'They only smoke in the house when I'm not in': understanding the limited effectiveness of a smoke-free homes intervention.
children
education
gender
intervention
qualitative
second-hand smoke
Journal
Journal of public health (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1741-3850
Titre abrégé: J Public Health (Oxf)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101188638
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 09 2021
22 09 2021
Historique:
received:
21
01
2020
revised:
14
11
2019
accepted:
14
01
2020
pubmed:
24
4
2020
medline:
25
2
2023
entrez:
24
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Children's second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure in the home is highest in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Personalized household air-quality measurements can promote changes in smoking that reduce SHS exposure. The 'First Steps 2 Smoke-free' (FS2SF) intervention is the first to trial this approach delivered as part of health professionals' routine work. This paper reports the findings of qualitative interviews with participants that explored their experiences of the intervention and why outcomes varied. 120 women were recruited from the NHS First Steps Programme, which supports disadvantaged mothers. They received either personalized feedback on their home air quality and advice on reducing SHS or standard SHS advice. Qualitative interviews with 15 mothers were analyzed thematically using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model. The intervention increased women's capability to change home-smoking behaviour, through increasing awareness and salience of SHS risks to their children, and motivation to act. However, taking effective action was constrained by their limited social and environmental opportunities, including others' smoking in the home. The FS2SF intervention was ineffective as it was unable to fully address the precarious, complex life circumstances that make creating a smoke-free home particularly difficult for women experiencing intersecting dimensions of disadvantage.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Children's second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure in the home is highest in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Personalized household air-quality measurements can promote changes in smoking that reduce SHS exposure. The 'First Steps 2 Smoke-free' (FS2SF) intervention is the first to trial this approach delivered as part of health professionals' routine work. This paper reports the findings of qualitative interviews with participants that explored their experiences of the intervention and why outcomes varied.
METHODS
120 women were recruited from the NHS First Steps Programme, which supports disadvantaged mothers. They received either personalized feedback on their home air quality and advice on reducing SHS or standard SHS advice. Qualitative interviews with 15 mothers were analyzed thematically using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model.
RESULTS
The intervention increased women's capability to change home-smoking behaviour, through increasing awareness and salience of SHS risks to their children, and motivation to act. However, taking effective action was constrained by their limited social and environmental opportunities, including others' smoking in the home.
CONCLUSIONS
The FS2SF intervention was ineffective as it was unable to fully address the precarious, complex life circumstances that make creating a smoke-free home particularly difficult for women experiencing intersecting dimensions of disadvantage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32323719
pii: 5823909
doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdaa042
pmc: PMC8458016
doi:
Substances chimiques
Tobacco Smoke Pollution
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
647-654Subventions
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : CZH/4/983
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/M026159/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office
ID : CZH_4_983
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health.
Références
Tob Control. 2013 Sep;22(5):e8
pubmed: 22615325
Thorax. 1999 Apr;54(4):357-66
pubmed: 10092699
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Dec 18;12(12):16043-59
pubmed: 26694440
Health Educ Res. 2013 Feb;28(1):165-78
pubmed: 22843328
Health Place. 2007 Dec;13(4):894-903
pubmed: 17499542
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 31;1:CD001746
pubmed: 29383710
Environ Int. 2018 Nov;120:104-110
pubmed: 30076982
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Addiction. 2015 Sep;110(9):1484-92
pubmed: 26061741
Tob Control. 2012 Mar;21(2):236-43
pubmed: 22166266
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Sep 09;13(9):
pubmed: 27618085
Addiction. 2016 Jun;111(6):1096-106
pubmed: 26806155
Am J Prev Med. 2009 Aug;37(2 Suppl):S131-7
pubmed: 19591752
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 17;6(3):e010260
pubmed: 26988351
Tob Control. 2018 Mar;27(2):155-162
pubmed: 28432210
Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 Apr;17(4):496-501
pubmed: 25762761
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016 Sep 12;2:53
pubmed: 27965870
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Jan 07;11(1):792-803
pubmed: 24402065
Promot Educ. 2007;Suppl 2:17-22
pubmed: 17685075
J Public Health (Oxf). 2011 Mar;33(1):48-54
pubmed: 20930040