• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

建立无烟家庭的影响因素:简短干预措施的三项随机对照试验的汇总数据。

Moderators of Establishing a Smoke-Free Home: Pooled Data from Three Randomized Controlled Trials of a Brief Intervention.

机构信息

Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory Prevention Research Center, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.

Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.

出版信息

J Community Health. 2019 Feb;44(1):121-126. doi: 10.1007/s10900-018-0561-6.

DOI:10.1007/s10900-018-0561-6
PMID:30101386
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6330136/
Abstract

Interventions to create smoke-free homes typically focus on parents, involve multiple counseling sessions and blend cessation and smoke-free home messages. Smoke-Free Homes: Some Things are Better Outside is a minimal intervention focused on smokers and nonsmokers who allow smoking in the home, and emphasizes creation of a smoke-free home over cessation. The purpose of this study is to conduct moderator analyses using pooled data from three randomized controlled trials of the intervention conducted in collaboration with 2-1-1 contact centers in Atlanta, North Carolina and Houston. 2-1-1 is a strategic partner for tobacco control as it connects over 15 million clients, largely socio-economically disadvantaged, to social and health resources each year. A total of 1506 2-1-1 callers participated across the three intervention trials. Outcomes from 6 months intent-to-treat analyses were used to examine whether sociodemographic variables and smoking-related characteristics moderated effectiveness of the intervention in establishing full home smoking bans. Intervention effectiveness was not moderated by race/ethnicity, education, income, children in the home or number of smokers in the home. Smoking status of the participant, however, did moderate program effectiveness, as did time to first cigarette. Number of cigarettes per day and daily versus nondaily smoking did not moderate intervention effectiveness. Overall, the intervention was effective across socio-demographic groups and was effective without respect to daily versus nondaily smoking or number of cigarettes smoked per day, although smoking status and level of nicotine dependence did influence effectiveness.

摘要

干预措施旨在创建无烟家庭,通常以父母为重点,涉及多次咨询,并融合了戒烟和无烟家庭信息。《无烟家庭:有些事最好在户外》是一项针对家中允许吸烟的吸烟者和不吸烟者的最小干预措施,强调创建无烟家庭而非戒烟。本研究的目的是使用与亚特兰大、北卡罗来纳州和休斯顿的 2-1-1 联络中心合作进行的三项随机对照试验的汇总数据进行调节分析。2-1-1 是烟草控制的战略合作伙伴,因为它每年将超过 1500 万客户,主要是社会经济劣势客户,联系到社会和健康资源。共有 1506 名 2-1-1 来电者参加了三项干预试验。使用 6 个月意向治疗分析的结果来检验社会人口统计学变量和与吸烟相关的特征是否调节了干预措施在建立全面家庭禁烟方面的有效性。种族/民族、教育程度、收入、家中是否有孩子或家中吸烟者人数等因素并未调节干预效果。然而,参与者的吸烟状况和首次吸烟时间确实调节了计划的有效性。每天吸烟的数量和每日吸烟与非每日吸烟之间并没有调节干预的效果。总体而言,该干预措施在社会人口统计学群体中均有效,且无论是否每日吸烟或每天吸烟的数量如何,均有效,尽管吸烟状况和尼古丁依赖程度确实会影响效果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5b1b/6330136/8b6b06cbeb2c/nihms1503499f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5b1b/6330136/8b6b06cbeb2c/nihms1503499f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5b1b/6330136/8b6b06cbeb2c/nihms1503499f1.jpg

相似文献

1
Moderators of Establishing a Smoke-Free Home: Pooled Data from Three Randomized Controlled Trials of a Brief Intervention.建立无烟家庭的影响因素:简短干预措施的三项随机对照试验的汇总数据。
J Community Health. 2019 Feb;44(1):121-126. doi: 10.1007/s10900-018-0561-6.
2
Impact of a smoke-free-living educational intervention for smokers and household nonsmokers: A randomized trial of Chinese American pairs.对吸烟者和家庭不吸烟者进行无烟生活教育干预的影响:中美家庭吸烟者与不吸烟者的随机试验。
Cancer. 2018 Apr 1;124 Suppl 7:1590-1598. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31115.
3
A Qualitative Study Among Mexican Americans to Understand Factors Influencing the Adoption and Enforcement of Home Smoking Bans.墨西哥裔美国人定性研究,以了解影响家庭禁烟令采用和执行的因素。
Nicotine Tob Res. 2017 Nov 7;19(12):1465-1472. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw270.
4
Steps Toward Scalability: Illustrations From a Smoke-Free Homes Program.迈向可扩展性的步骤:无烟家庭计划实例
Health Educ Behav. 2019 Oct;46(5):773-781. doi: 10.1177/1090198119848767. Epub 2019 Jun 5.
5
Challenges in Enforcing Home Smoking Rules in a Low-Income Population: Implications for Measurement and Intervention Design.在低收入人群中执行家庭吸烟规定的挑战:对测量和干预设计的影响
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 May;18(5):976-81. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntv165. Epub 2015 Aug 5.
6
Babies Living Safe & Smokefree: randomized controlled trial of a multilevel multimodal behavioral intervention to reduce low-income children's tobacco smoke exposure.保障婴儿安全与无烟环境:一项多层次多模式行为干预减少低收入儿童烟草烟雾暴露的随机对照试验。
BMC Public Health. 2017 Mar 14;17(1):249. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4145-7.
7
Minimal intervention delivered by 2-1-1 information and referral specialists promotes smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers: a Texas generalisation trial.由2-1-1信息与转介专员提供的最低限度干预措施,促进了2-1-1热线来电者家中无烟:一项德克萨斯州的推广试验。
Tob Control. 2016 Oct;25(Suppl 1):i10-i18. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053045.
8
Effectiveness of a pharmacist-delivered smoking cessation program in the State of Qatar: a randomized controlled trial.卡塔尔国由药剂师提供的戒烟项目的有效性:一项随机对照试验。
BMC Public Health. 2017 Feb 20;17(1):215. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4103-4.
9
Smoking policies in the home have less influence on cigarettes per day and nicotine dependence level among African American than White smokers: A cross-sectional analysis.家庭中的吸烟政策对非裔美国烟民每天的吸烟量和尼古丁依赖水平的影响小于白种烟民:一项横断面分析。
J Natl Med Assoc. 2019 Dec;111(6):606-615. doi: 10.1016/j.jnma.2019.07.002. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
10
Tobacco cessation interventions for young people.针对年轻人的戒烟干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18(4):CD003289. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003289.pub4.

引用本文的文献

1
Breast and Cervical Cancer Gaps in Displaced Lebanese Women in Syria.叙利亚境内流离失所的黎巴嫩妇女的乳腺癌和宫颈癌防治差距
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Aug 1;8(8):e2525652. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.25652.
2
Comparing acceptance of smoking cessation and smoke-free home intervention offers and associated factors among people with low income in the USA: baseline results of a randomised controlled trial.比较美国低收入人群对戒烟和无烟家庭干预措施的接受度及相关因素:一项随机对照试验的基线结果
BMJ Public Health. 2024 Apr 22;2(1):e000843. doi: 10.1136/bmjph-2023-000843. eCollection 2024 Jun.
3
Theory-based correlates of cannabis use and intentions among US and Israeli adults: a mixed methods study.

本文引用的文献

1
A Minimal Intervention to Promote Smoke-Free Homes among 2-1-1 Callers: North Carolina Randomized Effectiveness Trial.一项针对 211 热线来电者促进无烟家庭的最小干预措施:北卡罗来纳州随机有效性试验。
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 2;11(11):e0165086. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165086. eCollection 2016.
2
Minimal intervention delivered by 2-1-1 information and referral specialists promotes smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers: a Texas generalisation trial.由2-1-1信息与转介专员提供的最低限度干预措施,促进了2-1-1热线来电者家中无烟:一项德克萨斯州的推广试验。
Tob Control. 2016 Oct;25(Suppl 1):i10-i18. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053045.
3
基于理论的美国和以色列成年人使用大麻和意图的相关因素:一项混合方法研究。
Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2023 Sep 6;18(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s13011-023-00562-x.
4
Smoke-free home restrictions in Armenia and Georgia: motives, barriers and secondhand smoke reduction behaviors.亚美尼亚和格鲁吉亚的无烟家庭限制:动机、障碍和减少二手烟行为。
Eur J Public Health. 2023 Oct 10;33(5):864-871. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckad129.
5
Systematic braiding of Smoke-Free Home SafeCare to address child maltreatment risk and secondhand smoke exposure: findings from a pilot study.无烟家庭安全护理的系统编织以应对儿童虐待风险和二手烟暴露:一项试点研究的结果。
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2023 May 12;9(1):81. doi: 10.1186/s40814-023-01303-4.
6
Examining Psychosocial Correlates of a Home Smoking Ban Among Low-income Smokers: Analysis of Social Support, Unmet Social Needs, Perceived Stress, and Depressive Symptoms.考察低收入吸烟者家庭禁烟的心理社会相关因素:社会支持、未满足的社会需求、感知压力和抑郁症状的分析。
J Community Health. 2022 Dec;47(6):959-965. doi: 10.1007/s10900-022-01094-4. Epub 2022 Aug 6.
7
Small-Area Estimation of Smoke-Free Workplace Policies and Home Rules in US Counties.美国各县无烟工作场所政策和家庭规定的小区域估计。
Nicotine Tob Res. 2021 Aug 4;23(8):1300-1307. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntab015.
8
Opportunities for Tailored Support to Implement Smoke-Free Homes: A Qualitative Study among Lower Socioeconomic Status Parents.为实施无烟家庭提供定制支持的机会:社会经济地位较低的父母群体中的定性研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 27;17(1):222. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010222.
9
Steps Toward Scalability: Illustrations From a Smoke-Free Homes Program.迈向可扩展性的步骤:无烟家庭计划实例
Health Educ Behav. 2019 Oct;46(5):773-781. doi: 10.1177/1090198119848767. Epub 2019 Jun 5.
Tobacco Use, Secondhand Smoke, and Smoke-Free Home Rules in Multiunit Housing.
多单元住房中的烟草使用、二手烟及无烟家庭规则
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov;51(5):682-692. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.009. Epub 2016 Jul 13.
4
Smoke-free homes: what are the barriers, motivators and enablers? A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.无烟家庭:有哪些障碍、动机因素和促进因素?一项定性系统评价与主题综合分析。
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 17;6(3):e010260. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010260.
5
National and state prevalence of smoke-free rules in homes with and without children and smokers: Two decades of progress.有孩子和吸烟者家庭与无孩子和吸烟者家庭中无烟规定的全国及各州流行情况:二十年的进展。
Prev Med. 2016 Jan;82:51-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.11.010. Epub 2015 Nov 18.
6
Reducing Underserved Children's Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Randomized Counseling Trial With Maternal Smokers.减少服务不足儿童接触烟草烟雾:一项针对母亲吸烟者的随机咨询试验。
Am J Prev Med. 2015 Oct;49(4):534-44. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.008. Epub 2015 May 28.
7
A minimal intervention to promote smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers: a randomized controlled trial.一项促进2-1-1热线来电者家庭无烟的最小干预措施:一项随机对照试验。
Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar;105(3):530-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302260. Epub 2015 Jan 20.
8
Smoke-free multiunit housing: a review of the scientific literature.无烟多单元住房:科学文献综述
Tob Control. 2016 Jan;25(1):9-20. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051849. Epub 2015 Jan 7.
9
Predictors of children's secondhand smoke exposure at home: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence.儿童在家中二手烟暴露的预测因素:证据的系统评价与叙述性综合分析
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 14;9(11):e112690. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112690. eCollection 2014.
10
Reach, effectiveness, and connections: the case for partnering with 2-1-1 to eliminate health disparities.覆盖面、有效性与联系:与2-1-1合作消除健康差距的理由
Am J Prev Med. 2012 Dec;43(6 Suppl 5):S420-1. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.024.