Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36221089›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

"Everything the hujur tells is very educative but if I cannot apply those in my own life then there is no meaning": a mixed-methods process evaluation of a smoke-free homes intervention in Bangladesh.

Cath Jackson, Zunayed Al Azdi, Ian Kellar, Noreen Dadirai Mdege, Caroline Fairhurst, Tarana Ferdous, Catherine Hewitt, Rumana Huque, Anna-Marie Marshall, Sean Semple and 3 more

Abstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

13 authors.

Cath JacksonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK. cath@validresearch.co.uk.
Zunayed Al AzdiARK Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Ian KellarSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Noreen Dadirai MdegeDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Caroline FairhurstDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Tarana FerdousARK Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Catherine HewittDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Rumana HuqueARK Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Anna-Marie MarshallDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Sean SempleInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, UK.
Aziz SheikhUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Kamran SiddiqiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
MCLASS II trial team

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P008941/1Medical Research Council MR/T004959/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSecond-hand smoke exposure from tobacco significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality worldwide. A cluster RCT in Bangladesh compared a community-based smoke-free home (SFH) intervention delivered in mosques, with or without indoor air quality (IAQ) feedback to households to no intervention. Neither was effective nor cost-effective compared to no intervention using an objective measure of second-hand smoke. This paper presents the process evaluation embedded within the trial and seeks to understand this.

methodsA mixed method process evaluation comprising interviews with 30 household leads and six imams (prayer leader in mosque), brief questionnaire completed by 900 household leads (75% response), fidelity assessment of intervention delivery in six (20%) mosques and research team records. Data were triangulated using meta-themes informed by three process evaluation functions: implementation, mechanisms of impact and context.

resultsIMPLEMENTATION: Frequency of SFH intervention delivery was judged moderate to good. However there were mixed levels of intervention fidelity and poor reach. Linked Ayahs (verses of the Qur'an) with health messages targeting SHS attitudes were most often fully implemented and had greatest reach (along with those targeting social norms). Frequency and reach of the IAQ feedback were good. MECHANISMS OF IMPACT: Both interventions had good acceptability. However, views on usefulness of the interventions in creating a SFH were mixed. Individual drivers to behaviour change were new SFH knowledge with corresponding positive attitudes, social norms and intentions. Individual barriers were a lack of self-efficacy and plans. CONTEXT: Social context drivers to SFH intervention implementation in mosques were in place and important. No context barriers to implementation were reported. Social context drivers to SHS behaviour change were children's requests. Barriers were women's reluctance to ask men to smoke outside alongside general reluctance to request this of visitors. (Not) having somewhere to smoke outside was a physical context (barrier) and driver.

conclusionsDespite detailed development and adaption work with relevant stakeholders, the SFH intervention and IAQ feedback became educational interventions that were motivational but insufficient to overcome significant context barriers to reduce objectively measured SHS exposure in the home. Future interventions could usefully incorporate practical support for SFH behaviour change. Moreover, embedding these into community wide strategies that include practical cessation support and enforcement of SFH legislation is needed.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN49975452.

Indexed as

Air Pollution, IndoorTobacco Smoke PollutionBangladeshChildEnvironmental ExposureFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHumansMaleTobacco Smoke PollutionBangladeshFaithInterventionMosqueProcess evaluationSecond-hand smokeSmoke free homesTobacco

Identifiers

PMID36221089
PMCPMC9552417

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.