Children Learning About Second-hand Smoke (CLASS II): a mixed methods process evaluation of a school-based intervention.

Process evaluation School Second-hand smoke Smoke-free homes

Journal

Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 May 2021
Historique:
received: 21 02 2020
accepted: 11 05 2021
entrez: 25 5 2021
pubmed: 26 5 2021
medline: 26 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Children are vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke exposure. Creating smoke-free homes is an effective strategy to limit exposure. We developed a smoke-free intervention (SFI) using children as a catalyst for change and teaching skills to negotiate a smoke-free home. In this paper, we present the process evaluation conducted within a pilot trial. This was a mixed-methods study comprising qualitative interviews and quantitative fidelity assessment of SFI delivery. Interviews in the six intervention schools were conducted with six headteachers and 12 teachers. These explored experiences of delivering the SFI, perceived impact, barriers and facilitators to success, and ideas for improvement and for scaling up. The data were analysed using framework analysis. Delivery of the SFI was observed and fidelity scores calculated. The SFI was acceptable to headteachers and teachers. Fidelity scores ranged from 27/40 to 37/40. Didactic components were more fully implemented than interactive components. Time to complete the sessions, timing in the school day and school calendar were key challenges. Embedding the SFI into the curriculum was a potential solution. These findings provide useful information to finalise the content and delivery and inform the scale-up of the SFI for our definitive trial, which is now underway. ISRCTN68690577.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Children are vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke exposure. Creating smoke-free homes is an effective strategy to limit exposure. We developed a smoke-free intervention (SFI) using children as a catalyst for change and teaching skills to negotiate a smoke-free home. In this paper, we present the process evaluation conducted within a pilot trial.
METHODS METHODS
This was a mixed-methods study comprising qualitative interviews and quantitative fidelity assessment of SFI delivery. Interviews in the six intervention schools were conducted with six headteachers and 12 teachers. These explored experiences of delivering the SFI, perceived impact, barriers and facilitators to success, and ideas for improvement and for scaling up. The data were analysed using framework analysis. Delivery of the SFI was observed and fidelity scores calculated.
RESULTS RESULTS
The SFI was acceptable to headteachers and teachers. Fidelity scores ranged from 27/40 to 37/40. Didactic components were more fully implemented than interactive components. Time to complete the sessions, timing in the school day and school calendar were key challenges. Embedding the SFI into the curriculum was a potential solution.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
These findings provide useful information to finalise the content and delivery and inform the scale-up of the SFI for our definitive trial, which is now underway.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
ISRCTN68690577.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34030729
doi: 10.1186/s40814-021-00853-9
pii: 10.1186/s40814-021-00853-9
pmc: PMC8142478
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

112

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/M020533/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/T004959/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council UK
ID : (MR/M020533/1

Références

Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1345-1422
pubmed: 28919119
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 Dec;17(12):1465-72
pubmed: 25634936
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010 Sep 10;59(35):1141-6
pubmed: 20829748
Prev Med. 2017 Aug;101:117-125
pubmed: 28601619
J Adolesc Health. 2016 Apr;58(4):382-396
pubmed: 27013271
BMC Public Health. 2012 Dec 10;12:1062
pubmed: 23228219
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;(4):CD001293
pubmed: 23633306
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 03;5:67
pubmed: 20815872
J Public Health (Oxf). 2011 Mar;33(1):48-54
pubmed: 20930040
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2019 May;87(5):422-432
pubmed: 30843703
Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Mar 30;21(4):416-423
pubmed: 29228385
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 3;7(11):e018031
pubmed: 29101143
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Jan 13;12(1):692-709
pubmed: 25590146
BMJ Open. 2015 Aug 25;5(8):e008749
pubmed: 26307620
Tob Control. 2020 Dec 16;:
pubmed: 33328266
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2010 Oct;14(10):1336-41
pubmed: 20843427
Prev Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;25(4):486-94
pubmed: 8812826
BMJ. 2004 Jun 26;328(7455):1561-3
pubmed: 15217878
Health Psychol. 2004 Sep;23(5):443-51
pubmed: 15367063
BMJ Open. 2014 Nov 24;4(11):e006554
pubmed: 25421340

Auteurs

Cath Jackson (C)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, ARRC Building, Heslington, York, Y010 5DD, UK. cath@validresearch.co.uk.

Rumana Huque (R)

Department of Economics, University of Dhaka and ARK Foundation, House No 6, Road NO 109, Gulshan 2, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Farid Ahmed (F)

ARK Foundation, House No 6, Road NO 109, Gulshan 2, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Shammi Nasreen (S)

ARK Foundation, House No 6, Road NO 109, Gulshan 2, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Sarwat Shah (S)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, ARRC Building, Heslington, York, Y010 5DD, UK.

Jasjit S Ahluwalia (JS)

Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main St, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.

Mona Kanaan (M)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, ARRC Building, Heslington, York, Y010 5DD, UK.

Aziz Sheikh (A)

Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK.

Kamran Siddiqi (K)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, ARRC Building, Heslington, York, Y010 5DD, UK.

Classifications MeSH