SynthesisAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2025
Effectiveness of Smoke-Free Home-based Interventions in Reducing Second-Hand Smoke Exposure in Children and Adults: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Child health knowledge and attitudes and intentions to quit among Japanese adults who smoke: Findings from the 2021 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Japan Survey.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026Article
- Secondhand smoke exposure and sleep disturbances among Korean adolescents: A nationally representative cross-sectional study.Tobacco induced diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSecond-hand smoke (SHS) exposure is a major health risk that causes thousands of deaths every year. Most countries have laws banning smoking in public places, but not in homes, where non-smoking children and women, are exposed to SHS. A comprehensive review on effectiveness of smoke free home interventions in reducing SHS is limited.
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of home-based interventions to reduce SHS exposure among non-smoking household members of any age group.
methodsThe following sources were searched for this systematic review: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Proquest, Embase, and Google scholar.
interventionsRandomized controlled trials that compared home-based interventions with usual or standard care intervention were included. Studies that measured SHS exposure using biochemical or environmental indicators, such as cotinine in urine, saliva and hair were considered and the risk of bias was assessed using standardized criteria.
resultsWe included 34 studies with a total of 10,727 participants from various countries and settings. The interventions varied in type, intensity, duration, method of education, counselling, feedback, incentives, and support. As far as urinary outcomes were considered 4 studies showed a significant decrease among infants and children whereas two others showed no change. Whereas, atmospheric 2.5 particulate matter seemed to be a more sensitive objective measure with all studies demonstrating either a decrease or significant decrease. Smoking ban policies at home were found to be more effective in the intervention groups compared to control group.
conclusionsHome-based educational and behavioural interventions show considerable promise in reducing secondhand smoke exposure. These interventions offer a practical, scalable approach to addressing SHS exposure, particularly in vulnerable populations such as children. Future research should focus on evaluating long- term outcomes. Protocol registration number: The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO CRD42023398093.
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.