Trial reportEvaluation and program planning2016
A process evaluation of an intervention to promote home smoking bans among low income households.
Trial report in Evaluation and program planning, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adapting a brief smoke-free homes intervention for communities in Armenia and Georgia.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Smoke-free home restrictions in Armenia and Georgia: motives, barriers and secondhand smoke reduction behaviors.European journal of public health · 2023Article
- Expanding population-level interventions to help more low-income smokers quit: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2023Article
- Living with a Smoker and Multiple Health-Risk Behaviors.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2021Observational
- Living with a smoker, health risk behaviors, and adiposity: an analysis with middle-aged and older women.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2020Observational
- Reducing Socioeconomic Disparities in Comprehensive Smoke-Free Rules among Households with Children: A Pilot Intervention Implemented through a National Cancer Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- 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.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020Article
- Opportunities for Tailored Support to Implement Smoke-Free Homes: A Qualitative Study among Lower Socioeconomic Status Parents.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Steps Toward Scalability: Illustrations From a Smoke-Free Homes Program.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2019Article
- Living With a Smoker and General and Central Adiposity in Middle-Aged and Older Women.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2019Article
- Promoting Healthier Home Food Environments Through 2-1-1: A Pilot and Feasibility Study.Family & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Exposure to secondhand smoke occurs primarily in the home due to passage of smoke-free legislation. Creation of a total household smoking ban can reduce associated health conditions such as asthma, lung cancer, heart disease and stroke. This paper describes the results of a randomized control trial of a minimal intervention to create smoke-free homes. 2-1-1 callers were invited to participate in the trial and were randomized to an intervention (mailings and a coaching call) or a control group (no intervention). We assessed reach, dose, fidelity, and receptivity to the intervention through program records and a 3-month follow-up survey with intervention participants. For the intervention materials, materials were mailed to 244 participants (99.2%) and 227 participants (92.3%) received the coaching call intervention. 92.3% received all intervention components. Participants who had full household bans at 3 months were more likely to conduct behaviors leading to a smoke-free home (i.e., making a list of reasons, having a family talk, posting a pledge) than were those with no/partial ban. The intervention materials also were rated higher in relevance and usefulness by non-smokers than smokers. Results demonstrate that this minimal intervention had high fidelity to the delivery of components and relatively high receptivity.
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.