Trial reportNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2015
Muslim communities learning about second-hand smoke: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Trial report in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a community-based smoke-free-home intervention with or without indoor-air-quality feedback in Bangladesh (MCLASS II): a three-arm, cluster-randomised, controlled trial.The Lancet. Global health · 2021Trial
- Engaging with faith communities to tackle ethnic health inequalities in the UK: a scoping review.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Second-Hand Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Smoke-Free Environments in Ethiopia: A Scoping Review and Narrative Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Muslim Communities Learning About Second-hand Smoke in Bangladesh (MCLASS II): a combined evidence and theory-based plus partnership intervention development approach.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Fathers' Views and Experiences of Creating a Smoke-Free Home: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Health worker and patient views on implementation of smoking cessation in routine tuberculosis care.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Involving mosques in health promotion programmes: a qualitative exploration of the MCLASS intervention on smoking in the home.Health education research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the United Kingdom, men of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin have higher smoking rates than the general population. This makes non-smokers in their households more vulnerable to second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure than the general population.
aimsThe aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of implementing and pilot testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 'Smoke-free Homes' (SFH) intervention in Islamic religious settings to encourage families of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin to apply smoking restrictions in their homes.
methodsWe allocated Islamic religious settings (clusters) to either receive SFH-an educational intervention-or to a control arm. Within each cluster, we recruited households with at least one smoker and one non-smoker. SHS exposure among non-smokers was measured using salivary cotinine.
resultsSeven (50%) clusters were randomised to each trial arm. A total of 468 households were assessed for eligibility and 62% (n=289) were eligible, of which 74% (n=213) agreed to participate in the trial. Six of the seven intervention clusters delivered the intervention, and all clusters were retained throughout the trial. In all, 81% (n=172) of households provided data at follow-up. No evidence of a difference in log cotinine level was observed (adjusted mean difference -0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.28-1.23, P=0.97) between the two trial arms. The direct mean cost of delivering the intervention was £18.18 per household (range £3.55-42.20).
conclusionsIt was possible to recruit, randomise and retain Islamic religious settings and participant households. However, some of the original assumptions, in particular our ability to collect primary outcome data, need to be revisited before a definitive trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.