Abstract
The methods of reaching families for a home intervention trial (HIT) were analyzed in this study. The study aimed to reduce environmental tobacco smoke exposure among infants in one region of Germany. The systematic screening data of smoking among families in their homes were compared with reference data of a representative household sample of the state in which the study was conducted. The characteristics of participating and non-participating families were analyzed. All households (N = 3,570) containing at least one infant age 3 years or younger were selected using the residents` registration files and invited to participate in a screening assessment. Among these families, 3,293 (92.2 %) were contacted and from that group, 2,641 families participated in the screening. Compared with the reference sample, the screened sample included a higher proportion of families with employment and with more than 10 years of education. Participation in the HIT was recommended if at least one parent reported smoking one or more cigarettes per day during the previous 4 weeks. Among the 1,282 families that met the inclusion criteria, 71.5 % took part in the screening. Participating families, compared with non-participating families, were older, included more families with two parents living in the household, and had higher rates of employment. The effect size of the final regression model was small (Cohen’s f 2 = 0.01). In conclusion, proactive approaches that are delivered at home may yield a high reach of the target population and particularly of socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mackenbach, J. P., Stirbu, I., Roskam, A. J., Schaap, M. M., Menvielle, G., Leinsalu, M., et al. (2008). Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(23), 2468–2481.
Harkins, C., Shaw, R., Gillies, M., Sloan, H., Macintyre, K., Scoular, A., et al. (2010). Overcoming barriers to engaging socio-economically disadvantaged populations in CHD primary prevention: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 10, 391.
Heinrichs, N., Bertram, H., Kuschel, A., & Hahlweg, K. (2005). Parent recruitment and retention in a universal prevention program for child behavior and emotional problems: Barriers to research and program participation. Prevention Science, 6(4), 275–286.
Yancey, A. K., Ortega, A. N., & Kumanyika, S. K. (2006). Effective recruitment and retention of minority research participants. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 1–28.
Bolte, G., & Fromme, H. (2009). Socioeconomic determinants of children’s environmental tobacco smoke exposure and family’s home smoking policy. European Journal Public Health, 19(1), 52–58.
Hoffmann, B., Kolahgar, B., Rauchfuss, K., Eberwein, G., Franzen-Reuter, I., Kraft, M., et al. (2009). Childhood social position and associations between environmental exposures and health outcomes. International Journal Hygiene Environmental Health, 212(2), 146–156.
Priest, N., Roseby, R., Waters, E., Polnay, A., Campbell, R., Spencer, N., et al. (2008). Family and carer smoking control programmes for reducing children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4, CD001746.
Ashley, M. J., & Ferrence, R. (1998). Reducing children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in homes: Issues and strategies. Tobacco Control, 7(1), 61–65.
Hovell, M. F., Zakarian, J. M., Wahlgren, D. R., Matt, G. E. (2009). Reducing children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: The empirical evidence and directions for future research. Tobacco Control, 9(suppl 2), II40–II47.
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322–1327.
Prinz, R. J., Smith, E. P., Dumas, J. E., Laughlin, J. E., White, D. W., & Barron, R. (2001). Recruitment and retention of participants in prevention trials involving family-based interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(suppl 1), 31–37.
GESIS. (2012). German Microcensus. Mannheim: GESIS—Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences.
Steyerberg, E. W. (2009). Selection of main effects. Clinical prediction models: A practical approach to development, validation, and updating (pp. 191–211). New York, NY: Springer.
Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilkinson, A. V., Shete, S., & Prokhorov, A. V. (2008). The moderating role of parental smoking on their children’s attitudes toward smoking among a predominantly minority sample: A cross-sectional analysis. Substance Abuse Treatment Prevention and Policy, 3, 18.
Acknowledgments
The study was funded by the German Cancer AID (Deutsche Krebshilfe, grant no. 107539). The authors would like to thank Elke Bandelin, Angelika Beyer, Kornelia Bruss, Christine Fehlhaber and Monika Surmann for their assistance in the screening and recruitment procedure. Thanks are extended to Diana Klinger for providing excellent data management. Finally, we thank all participating families for their support.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kastirke, N., John, U., Goeze, C. et al. Reaching Families at Their Homes for an Intervention to Reduce Tobacco Smoke Exposure Among Infants. J Community Health 38, 215–220 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-012-9602-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-012-9602-8