Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a community-based smoke-free-home intervention with or without indoor-air-quality feedback in Bangladesh (MCLASS II): a three-arm, cluster-randomised, controlled trial.


Journal

The Lancet. Global health
ISSN: 2214-109X
Titre abrégé: Lancet Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101613665

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2021
Historique:
received: 11 08 2020
revised: 15 01 2021
accepted: 19 01 2021
entrez: 18 4 2021
pubmed: 19 4 2021
medline: 29 6 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Exposure to second-hand smoke from tobacco is a major contributor to global morbidity and mortality. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a community-based smoke-free-home intervention, with or without indoor-air-quality feedback, in reducing second-hand-smoke exposure in homes in Bangladesh. We did a three-arm, cluster-randomised, controlled trial in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and randomly assigned (1:1:1) mosques and consenting households from their congregations to a smoke-free-home intervention plus indoor-air-quality feedback, smoke-free-home intervention only, or usual services. Households were eligible if they had at least one resident attending one of the participating mosques, at least one adult resident (age 18 years or older) who smoked cigarettes or other forms of smoked tobacco (eg, bidi, waterpipe) regularly (on at least 25 days per month), and at least one non-smoking resident of any age. The smoke-free-home intervention consisted of weekly health messages delivered within an Islamic discourse by religious leaders at mosques over 12 weeks. Indoor-air-quality feedback comprised providing households with feedback on their indoor air quality measured over 24 h. Households in the usual services group received no intervention. Masking of participants and mosque leaders was not possible. The primary outcome was the 24-h mean household airborne fine particulate matter (<2·5 microns in diameter [PM Between April 11 and Aug 2, 2018, we enrolled 1801 households from 45 mosques. 640 households (35·5%) were assigned to the smoke-free-home intervention plus indoor-air-quality feedback group, 560 (31·1%) to the smoke-free-home intervention only group, and 601 (33·4%) to the usual services group. At 12 months, the adjusted mean difference in household mean 24-h PM The smoke-free-home intervention, with or without indoor-air-quality feedback, was neither effective nor cost-effective in reducing household second-hand-smoke exposure compared with usual services. These interventions are therefore not recommended for Bangladesh. Medical Research Council UK. For the Bengali translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Exposure to second-hand smoke from tobacco is a major contributor to global morbidity and mortality. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a community-based smoke-free-home intervention, with or without indoor-air-quality feedback, in reducing second-hand-smoke exposure in homes in Bangladesh.
METHODS
We did a three-arm, cluster-randomised, controlled trial in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and randomly assigned (1:1:1) mosques and consenting households from their congregations to a smoke-free-home intervention plus indoor-air-quality feedback, smoke-free-home intervention only, or usual services. Households were eligible if they had at least one resident attending one of the participating mosques, at least one adult resident (age 18 years or older) who smoked cigarettes or other forms of smoked tobacco (eg, bidi, waterpipe) regularly (on at least 25 days per month), and at least one non-smoking resident of any age. The smoke-free-home intervention consisted of weekly health messages delivered within an Islamic discourse by religious leaders at mosques over 12 weeks. Indoor-air-quality feedback comprised providing households with feedback on their indoor air quality measured over 24 h. Households in the usual services group received no intervention. Masking of participants and mosque leaders was not possible. The primary outcome was the 24-h mean household airborne fine particulate matter (<2·5 microns in diameter [PM
FINDINGS
Between April 11 and Aug 2, 2018, we enrolled 1801 households from 45 mosques. 640 households (35·5%) were assigned to the smoke-free-home intervention plus indoor-air-quality feedback group, 560 (31·1%) to the smoke-free-home intervention only group, and 601 (33·4%) to the usual services group. At 12 months, the adjusted mean difference in household mean 24-h PM
INTERPRETATION
The smoke-free-home intervention, with or without indoor-air-quality feedback, was neither effective nor cost-effective in reducing household second-hand-smoke exposure compared with usual services. These interventions are therefore not recommended for Bangladesh.
FUNDING
Medical Research Council UK.
TRANSLATION
For the Bengali translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33865472
pii: S2214-109X(21)00040-1
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00040-1
pmc: PMC8064237
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Particulate Matter 0
Tobacco Smoke Pollution 0

Banques de données

ISRCTN
['ISRCTN49975452']

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e639-e650

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P008941/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Références

Lancet. 2003 Jun 7;361(9373):1939-44
pubmed: 12801737
Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Mar 30;21(4):416-423
pubmed: 29228385
Tob Control. 2015 Mar;24(2):153-8
pubmed: 24046213
J Public Health (Oxf). 2020 Apr 23;:
pubmed: 32323719
Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):708-15
pubmed: 22867780
Value Health. 2016 Dec;19(8):929-935
pubmed: 27987642
Qatar Med J. 2017 Feb 07;2016(2):16
pubmed: 28293538
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Jul;32(7):693-706
pubmed: 24715604
Tob Control. 2020 Mar;29(2):183-190
pubmed: 30770436
Environ Int. 2018 Nov;120:104-110
pubmed: 30076982
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Health Econ. 2004 May;13(5):461-75
pubmed: 15127426
Tob Control. 2018 Mar;27(2):155-162
pubmed: 28432210
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2013 May;74(3):361-8
pubmed: 23490564
Qual Life Res. 2010 Aug;19(6):887-97
pubmed: 20401552
Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Dec;82(12):923-7
pubmed: 15654406
Br J Psychiatry. 2003 Oct;183:323-31
pubmed: 14519610
Obes Rev. 2014 Oct;15 Suppl 4:159-76
pubmed: 25196412
Am J Public Health. 2004 Jun;94(6):1030-6
pubmed: 15249311
Trials. 2019 Jan 5;20(1):11
pubmed: 30611292
Adolescence. 2005 Winter;40(160):761-76
pubmed: 16468670
Tob Control. 2020 Dec 16;:
pubmed: 33328266
Respir Med. 1991 Sep;85 Suppl B:25-31; discussion 33-7
pubmed: 1759018
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 31;1:CD001746
pubmed: 29383710
Lancet. 2011 Jan 8;377(9760):139-46
pubmed: 21112082
NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2015 Aug 27;25:15052
pubmed: 26313312
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018 Oct;18(5):551-558
pubmed: 29958008
Nicotine Tob Res. 2020 Aug 24;22(9):1636-1639
pubmed: 31563964
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016 Sep 12;2:53
pubmed: 27965870

Auteurs

Noreen Dadirai Mdege (ND)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK. Electronic address: noreen.mdege@york.ac.uk.

Caroline Fairhurst (C)

York Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK.

Han-I Wang (HI)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Tarana Ferdous (T)

ARK Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Anna-Marie Marshall (AM)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Catherine Hewitt (C)

York Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK.

Rumana Huque (R)

ARK Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh; Department of Economics, Dhaka University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Cath Jackson (C)

Valid Research, Leeds, UK.

Ian Kellar (I)

School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Steve Parrott (S)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Sean Semple (S)

Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.

Aziz Sheikh (A)

Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Qi Wu (Q)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Zunayed Al Azdi (ZA)

ARK Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Kamran Siddiqi (K)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK; Faculty of Sciences, and Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH