Mullen Patricia Dolan, Savas Lara S, Bundy Łucja T, Haardörfer Regine, Hovell Mel, Fernández Maria E, Monroy Jo Ann A, Williams Rebecca S, Kreuter Matthew W, Jobe David, Kegler Michelle C
Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas, USA.
Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory Prevention Research Center, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Tob Control. 2016 Oct;25(Suppl 1):i10-i18. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053045.
Replication of intervention research is reported infrequently, limiting what we know about external validity and generalisability. The Smoke Free Homes Program, a minimal intervention, increased home smoking bans by United Way 2-1-1 callers in randomised controlled trials in Atlanta, Georgia and North Carolina.
Test the programme's generalisability-external validity in a different context.
A randomised controlled trial (n=508) of English-speaking callers from smoking-discordant households (≥1 smoker and ≥1 non-smoker). 2-1-1 Texas/United Way HELPLINE call specialists serving the Texas Gulf Coast recruited callers and delivered three mailings and one coaching call, supported by an online tracking system. Data collectors, blind to study assignment, conducted telephone interviews 3 and 6 months postbaseline.
At 3 months, more intervention households reported a smoke-free home (46.6% vs 25.4%, p<0.0001; growth model intent-to-treat OR=1.48, 95% CI 1.241 to 1.772, p<0.0001). At 6 months, self-reported full bans were 62.9% for intervention participants and 38.4% for controls (OR=2.19). Texas trial participants were predominantly women (83%), single-smoker households (76%) and African-American (65%); half had incomes ≤US$10 000/year (50%). Texas recruitment was <50% of the other sites. Fewer callers reported having a smoker in the household. Almost twice the callers with a household smoker declined interest in the programme/study.
Our findings in a region with lower smoking rates and more diverse callers, including English-speaking Latinos, support programme generalisability and convey evidence of external validity. Our recruitment experience indicates that site-specific adjustments might improve recruitment efficiency and reach.
NCT02097914, Results.
干预研究的重复报道较少,这限制了我们对外部有效性和普遍性的了解。无烟家庭计划是一项最小化干预措施,在佐治亚州亚特兰大和北卡罗来纳州的随机对照试验中,该计划增加了联合之路211热线来电者实施的家庭吸烟禁令。
在不同背景下测试该计划的普遍性——外部有效性。
一项针对来自吸烟情况不一致家庭(≥1名吸烟者和≥1名非吸烟者)的英语来电者的随机对照试验(n = 508)。为德克萨斯湾沿岸地区服务的211德克萨斯/联合之路热线呼叫专家招募来电者,并在一个在线跟踪系统的支持下进行三次邮件发送和一次辅导电话。对研究分配不知情的数据收集者在基线后3个月和6个月进行电话访谈。
在3个月时,更多干预家庭报告家中无烟(46.6%对25.4%,p < 0.0001;增长模型意向性分析OR = 1.48,95%CI 1.48至1.772,p < 0.0001)。在6个月时,干预参与者自我报告的完全禁令为62.9%,对照组为38.4%(OR = 2.19)。德克萨斯试验的参与者主要是女性(83%)、单吸烟者家庭(76%)和非裔美国人(65%);一半人的年收入≤10000美元(50%)。德克萨斯的招募人数不到其他地点的50%。报告家中有吸烟者的来电者较少。家中有吸烟者的来电者对该计划/研究感兴趣的人数几乎减少了一半。
我们在吸烟率较低且来电者更多样化(包括说英语的拉丁裔)的地区的研究结果支持了该计划的普遍性,并传达了外部有效性的证据。我们的招募经验表明,针对特定地点的调整可能会提高招募效率和覆盖面。
NCT02097914,结果 。