Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29935078›Full record

ArticlePreventing chronic disease2018

Developing Smoke-Free Policies in Public Housing: Perspectives From Early Adopters in 2 Southern States.

Michelle C Kegler, Erin Lebow-Skelley, Jaimie Lea, Adrienne M Lefevre, Pam Diggs, Sally Herndon, Regine Haardörfer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

7 authors.

Michelle C KeglerDepartment of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory Prevention Research Center, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30322. Email: mkegler@emory.edu.
Erin Lebow-SkelleyDepartment of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory Prevention Research Center, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jaimie LeaDepartment of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory Prevention Research Center, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Adrienne M LefevreDepartment of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory Prevention Research Center, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Pam DiggsYouth Empowered Solutions, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Sally HerndonTobacco Prevention and Control Branch, Division of Public Health, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Regine HaardörferDepartment of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory Prevention Research Center, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

Brief Interventions to Create Smoke-Free Home Policies in Low-Income HousehouldsU01CA154282 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI KEGLER, MICHELLE C · 2011 to 2015
$6.2M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA154282
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PURPOSE AND

objectivesIn 2016, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a new rule requiring smoke-free policies in conventional public housing by July 2018 (HUD, 2016). This process evaluation describes the policy development experiences of conventional and nonconventional public housing authorities (PHAs) in North Carolina and Georgia that had established smoke-free policies before the HUD rule. INTERVENTION APPROACH: HUD began to issue guidance that encouraged smoke-free policies in public housing in 2009, and most early adopters were outside of the Southeast. Documenting the process early adopters in the Southeast used to develop their policies provides useful lessons for conventional PHAs and those with properties not covered by the rule. EVALUATION

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with PHA representatives from 23 PHAs with some level of smoking restriction, along with residents from 14 of these PHAs, from January to August 2016.

resultsOrganizational leaders and board members were usually the primary players in making the decision to adopt a policy, with approval processes consistent with any type of policy adoption. Common reasons for establishing the policy included costs of turning a unit; health of children, nonsmokers, and staff; HUD guidance; and concerns or experience with fire caused by cigarettes. Levels of restriction were influenced by layout of the property, perceptions of compliance and enforcement challenges, concerns about smokers congregating, resident mobility, weather concerns, consistency with HUD guidance, and availability of funds for designated smoking areas. Resident input was obtained through general meetings, resident advisory boards or councils, surveys, and formal comment periods. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Understanding the process of policy development and adoption enables public health practitioners to be more effective partners in advising on the flexible components of the HUD smoke-free rule and accelerating the adoption of comprehensive policies within nonconventional PHAs.

Indexed as

Public HousingSmoke-Free PolicyGeorgiaHumansInterviews as TopicNorth CarolinaPublic HealthSmokingTobacco Smoke PollutionUrban RenewalTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID29935078
PMCPMC6016427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.