ArticleAmerican journal of health behavior2016
Head Start Staff Reactions to a Novel Tobacco Intervention: A Qualitative Analysis.
Article in American journal of health behavior, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAs tobacco use becomes increasingly concentrated in communities of low socio-economic position (SEP), scalable cessation interventions are needed. Head Start programs offer one setting in which a family-focused intervention can be implemented in low SEP communities. We assessed the experiences of Head Start (HS) staff who received training in a pilot motivational interviewing (MI) tobacco intervention, to improve future feasibility.
methodsFocus group interviews were conducted with HS staff to assess their reactions to MI training and their use of MI in their work with families. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and a 4-step approach informed by grounded theory.
resultsHS staff reported advantages of MI beyond its use as a tobacco intervention, despite systematic barriers to broad implementation. Facilitators of MI use included enhanced engagement with families, and opportunities for professional development. Barriers to MI use included limited institutional support and low priority for a tobacco intervention among families with pressing social and financial concerns.
conclusionsHS Staff voiced support for broader training in MI interventions in HS programs. System-wide standards to ensure adequate training and support for an MI tobacco intervention were identified as priorities.
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.