Brief Interventions to Create Smoke- Free Home Policies in Low-Income Households Cam Escoffery, PhD, MPH Michelle C. Kegler, DrPH, MPH Department of Behavioral.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Kate Eddens Matthew W. Kreuter Health Communication Research Laboratory Washington University in St. Louis Keeping clients healthy: Integrating proactive.
Advertisements

Empowering tobacco-free coalitions to collect local data on worksite and restaurant smoking policies Mary Michaud, MPP University of Wisconsin-Cooperative.
Results Introduction Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in Wisconsin and the United States. Given the risk of smoking initiation during.
Board Goals. Goals for Presentation Restate Board Goals (short) Why Long-Range Planning is Essential Nancy et al on details of planning (processes, resources,
Tobacco & Cancer. Tobacco Use And Cancer Tobacco use, the most preventable cause of death in our society, accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP): Current Progress and Future Action Temeika L. Fairley, Epidemiologist Comprehensive Cancer Control.
Impact of reduced in-home secondhand smoke exposure on low birth weight prevalence and neonate health PEER Health Research Project Dr. Yayi Suryo Prabandari.
Dejar de Fumar Hoy - Quit Smoking Now: A Smoking Cessation Program for Latinos Sally Haack, Pharm.D., BCPS; Naomi Barasch, Pharm.D. Candidate Drake University.
Secondhand Smoke Exposure, Smoking and Children’s Health Coordinator Name Alabama Dept. of Public Health.
Public Health Nursing Practice: Finding Evidence to Apply to Environmental Health Issues Searching for Smoke-Free Air.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA TOBACCO SURVEYS Elizabeth A. Gilpin, MS Principal Investigator 1999 California Tobacco Surveys Cancer Prevention and Control.
TRENDS IN SECONDHAND SMOKE EXPOSURE AMONG SOUTH AFRICAN ADOLESCENTS DURING Joyce L. Jakavula and Olalekan A. Ayo-Yusuf School of Health Systems.
The Use of Commercial Tobacco Among Minority Populations Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office on Smoking and Health Sydney Lee.
Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network A national network of academic, public health, and community partners who work together to reduce the burden.
The Ohio Partners for Smoke-Free Families 5A’s
First RCT of Web-Based Acceptance & Commitment Therapy For Smoking Cessation: 3 Month Processes & Outcomes Jonathan B. Bricker, PhD Fred Hutchinson Cancer.
Developing Advocacy Programs for Adults and/or Youth Presentation for APHA CEI Workshop #2019 November 5, 2006 Caroline H. Sparks, Ph.D., Associate Professor.
Infant Safe Sleep Resources North Carolina Carolinas Medical Center Charlotte, NC September 5, 2007 Christine O’Meara, MA, MPH.
Source: Massachusetts BRFSS Prepared by: Health Survey Program Using the BRFSS to Track Healthy People 2010 Objectives Highlights from the 2004 Massachusetts.
PACIFIC NURSING SMOKEFREE PROJECT VISION: To enable equitable health outcomes for colleagues and Pacific peoples smoking in our population.
The Effect of Prices, Programs, and Smoke-free Homes on Smoking Behavior in the 1990s Evidence from Population Surveys John Pierce, UC San Diego Wael Al.
Quittin’ Time: Helping Employees Become Tobacco-free June 2005.
Increasing CRC Screening among Filipino Americans (Maxwell, Bastani, Danao, Crespi, UCLA. ACS ) Recruitment of subjects in 45 CBOs and churches.
Changing the social climate of tobacco control in Mississippi: Collaborations Matter APHA 2002 Robert McMillen 1 Bonita Reinert 2 Julie Breen 1 SSRC 1.
Integrating evidence-based practice into state and national cancer control programs Karen Glanz, PhD, MPH Emory University Cathy Melvin, PhD, MPH University.
Emerging Issues in Cancer Control Roshan Bastani PhD & Vicky Taylor MD, MPH.
1 Treating Tobacco Use During Pregnancy Cecelia A. Gaffney, MEd Dartmouth Medical School May 16, 2005.
Kansas Tobacco Prevention Workgroup for Specific Populations May 17 and 18, 2007 Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs Becky Tuttle,
A Fresh Start for WIC: Tailoring Smoking Cessation for WIC Participants and Their Families Laura A.Van Dyke, CSW Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers.
Asthma Disparities – A Focused Examination of Race and Ethnicity on the Health of Massachusetts Residents Jean Zotter, JD Director, Asthma Prevention and.
UIC University of Illinois at Chicago RTC: Randomized Community Trial Community-Based Tobacco Control Program.
Tobacco Use In Kansas Healthy Kansans 2010 Steering Committee Meeting May 12, 2005.
1 Overview of CPCRN and Recent Accomplishments Kurt M. Ribisl, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CPCRN Coordinating Center CPCRN Dialogue.
E of computer-tailored S moking C essation A dvice in P rimary car E A Randomised Controlled Trial ffectiveness Hazel Gilbert Department of Primary Care.
Social Context of Tobacco Use among Asian Americans in Ohio: Policy Implications Surendra Bir Adhikari, Ph.D. “Impact of Tobacco Use on Special Populations”
University of Iowa Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network Sue Curry, Ph.D., Principal Investigator This presentation was supported by Cooperative.
Design and First Year Results of the Healthy Hawaii Initiative Jay Maddock, Ph.D. Claudio Nigg, Ph.D. Jessica Yamauchi, M.A. University of Hawaii Funded.
The Broader Impact of Incentive Schemes to Enable Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy Tina Williams June 2015.
Identifying the Risks of Smoking Lesson 3. Truth #1 Tobacco is as much a part of Kentucky’s culture as Bourbon and Horseracing.
Collaborative strategies to reduce tobacco exposure among low-income families Katie Marble, CHES Joan Orr, CHES Healthy Community Coalition.
Evaluating Local Tobacco Control Organizations. David Ahrens, Research Program Manager Research conducted by: Barbara.
Introduction to HealthLinks. Understand the main components of the HealthLinks program Gain a general sense of the history of HealthLinks Understand the.
EFFICACY OF A STAGE-BASED BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION TO PROMOTE STI SCREENING IN YOUNG WOMEN: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL Chacko MR, Wiemann CM, Kozinetz.
Doctors In Turkey Smoke More SAHIN EM, OZER C, DAGDEVIREN N, AKTURK Z Trakya University Faculty of Medicine Department of Family Practice.
TM Best Practices—2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Deborah Houston McCall, MSPH, Program Consultant Program Services Branch Office on Smoking.
Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Case Studies of Local and National Partnerships Putting Evidence into Practice CDC Cancer Partners.
 2007 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Section B ASSIST Evaluation.
Tobacco 101. Evolution of Tobacco Evolution of Tobacco.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics Occupational exposure to.
Utilizing Community Indicators To Link Process Measures To Program Outcomes T.M. Hinman, M.P.H., H.R. Juster, Ph.D., A.M. Beigel, M.F.A. New York State.
Secondhand smoke is harmful, but there are ways to reduce exposure.
The Tobacco Technical Assistance Consortium What is TTAC? What Does It Do?
Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research and Smoke-Free Families National Dissemination Office University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North.
Second Hand Smoke. Did you know? When you are in same room with people who are smoking you are exposed to 4000 chemicals. 200 poisonous. Smokers smoke…
BluePrint for Health® stop-smoking program: Quit Outcomes Nina L. Alesci, M.P.H. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota* Center for Tobacco Reduction.
Comprehensive Tobacco Action Group Summary December 16, 2005.
Background Results Conclusions / Policy Implications SHS causes approximately 38,000 deaths among nonsmokers in the U.S. each year (1,2) Workplace smoking.
1 Asthma in Children and Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Home Buddy R. Bates, MSPH Chronic Disease Epidemiology Unit Louisiana Office of.
Learning from others California Massachusetts Other States CDC.
Environmental and Social Influences on Tobacco Use Among 18 to 24 Year-Olds in Idaho Dr. John Hetherington Clearwater Research, Inc. Influences on Young.
Tobacco Disparities: Issues of Inequity & Social Injustice
1 Cleaning House: Reducing Children’s Involuntary Exposure to Secondhand Smoke National Conference on Tobacco or Health November 19, 2002.
2016 Tobacco-Free Nebraska State Conference Social Determinants of Health: Tobacco Prevention and Control Dwana “Dee” Calhoun, MS-SMHN Director April 21,
Fax to Assist On-line Training for Certification Sponsored by Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and University of Maryland Baltimore County.
Secondhand smoke (SHS) is environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) that is inhaled involuntarily and passively. SHS is a combination of “sidestream” smoke, which.
CESSATION SERVICES IN AMERICAN INDIAN COMMUNITIES: RECOMMENDATIONS
Evidence of a Program's Effectiveness in Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Federally Qualified Health Centers Robert L. Stephens, PhD, MPH1;
Secondhand smoke is harmful, but there are ways to reduce exposure.
Process Indicators for Patient Navigation
Implementing the Smoke-Free Homes
Presentation transcript:

Brief Interventions to Create Smoke- Free Home Policies in Low-Income Households Cam Escoffery, PhD, MPH Michelle C. Kegler, DrPH, MPH Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University

Secondhand Smoke (SHS) EPA Class A Carcinogen Causes Premature Death in Nonsmokers Lung cancer Heart disease Especially Harmful to Children Increases occurrence of severe asthma and SIDS Ear infections

Disease Burden of SHS OutcomeAnnual excess number due to SHS in U.S. Episodes of childhood asthma202,300 Doctor visits for childhood otitis media790,000 Deaths due to SIDS430 Deaths due to ischemic heart disease46,000 (22,700 to 69,500) Lung cancer deaths3400 Source: International Agency for Research on Cancer & CA EPA, Air Resources Board, 2005

Exposure to SHS in the U.S. Detectable serum cotinine declined from 83.9% of nonsmokers ( ) to 46.4% ( ) in U.S. population (≥ 4 years of age) Children aged 4-11 had the smallest decline in exposure to SHS (60.5%) with detectable serum cotinine in African Americans more likely to have detectable serum cotinine in ; 70.5% compared to 43.0% in non- Hispanic whites and 40.0% in Mexican Americans Note: cotinine is the primary proximate metabolite of nicotine and is an objective biomarker of exposure Source: CDC. Disparities in secondhand smoke exposure-United States, and , MMWR, 2008; 57(27):

Smoke-Free Home Private sphere equivalent of a clean indoor air ordinance Household smoking bans are usually unwritten rules Voluntary in nature Total ban definition (Smoke-Free Home): Smoking is not allowed anywhere inside the home Partial ban definition: Smoking allowed in some places or at some times

Prevalence of Household Smoking Bans Nationwide 78.1% of households had total bans in % of non-smokers report a ban 45.0% of smokers report a ban Socioeconomic and demographic factors Higher SES had more bans African Americans less likely to have bans than other racial and ethnic groups Presence of children likely to increase ban adoption Source: CDC, 2009

Rationale for Intervention Smoke-free homes: Reduce exposure to secondhand smoke in adult nonsmokers and children May help smokers to quit May disrupt the smoking initiation process

Smoke-Free Home Interventions To Date Tobacco control movement focused on policy approach to multi-family dwellings Smoke-free home efforts part of comprehensive tobacco control and tend to include awareness via media campaigns and smoke-free home pledges (not typically evaluated as stand-alone interventions) Intervention research often clinic-based, relatively intensive and/or emphasizes cessation Community Guide concluded “insufficient evidence” for community education to promote smoke-free homes

New Project NCI funding (State and Community Tobacco Control Policy and Media Research-U01) Builds on work of CPCRN work group Key partners include: University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (Williams & Ribisl) University of Texas-Houston (Mullen & Fernandez) Washington University-St. Louis (Kreuter) Emory University and Tobacco Technical Assistance Consortium-Atlanta organizations in four states State tobacco control programs in four states

Study Aims Formative research on intervention materials and key messages Conduct an efficacy trial of the SFH intervention in the Atlanta area Conduct effectiveness studies in North Carolina and Houston Disseminate the intervention

Formative Research Plans Focus groups (2 with smokers and 2 with nonsmokers) Key messages Relevance, cultural appropriateness of materials Interviews with callers (n=20) Interviews with line agents (n=10)

Intervention Components At 2 week Intervals Mailing of Smoke-free Homes Kit (5-step guide, pledge, sign, challenges and solutions, reasons to go smoke-free) Telephone counseling to motivate & address barriers Mailing of photonovella Mailing of newsletter, stickers and third hand smoke info

Model of Behavior Change Brief Intervention to Create Smoke-free Home Policies in Low-Income Households Intervention Strategies Intervention Components 1.Mailing 1: A five step guide to making your home smoke-free; Reasons to have a smoke-free home (SFH); Facts about SHS and SFHs; Pledge; Signs 2.Brief telephone counseling 3.Mailing #2: Challenges and Solutions Booklet; Photo –novella 4.Mailing #3: Newsletter; Thirdhand smoke fact sheet; SFH stickers Intervention Components 1.Mailing 1: A five step guide to making your home smoke-free; Reasons to have a smoke-free home (SFH); Facts about SHS and SFHs; Pledge; Signs 2.Brief telephone counseling 3.Mailing #2: Challenges and Solutions Booklet; Photo –novella 4.Mailing #3: Newsletter; Thirdhand smoke fact sheet; SFH stickers Change Process Intervention Targets Behavioral Capability Self-efficacy Outcome expectations for SFH Smoking behavior Intervention Targets Behavioral Capability Self-efficacy Outcome expectations for SFH Smoking behavior Change Strategies Persuasion Role modeling Goal setting Environmental cues Reinforcement Change Strategies Persuasion Role modeling Goal setting Environmental cues Reinforcement Stage of Change Pre-contemplation Contemplation Preparation (Step 1-Decide) Stage of Change Pre-contemplation Contemplation Preparation (Step 1-Decide) Discuss with household members (Step 2) Barriers Negotiation Support Discuss with household members (Step 2) Barriers Negotiation Support Set date/Go smoke-free (Step 3 and 4) Cues Set date/Go smoke-free (Step 3 and 4) Cues Maintain smoke-free home (Step 5) Maintain smoke-free home (Step 5)

Eligible Participants for Trials Current smoker or live with a smoker Allow at least some smoking in the home Live with a nonsmoker or child Speak English Expect to live in the same household for the next six months, and not be in crisis

Client Calls 2-1-1Screen Random Sample for Eligibility Enroll / Obtain Verbal Consent and Baseline Data Over Phone Block Randomization by Smoking StatusControl GroupIntervention Group Flow of Efficacy Trial

Flow of Intervention Study (Cont’d) Both GroupsCollect 3 month follow-up data by phone Collect 6 month follow-up by phone and assess air nicotine in random sample of homes Collect 9 month follow-up data by phone

Outcomes Primary Outcomes Presence of a self-reported ban Air nicotine in sub-sample Secondary Outcomes Weekly and daily SHS exposure Self-efficacy to restrict smoking in the home Beliefs about SHS

Secondary Outcomes (Smokers) Smoking status Cessation attempts Cigarette consumption

Dissemination Plans Develop an implementation toolkit for SFH intervention Conduct a national grants program to encourage adoption among systems nationwide Use TTAC infrastructure to disseminate SFH intervention to tobacco control community Adapt and pilot SFH intervention in other populations and/or channels that reach low- income populations

Examples of Dissemination Questions What factors affect the uptake of the SFH intervention by centers? What factors (e.g., organizational, external forces) influence quality implementation of the intervention? What is the extent of fidelity to the core elements in implementation or of adaptation? Is the SFH intervention sustained over time in the centers? What factors are associated with program maintenance?

Ideas for Dissemination Research?