Using air-quality feedback to encourage disadvantaged parents to create a smoke-free home: Results from a randomised controlled trial

Sean Semple, Stephen Turner, Rachel O'Donnell, Lynn Adams, Tracy Henderson, Shirley Mitchell, Susan Lyttle, Amanda Amos

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To determine if low-cost air-quality monitors providing personalised feedback of household second-hand smoke (SHS) concentrations plus standard health service advice on SHS were more effective than standard advice in helping parents protect their child from SHS.
Design A randomised controlled trial of a personalised intervention delivered to disadvantaged mothers who were exposed to SHS at home. Changes in household concentrations of fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) were the primary outcome.
Methods Air-quality monitors measured household PM2.5 concentrations over approximately 6 days at baseline and at one-month and six-months post-intervention. Data on smoking and smoking-rules were gathered. Participants were randomised to either Group A (standard health service advice on SHS) or Group B (standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback). Group B participants received personalised air-quality feedback after the baseline measurement and at 1-month. Both groups received air-quality feedback at 6-months.
Results 120 mothers were recruited of whom 117 were randomised. Follow up was completed after 1-month in 102 and at 6-months in 78 participants. There was no statistically significant reduction in PM2.5 concentrations by either intervention type at 1-month or 6-months, nor significant differences between the two groups at 1-month (p = 0.76) and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.16).
Conclusions Neither standard advice nor standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback were effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations in deprived households where smoking occurred. Finding ways of identifying homes where air-quality feedback can be a useful tool to change household smoking behaviour is important to ensure resources are targeted successfully.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)104-110
Number of pages7
JournalEnvironment International
Volume120
Early online date1 Aug 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2018

Fingerprint

smoke
air quality
smoking
health services
trial
advice
particulate matter
household
resource
cost

Keywords

  • Environmental Tobacco Smoke
  • Second-hand smoke
  • children
  • PM2.5
  • education
  • intervention

Cite this

Using air-quality feedback to encourage disadvantaged parents to create a smoke-free home : Results from a randomised controlled trial. / Semple, Sean; Turner, Stephen; O'Donnell, Rachel; Adams, Lynn; Henderson, Tracy; Mitchell, Shirley; Lyttle, Susan; Amos, Amanda.

In: Environment International, Vol. 120, 01.11.2018, p. 104-110.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Semple, Sean ; Turner, Stephen ; O'Donnell, Rachel ; Adams, Lynn ; Henderson, Tracy ; Mitchell, Shirley ; Lyttle, Susan ; Amos, Amanda. / Using air-quality feedback to encourage disadvantaged parents to create a smoke-free home : Results from a randomised controlled trial. In: Environment International. 2018 ; Vol. 120. pp. 104-110.
@article{0790becb1c2649afabd3ab6dbe065919,
title = "Using air-quality feedback to encourage disadvantaged parents to create a smoke-free home: Results from a randomised controlled trial",
abstract = "Objective To determine if low-cost air-quality monitors providing personalised feedback of household second-hand smoke (SHS) concentrations plus standard health service advice on SHS were more effective than standard advice in helping parents protect their child from SHS.Design A randomised controlled trial of a personalised intervention delivered to disadvantaged mothers who were exposed to SHS at home. Changes in household concentrations of fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) were the primary outcome.Methods Air-quality monitors measured household PM2.5 concentrations over approximately 6 days at baseline and at one-month and six-months post-intervention. Data on smoking and smoking-rules were gathered. Participants were randomised to either Group A (standard health service advice on SHS) or Group B (standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback). Group B participants received personalised air-quality feedback after the baseline measurement and at 1-month. Both groups received air-quality feedback at 6-months.Results 120 mothers were recruited of whom 117 were randomised. Follow up was completed after 1-month in 102 and at 6-months in 78 participants. There was no statistically significant reduction in PM2.5 concentrations by either intervention type at 1-month or 6-months, nor significant differences between the two groups at 1-month (p = 0.76) and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.16).Conclusions Neither standard advice nor standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback were effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations in deprived households where smoking occurred. Finding ways of identifying homes where air-quality feedback can be a useful tool to change household smoking behaviour is important to ensure resources are targeted successfully.",
keywords = "Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Second-hand smoke, children, PM2.5, education, intervention",
author = "Sean Semple and Stephen Turner and Rachel O'Donnell and Lynn Adams and Tracy Henderson and Shirley Mitchell and Susan Lyttle and Amanda Amos",
note = "Acknowledgements Ms C Briffa-Watt, Ms L Bruce, Ms J Madden, All Lanarkshire First Steps Programme workers, and all the mothers who participated in the study. Funding This work was funded by the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (CZH_4_983).",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.039",
language = "English",
volume = "120",
pages = "104--110",
journal = "Environment International",
issn = "0160-4120",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using air-quality feedback to encourage disadvantaged parents to create a smoke-free home

T2 - Results from a randomised controlled trial

AU - Semple, Sean

AU - Turner, Stephen

AU - O'Donnell, Rachel

AU - Adams, Lynn

AU - Henderson, Tracy

AU - Mitchell, Shirley

AU - Lyttle, Susan

AU - Amos, Amanda

N1 - Acknowledgements Ms C Briffa-Watt, Ms L Bruce, Ms J Madden, All Lanarkshire First Steps Programme workers, and all the mothers who participated in the study. Funding This work was funded by the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (CZH_4_983).

PY - 2018/11/1

Y1 - 2018/11/1

N2 - Objective To determine if low-cost air-quality monitors providing personalised feedback of household second-hand smoke (SHS) concentrations plus standard health service advice on SHS were more effective than standard advice in helping parents protect their child from SHS.Design A randomised controlled trial of a personalised intervention delivered to disadvantaged mothers who were exposed to SHS at home. Changes in household concentrations of fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) were the primary outcome.Methods Air-quality monitors measured household PM2.5 concentrations over approximately 6 days at baseline and at one-month and six-months post-intervention. Data on smoking and smoking-rules were gathered. Participants were randomised to either Group A (standard health service advice on SHS) or Group B (standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback). Group B participants received personalised air-quality feedback after the baseline measurement and at 1-month. Both groups received air-quality feedback at 6-months.Results 120 mothers were recruited of whom 117 were randomised. Follow up was completed after 1-month in 102 and at 6-months in 78 participants. There was no statistically significant reduction in PM2.5 concentrations by either intervention type at 1-month or 6-months, nor significant differences between the two groups at 1-month (p = 0.76) and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.16).Conclusions Neither standard advice nor standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback were effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations in deprived households where smoking occurred. Finding ways of identifying homes where air-quality feedback can be a useful tool to change household smoking behaviour is important to ensure resources are targeted successfully.

AB - Objective To determine if low-cost air-quality monitors providing personalised feedback of household second-hand smoke (SHS) concentrations plus standard health service advice on SHS were more effective than standard advice in helping parents protect their child from SHS.Design A randomised controlled trial of a personalised intervention delivered to disadvantaged mothers who were exposed to SHS at home. Changes in household concentrations of fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) were the primary outcome.Methods Air-quality monitors measured household PM2.5 concentrations over approximately 6 days at baseline and at one-month and six-months post-intervention. Data on smoking and smoking-rules were gathered. Participants were randomised to either Group A (standard health service advice on SHS) or Group B (standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback). Group B participants received personalised air-quality feedback after the baseline measurement and at 1-month. Both groups received air-quality feedback at 6-months.Results 120 mothers were recruited of whom 117 were randomised. Follow up was completed after 1-month in 102 and at 6-months in 78 participants. There was no statistically significant reduction in PM2.5 concentrations by either intervention type at 1-month or 6-months, nor significant differences between the two groups at 1-month (p = 0.76) and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.16).Conclusions Neither standard advice nor standard advice plus personalised air-quality feedback were effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations in deprived households where smoking occurred. Finding ways of identifying homes where air-quality feedback can be a useful tool to change household smoking behaviour is important to ensure resources are targeted successfully.

KW - Environmental Tobacco Smoke

KW - Second-hand smoke

KW - children

KW - PM2.5

KW - education

KW - intervention

U2 - 10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.039

DO - 10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.039

M3 - Article

VL - 120

SP - 104

EP - 110

JO - Environment International

JF - Environment International

SN - 0160-4120

ER -