Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Sep 12:2:53.
doi: 10.1186/s40814-016-0094-7. eCollection 2016.

Protecting children from secondhand smoke: a mixed-methods feasibility study of a novel smoke-free home intervention

John Marsh  1 , Ann McNeill  2 , Sarah Lewis  1 , Tim Coleman  3 , Manpreet Bains  1 , Alexandra Larwood  1 , Jacqueline Purdy  1 , Laura L Jones  4
Affiliations

Protecting children from secondhand smoke: a mixed-methods feasibility study of a novel smoke-free home intervention

John Marsh et al. Pilot Feasibility Stud. .

Abstract

Background: Globally, 40 % of children under 14 years are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke (SHS), typically in their homes. There is limited evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce children's SHS exposure, and so the aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a novel intervention to help parents and carers (caregivers) to reduce their children's exposure to SHS at home.

Methods: A novel multi-component intervention to support caregivers to reduce their children's SHS exposure at home was tested in a two-phase feasibility study. The 12-week intensive intervention delivered in the home consisted of three components: behavioural support, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for temporary abstinence and feedback on levels of SHS exposure in the form of children's salivary cotinine (phase 1) or home air quality (PM2.5) (phase 2). Participants were caregivers who smoked inside their homes and had at least one child under the age of 5 years living with them the majority of the time. Mixed-methods were used to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention as well as processes, particularly around recruitment and retention, for an exploratory efficacy trial.

Results: Twelve caregivers completed the study, all received personalised feedback on SHS exposure and behavioural support to help them to make their homes smoke-free and the majority at least tried NRT. Saliva cotinine results were variable in phase 1, and therefore, measures of PM2.5 were used for feedback in phase 2. Behavioural support was well received with personalised feedback reported as being the key motivator for initiating and maintaining behaviour change.

Conclusions: Recruiting disadvantaged caregivers was labour intensive, but once recruited, this novel intervention was both feasible and acceptable in supporting caregivers to reduce their children's exposure to SHS at home. It is appropriate to test the efficacy of this novel intervention in an exploratory randomised controlled trial.

Trial registration: This is not applicable for the current study; however, a registered exploratory randomised controlled trial linked to this manuscript is currently ongoing (ISRCTN81701383).

Keywords: Acceptability; Complex intervention; Feasibility study; Mixed-methods; PM2.5; Recruitment; Secondhand smoke; Smoke-free homes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Diagrammatic representation of the two phases of the feasibility study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Acceptability and feasibility of behavioural support
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Acceptability and feasibility of nicotine replacement therapy
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Average saliva cotinine results
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Acceptability and feasibility of personalised feedback
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
An example of a home air quality (PM2.5) feedback graph
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Oberg M, Jaakkola MS, Woodward A, Peruga A, Pruss-Ustun A. Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries. Lancet. 2011;377:139–46. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61388-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ashley MJ, Ferrence R. Reducing children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in homes: issues and strategies. Tob Control. 1998;7:61–5. doi: 10.1136/tc.7.1.61. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wipfli H, Avila-Tang E, Navas-Acien A, Kim S, Onicescu G, Yuan J, et al. Secondhand smoke exposure among women and children: evidence from 31 countries. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:672–9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.126631. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jarvis MJ, Mindell J, Gilmore A, Feyerabend C, West R. Smoke-free homes in England: prevalence, trends and validation by cotinine in children. Tob Control. 2009;18(6):491–5. doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.031328. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sims M, Tomkins S, Judge K, Taylor G, Jarvis MJ, Gilmore A. Trends in and predictors of second-hand smoke exposure indexed by cotinine in children in England from 1996 to 2006. Addiction. 2010;105:543–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02805.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources