"Everything the hujur tells is very educative but if I cannot apply those in my own life then there is no meaning": a mixed-methods process evaluation of a smoke-free homes intervention in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh
Faith
Intervention
Mosque
Process evaluation
Second-hand smoke
Smoke free homes
Tobacco
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 10 2022
11 10 2022
Historique:
received:
11
11
2021
accepted:
20
09
2022
entrez:
11
10
2022
pubmed:
12
10
2022
medline:
14
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Second-hand smoke exposure from tobacco significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality worldwide. A cluster RCT in Bangladesh compared a community-based smoke-free home (SFH) intervention delivered in mosques, with or without indoor air quality (IAQ) feedback to households to no intervention. Neither was effective nor cost-effective compared to no intervention using an objective measure of second-hand smoke. This paper presents the process evaluation embedded within the trial and seeks to understand this. A mixed method process evaluation comprising interviews with 30 household leads and six imams (prayer leader in mosque), brief questionnaire completed by 900 household leads (75% response), fidelity assessment of intervention delivery in six (20%) mosques and research team records. Data were triangulated using meta-themes informed by three process evaluation functions: implementation, mechanisms of impact and context. IMPLEMENTATION: Frequency of SFH intervention delivery was judged moderate to good. However there were mixed levels of intervention fidelity and poor reach. Linked Ayahs (verses of the Qur'an) with health messages targeting SHS attitudes were most often fully implemented and had greatest reach (along with those targeting social norms). Frequency and reach of the IAQ feedback were good. Both interventions had good acceptability. However, views on usefulness of the interventions in creating a SFH were mixed. Individual drivers to behaviour change were new SFH knowledge with corresponding positive attitudes, social norms and intentions. Individual barriers were a lack of self-efficacy and plans. Social context drivers to SFH intervention implementation in mosques were in place and important. No context barriers to implementation were reported. Social context drivers to SHS behaviour change were children's requests. Barriers were women's reluctance to ask men to smoke outside alongside general reluctance to request this of visitors. (Not) having somewhere to smoke outside was a physical context (barrier) and driver. Despite detailed development and adaption work with relevant stakeholders, the SFH intervention and IAQ feedback became educational interventions that were motivational but insufficient to overcome significant context barriers to reduce objectively measured SHS exposure in the home. Future interventions could usefully incorporate practical support for SFH behaviour change. Moreover, embedding these into community wide strategies that include practical cessation support and enforcement of SFH legislation is needed. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49975452.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Second-hand smoke exposure from tobacco significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality worldwide. A cluster RCT in Bangladesh compared a community-based smoke-free home (SFH) intervention delivered in mosques, with or without indoor air quality (IAQ) feedback to households to no intervention. Neither was effective nor cost-effective compared to no intervention using an objective measure of second-hand smoke. This paper presents the process evaluation embedded within the trial and seeks to understand this.
METHODS
A mixed method process evaluation comprising interviews with 30 household leads and six imams (prayer leader in mosque), brief questionnaire completed by 900 household leads (75% response), fidelity assessment of intervention delivery in six (20%) mosques and research team records. Data were triangulated using meta-themes informed by three process evaluation functions: implementation, mechanisms of impact and context.
RESULTS
IMPLEMENTATION: Frequency of SFH intervention delivery was judged moderate to good. However there were mixed levels of intervention fidelity and poor reach. Linked Ayahs (verses of the Qur'an) with health messages targeting SHS attitudes were most often fully implemented and had greatest reach (along with those targeting social norms). Frequency and reach of the IAQ feedback were good.
MECHANISMS OF IMPACT
Both interventions had good acceptability. However, views on usefulness of the interventions in creating a SFH were mixed. Individual drivers to behaviour change were new SFH knowledge with corresponding positive attitudes, social norms and intentions. Individual barriers were a lack of self-efficacy and plans.
CONTEXT
Social context drivers to SFH intervention implementation in mosques were in place and important. No context barriers to implementation were reported. Social context drivers to SHS behaviour change were children's requests. Barriers were women's reluctance to ask men to smoke outside alongside general reluctance to request this of visitors. (Not) having somewhere to smoke outside was a physical context (barrier) and driver.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite detailed development and adaption work with relevant stakeholders, the SFH intervention and IAQ feedback became educational interventions that were motivational but insufficient to overcome significant context barriers to reduce objectively measured SHS exposure in the home. Future interventions could usefully incorporate practical support for SFH behaviour change. Moreover, embedding these into community wide strategies that include practical cessation support and enforcement of SFH legislation is needed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49975452.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36221089
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14283-6
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-14283-6
pmc: PMC9552417
doi:
Substances chimiques
Tobacco Smoke Pollution
0
Types de publication
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1889Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P008941/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Investigateurs
Steve Parrott
(S)
Abdullah Sonnet
(A)
Shilpi Swami
(S)
Han-I Wang
(HI)
Qi Wu
(Q)
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Tob Prev Cessat. 2018 Nov 14;4:36
pubmed: 32411862
Nicotine Tob Res. 2021 Jun 8;23(7):1085-1093
pubmed: 33220048
Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 2;6(1):25
pubmed: 28148294
Trials. 2019 Jan 5;20(1):11
pubmed: 30611292
Ann Behav Med. 2019 Jul 17;53(8):693-707
pubmed: 30304386
Am J Health Promot. 2018 Mar;32(3):677-690
pubmed: 29214856
Tob Control. 2015 May;24(3):217-23
pubmed: 24789602
Tob Prev Cessat. 2017 Jun 22;3:117
pubmed: 32432192
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 14;5(12):e008111
pubmed: 26667011
Environ Int. 2018 Nov;120:104-110
pubmed: 30076982
Health Educ Res. 2007 Oct;22(5):619-29
pubmed: 17060351
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Jan 07;11(1):792-803
pubmed: 24402065
Tob Control. 2013 Sep;22(5):e8
pubmed: 22615325
Int J Psychiatry Med. 2012;43(3):279-92
pubmed: 22978085
Health Educ Res. 2017 Aug 1;32(4):293-305
pubmed: 28854570
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 17;16(24):
pubmed: 31861215
Health Psychol. 2019 Dec;38(12):1059-1068
pubmed: 31414843
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Nov 14;17(1):378
pubmed: 29137602
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022 Jul 2;8(1):136
pubmed: 35780245
Obes Rev. 2014 Oct;15 Suppl 4:159-76
pubmed: 25196412
Am J Public Health. 2004 Jun;94(6):1030-6
pubmed: 15249311
Environ Int. 2020 Jul;140:105738
pubmed: 32371305
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Mar;54(3):359-367
pubmed: 29305069
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 31;1:CD001746
pubmed: 29383710
Lancet. 2011 Jan 8;377(9760):139-46
pubmed: 21112082
J Relig Health. 2020 Jun;59(3):1175-1188
pubmed: 29948792
J Egypt Soc Parasitol. 2003 Dec;33(3 Suppl):1087-101
pubmed: 15119472
Women Health. 2018 Mar;58(3):334-346
pubmed: 28278014
Addiction. 2017 Nov;112(11):2023-2031
pubmed: 28600886
Pediatrics. 2013 Dec;132(6):1071-80
pubmed: 24190686
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 May;9(5):e567-e568
pubmed: 33865464
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 17;6(3):e010260
pubmed: 26988351
Tob Control. 2018 Mar;27(2):155-162
pubmed: 28432210
SSM Popul Health. 2019 May 23;8:100412
pubmed: 31338409
Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(44):1-469
pubmed: 23158845
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 May;9(5):e639-e650
pubmed: 33865472
Tob Control. 2022 May;31(3):444-451
pubmed: 33328266
Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Feb 23;14:E19
pubmed: 28231041
Prev Med. 2013 Dec;57(6):765-75
pubmed: 24076130
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Nov 08;13(11):
pubmed: 27834841