Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25156527›Full record

Trial reportNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2015

Effect of a family-centered, secondhand smoke intervention to reduce respiratory illness in indigenous infants in Australia and New Zealand: a randomized controlled trial.

Natalie Walker, Vanessa Johnston, Marewa Glover, Christopher Bullen, Adrian Trenholme, Anne Chang, Peter Morris, Catherine Segan, Ngiare Brown, Debra Fenton and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Housing Risk Factors Associated with Respiratory Disease: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Natalie WalkerNational Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; n.walker@nihi.auckland.ac.nz.
Vanessa JohnstonMenzies School of Health Research, Institute of Advanced Studies, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia;
Marewa GloverCentre for Tobacco Control Research, Social and Community Health, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand;
Christopher BullenNational Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand;
Adrian TrenholmeKidz First and Women's Health Division, Counties Manukau District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand;
Anne ChangMenzies School of Health Research, Institute of Advanced Studies, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia; Queensland Children's Respiratory Centre and Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;
Peter MorrisMenzies School of Health Research, Institute of Advanced Studies, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia;
Catherine SeganCentre for Health Policy, Programs and Economics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;
Ngiare BrownDepartment of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia;
Debra FentonKidz First and Women's Health Division, Counties Manukau District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand;
Eyvette HawthorneDanila Dilba Aboriginal Health Service, Darwin, Australia;
Ron BorlandVicHealth Center for Tobacco Control, Cancer Council Victoria, Victoria, Australia;
Varsha ParagNational Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand;
Taina Von BlarambergNational Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand;
Darren WestphalMenzies School of Health Research, Institute of Advanced Studies, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia;
David ThomasMenzies School of Health Research, Institute of Advanced Studies, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia; Lowitja Institute, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.
University of Auckland · NZCounties Manukau District Health Board · NZMenzies School of Health Research · AUAuckland University of Technology · NZCancer Council Victoria · AUCharles Darwin University · AUChildren's Medical Research Institute · AULowitja Institute · AUThe Centre for Health (New Zealand) · NZUniversity of Wollongong · AUVictorian Aboriginal Health Service · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSecondhand smoke (SHS) is a significant cause of acute respiratory illness (ARI) and 5 times more common in indigenous children. A single-blind randomized trial was undertaken to determine the efficacy of a family centered SHS intervention to reduce ARI in indigenous infants in Australia and New Zealand.

methodsIndigenous mothers/infants from homes with ≥ 1 smoker were randomized to a SHS intervention involving 3 home visits in the first 3 months of the infants' lives (plus usual care) or usual care. The primary outcome was number of ARI-related visits to a health provider in the first year of life. Secondary outcomes, assessed at 4 and 12 months of age, included ARI hospitalization rates and mothers' report of infants' SHS exposure (validated by urinary cotinine/creatinine ratios [CCRs]), smoking restrictions, and smoking cessation.

resultsTwo hundred and ninety-three mother/infant dyads were randomized and followed up. Three quarters of mothers smoked during pregnancy and two thirds were smoking at baseline (as were their partners), with no change for more than 12 months. Reported infant exposure to SHS was low (≥ 95% had smoke-free homes/cars). Infant CCRs were higher if one or both parents were smokers and if mothers breast fed their infants. There was no effect of the intervention on ARI events [471 intervention vs. 438 usual care (reference); incidence rate ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.88-1.37, p = .40].

conclusionsDespite reporting smoke-free homes/cars, mothers and their partners continue to smoke in the first year of infants' lives, exposing them to SHS. Emphasis needs to be placed on supporting parents to stop smoking preconception, during pregnancy, and postnatal.

Indexed as

FamilySmoking PreventionAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMaternal-Fetal RelationsNew ZealandPopulation GroupsPostnatal CarePregnancyPrenatal CareRespiratory Tract InfectionsTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID25156527
PMCPMC4282121
OpenAlexW2164506120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.