|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||REFRESH—reducing families' exposure to secondhand smoke in the home: a feasibility study|
Mills, Lynsey M
|Citation:||Wilson I, Semple S, Mills LM, Ritchie D, Shaw A, O'Donnell R, Bonella P, Turner S & Amos A (2013) REFRESH—reducing families' exposure to secondhand smoke in the home: a feasibility study, Tobacco Control, 22 (5), Art. No.: e8. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050212.|
|Abstract:||Objective To study a novel intervention (REFRESH) aimed at reducing children's exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in their homes. Design A randomised feasibility study. Setting Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire. Participants A total of 59 smoking mothers with at least one child younger than 6 years. Participation took place between July 2010 and March 2011. Intervention Four home visits over a 1-month period, which involved two 24-h measurements of home air quality (PM2.5) and a motivational interview to encourage changes to smoking behaviour within the home in order to reduce child SHS exposure. The enhanced group received their air quality data as part of their motivational interview at visit 2; the control group received that information at visit 4. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures were comparisons of the data from visits 2 and 4 on the 24-h average concentration of PM2.5, the peak concentration of PM2.5, the percentage of time when household PM2.5 concentrations exceeded a health-based threshold of 35 μg/m3 and child's salivary cotinine (in nanograms per millilitre). The views of the mothers from the enhanced group about their understanding of the intervention and the measures used were also analysed to assess the acceptability and utility of the intervention. Results Of the recruited 54 participants, 48 completed the study: 27 from the control group and 21 from the enhanced group. Both groups experienced reductions in PM2.5 concentrations. When testing paired samples for the enhanced group, there was a significant difference (p|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|tobaccocontrol-2011-050212.full.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||488.74 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Permanent Embargo Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.