Search

Few community interventions exist to reduce secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke in the home. This study presents the coaching process of a larger intervention to promote smoke-free homes across an efficacy and 2 effectiveness trials. It furthers assesses the coaching call’s reach and participants’ satisfaction with the call across three intervention sites. The sources of the data were from baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys, coaching forms or online tracking system and interviews with coaches. Reach for the coaching call across trials was fairly high from 72% to 92%. Overall, the majority of participants were highly satisfied with the intervention (M = 3.76) and found it useful in creating a smoke-free home (M = 3.63). Common goals set were changing the environment to support a home smoking ban (e.g. putting up signs, removing ashtrays) (82%) or picking a date (60%). Challenges to a smoke-free home were consistent with other literature on barriers related to household smoking restrictions, including need for assistance in quitting, outside weather and smokers who do not want to quit. Additional research is needed to explore differential reach and reactions to the coaching call as it is disseminated and the impact of coaching call on the outcome of a smoke-free home.

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a creating a smoke-free home (SFH) on cessation and reduction of cigarette smoking on low-income smokers. This secondary data analysis uses data from study participants who were originally recruited through 2-1-1 information and referral call centers in Atlanta (Georgia, 2013), North Carolina (2014) and the Texas Gulf Coast (2015) across three randomized controlled trials testing an intervention aimed at creating SFHs, pooling data from 941 smokers. Participants who reported adopting a SFH were more likely to report quitting smoking than those who did not adopt a SFH. This was true at 3-month follow-up and even more pronounced at 6-month follow-up and persisted when considering only those who consistently reported no smoking at 3 and 6 months. Among those who did not stop smoking, the number of cigarettes per day declined significantly more and quit attempts were more frequent for those who created a SFH compared with those who did not. Findings suggest that creating a SFH facilitates cessation, reduces cigarette consumption and increases quit attempts. Future studies should assess the long-term impact of SFHs on sustaining cessation.

Third-hand smoke (THS) is the residual tobacco smoke contaminant that remains after a cigarette is extinguished. It can react with the indoor air pollutant nitrous acid to produce a carcinogen. Understanding perceptions of THS is critical, as it may inform the development of messages for promoting smoke-free homes. Six focus groups, of smokers and non-smokers, with 39 participants were conducted. Participants were asked whether they knew about THS and its harmful effects and whether it would motivate people to make their homes smoke free. They also answered questions about THS beliefs. Participants were mostly African-American, female and high-school graduate or General Educational Development (GED) recipients. Most of the participants had not heard about it and did not know what THS was. When asked about the dangers of THS, some participants made references to children indicating that they can easily inhale or ingest the residue leading to harmful effects. Almost all of the participants stated that they thought being educated about THS would motivate people to make their homes smoke free. There is a need for more scientific understanding of the potential dangers of THS and subsequent education about its exposure and harm to children and possibly adults.

Understanding who establishes partial home smoking bans, what these bans cover, and whether they are an intermediate step in going smoke-free would help to inform smoke-free home interventions. Participants were recruited from United Way of Greater Atlanta's 2-1-1 contact center. Data were collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months via telephone interview. Participants (n = 375) were mostly African American (84.2%) and female (84.3%). The majority (58.5%) had annual household incomes

Special events such as health fairs, cultural festivals and charity runs are commonly employed in the community to increase cancer screening; however, little is known about their effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to assess the activities, screening outcomes, barriers and recommendations of special events to increase breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. In-depth interviews were conducted nationally with 51 coordinators of events in June to September 2012. Health fairs and screening days were the most common events conducted, primarily for breast cancer education. Goals were to increase awareness of cancer screening and reach special populations. Evidence-based Community Guide strategies to increase cancer screening employed were: small media, reducing structural barriers, one-on-one education or group education. For each event that provided screening on-site or through referral, a mean of 35 breast, 28 cervical and 19 colorectal cancer screenings were reported. Coordinators made recommendations for further evaluation of special events, and most plan to conduct another special event. These data are novel and provide baseline documentation of activities and recommendations for a commonly used community-based cancer screening intervention that lacks evidence of effectiveness. Additional research to better understand the use of special events for increasing cancer screening is warranted.