers were included in this scoping review. Eight of the studies were conducted in Asian countries (five in China, one in India, one in Japan, and one in Iran), three were conducted in Canada, and one in Turkey. Findings were extracted in verbatim text for thematic analysis. The review identified that attitudes and knowledge, cultural and social norms, gender power relations, and shifting perceptions and responsibilities related to fatherhood can impact on fathers’ views of their role in relation to creating and maintaining a smoke-free home. There were too few published studies that had assessed smoke-free home interventions with fathers to draw conclusions regarding effective approaches. Research is clearly needed to inform our understanding of fathers’ roles, successes and challenges in creating and maintaining a smoke-free home, so that father-inclusive rather than mother-led interventions can be developed to benefit entire households and improve gender equity as well as health.

show abstract

“…[17][18][19] Intervention strategies include home visits and fairly intensive telephone counseling, with messages often focused on cessation combined with actions to reduce smoking in the home. 14,15,16,17,[19][20][21][22][23][24] With the exception of a pediatric office-based intervention 15 few interventions to reduce SHS exposure have been replicated or widely disseminated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

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

mHealth Intervention is Effective in Creating Smoke-Free Homes for Newborns: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study in China

Cited by 27 publications

References 34 publications

Systematic Review of Behaviour Change Techniques within Interventions to Reduce Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure for Children

Systematic Review of Behaviour Change Techniques within Interventions to Reduce Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure for Children

Fathers’ Views and Experiences of Creating a Smoke-Free Home: A Scoping Review

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