Skip Navigation

Strengthen the Evidence for Maternal and Child Health Programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 20 (89 total).

Abdullah ASM, Mak YW, Loke AY, Lam TH. Smoking cessation intervention in parents of young children: a randomised controlled trial. Addiction 2005;100(11):1731–40.

Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16277633/

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Telephone Support, Peer Counselor

Intervention Results:

A total of 952 smoker fathers and mothers were randomized to the intervention (n = 467) and control (n = 485) groups. Most were daily smokers (92.4%) and the mean number of cigarettes smoked per day was 14.5 (SD = 8.9). By using intention-to-treat analysis, the 7 day point prevalence quit rate at 6 month follow up was significantly greater in the intervention group (15.3%; 68/444) than the control group (7.4%; 34/459) (P < 0.001). The absolute risk reduction was 7.9% (95% confidence interval: 3.78% to 12.01%). The number needed to treat to get one additional smoker to quit was 13 (95% CI: 8-26). The crude odds ratio of quitting was 2.3(95% CI: 1.5-3.5). The adjusted odds ratio was 2.1 (95% CI: 1.4-3.4) (adjusted for age, number of years smoked, and alcohol dependency).

Abdullah AS, Hua F, Khan H, Xia X, Bing Q, Tarang K, et al. Secondhand smoke exposure reduction intervention in Chinese households of young children: a randomized controlled trial. Academy of Pediatrics 2015;15(6):588–98.

Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876285915002168?via%3Dihub

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Peer Counselor, Telephone Support, Educational Material, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Community Health Workers (CHWs)

Intervention Results:

Of the 318 families randomized, 98 (60%) of 164 intervention group and 82 (53%) of 154 of controls completed 6-month follow-up assessment. At the 6-month follow-up, 62% of intervention and 45% of comparison group households adopted complete smoking restrictions at home (P = .022); total exposure (mean number of cigarettes per week ± standard deviation) from all smokers at home in the past 7 days was significantly lower among children in the intervention (3.29 ± 9.06) than the comparison (7.41 ± 14.63) group (P = .021); and mean urine cotinine level (ng/mL) was significantly lower in the intervention (0.030 ± .065) than the comparison (0.087 ± .027) group, P < .001). Participants rating of the overall usefulness of the intervention was 4.8 + 0.8 (1 standard deviation) on the 5 point scale (1 not at all and 5 = very useful). Conclusions

Armstrong KL, Fraser JA, Dadds MR,Morris J. Promoting secure attachment, maternal mood and child health in a vulnerable population: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2000;36(6):555–62.

Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1440-1754.2000.00591.x?sid=nlm%3Apubmed

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Home Visits, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner

Intervention Results:

At 4 month follow-up, 160 families (80 intervention, 80 control) were available for assessment. The intervention improved family functioning at 4 months. All aspects of the home environment, including the quality of maternal–infant attachment and mothers’ relationship with their child, were significantly enhanced. In particular, significant and positive differences were found in parenting with the intervention group feeling less restrictions imposed by the parenting role, greater sense of competence in parenting, greater acceptability of the child, and the child being more likely to provide positive reinforcement to the parent. Early differences in maternal mood were not maintained at 4 months. Various child health parameters were enhanced including immunization status, fewer parent-reported injuries and bruising, and researcher confirmed lack of smoking in the house or around the infant. The families were consistently more satisfied with their community health service.

Baheiraei A, Kharaghani R, Mohsenifar A, Kazemnejad A, Alikhani S, Milani HS, et al. Reduction of secondhand smoke exposure among healthy infants in Iran: randomized controlled trial. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2011;13(9):840–7.

Link: https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/13/9/840/1133504

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Peer Counselor, Telephone Support

Intervention Results:

The intervention was effective in reducing infant urinary cotinine levels (1-tailed p = .029). There was a greater decrease in the total daily cigarette consumption in the presence of the child in the intervention group compared with the control group, and the differences between the 2 groups were statistically significant (1-tailed p = .03). While the differences between home-smoking bans in the 2 groups were statistically significant (1-tailed p = .049), the differences between car-smoking bans did not reach significance.

Blaakman SW, Borrelli B, Wiesenthal EN, Fagnano M, Tremblay PJ, Stevens TP, et al. Secondhand smoke exposure reduction after NICU discharge: results of a randomized trial. Academy of Pediatrics 2015;15(6):605–12.

Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876285915001692?via%3Dihub

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Peer Counselor, Motivational Interviewing, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, CAREGIVER, Motivational Interviewing/Counseling

Intervention Results:

Caregivers in the treatment group reported significantly more home smoking bans (96% vs 84%, P = .03) and reduced infant contact with smokers after the intervention (40% vs 58%, P = .03), but these differences did not persist long term. At study end (8 months after neonatal intensive care unit discharge), treatment group infants showed significantly greater reduction in salivary cotinine versus comparison (−1.32 ng/mL vs −1.08 ng/mL, P = .04), but no significant differences in other clinical outcomes.

Borrelli B, McQuaid EL, Novak SP, Hammond SK, Becker B. Motivating Latino caregivers of children with asthma to quit smoking: a randomized trial. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 2010;78(1):34–43.

Link: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-00910-007

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Motivational Interviewing, Nicotine Replacement Therapy

Intervention Results:

Intent-to-treat analyses showed that 20.5% of participants in the PAM condition and 9.1% of those in the BAM condition were continuously abstinent at 2 months posttreatment (OR = 2.54; 95% CI = 0.91–7.10), whereas 19.1% of participants in the PAM condition and 12.3% of those in BAM condition were continuously abstinent at 3 months posttreatment (OR = 1.68; 95% CI = 0.64–4.37). Secondhand smoke exposure decreased only in the BAM condition (p < .001), an effect due to less smoking around the child among nonquitters in this condition. Asthma morbidity showed significant decreases in the posttreatment period for the PAM group only (p < .001).

Borrelli B, McQuaid EL, Tooley EM, Busch AM, Hammond S, Becker B, et al. Motivating parents of kids with asthma to quit smoking: the effect of the teachable moment and increasing intervention intensity using a longitudinal randomized trial design. Addiction 2016;111(9):1646–55.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5404816/

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Home Visits, Motivational Interviewing

Intervention Results:

Aim 1: The teachable moment was supported at 7 day and 2 month measurements. Aim 2: enhanced PAM was more likely to achieve 30-day ppa at the primary end-point, 4 months.

Bundy LT, Haardörfer R, Kegler MC, Owolabi S, Berg CJ, Escoffery C, Thompson T, Mullen PD, Williams R, Hovell M, Kahl T, Harvey D, Price A, House D, Booker BW, Kreuter MW. (2018). Disseminating a Smoke Free Homes program to low SES households in the US through 2-1-1: Results of a national impact evaluation. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2018 Dec 5. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty256.

Link: https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/nty256/5231607

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Telephone Support, COMMUNITY, Community Health Services Policy, Distribution of Promotional Items (Classroom/School), Distribution of Promotional Items (Community), Educational Material

Intervention Results:

Overall, 40.1% reported creating a full household smoking ban. Among the nonsmoking adults reached at follow-up, days of SHS exposure in the past week decreased from 4.9 to 1.2. Among the 1148 smokers reached for follow-up, 211 people quit, an absolute reduction in smoking of 18.4% (p < .0001), with no differences by gender. Among those reached for 2-month follow-up, the proportion who reported establishing a smoke-free home was comparable to or higher than smoke-free home rates in the prior controlled research studies.

Butz AM, Matsui EC, Breysse P, Curtin-Brosnan J, Eggleston P, Diette G, et al. A randomized trial of air cleaners and a health coach to improve indoor air quality for inner-city children with asthma and secondhand smoke exposure. [Erratum appears in Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011;165(9):791]. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2011;165(8):741–8.

Link: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1107571

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Home Visits, Motivational Interviewing, Peer Counselor, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, CAREGIVER, Motivational Interviewing/Counseling

Intervention Results:

The overall follow-up rate was high (91.3%). Changes in mean fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) concentrations (baseline to 6 months) were significantly lower in both air cleaner groups compared with the control group. No differences were noted in air nicotine or urine cotinine concentrations. The health coach provided no additional reduction in PM concentrations. Symptom-free days were significantly increased in both air cleaner groups compared with the control group.

Butz AM, Bollinger ME, Ogborn J, Morphew T, Mudd SS, Kub JE, Bellin MH, Lewis-Land C, DePriest K, Tsoukleris M (2019). Children with poorly controlled asthma: Randomized controlled trial of a home-based environmental control intervention. Pediatric Pulmonology. 2019 Mar;54(3):245-256. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24239

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30614222

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Home Visits, Other Person-to-Person Education, CAREGIVER, Education/Training (caregiver), PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, Motivational Interviewing, Motivational Interviewing/Counseling

Intervention Results:

Over half of children in the study tested positive for SHS. Targeting SHS exposure was major component of the intervention [but] no significant reduction in cotinine exposures was associated with the intervention at 12 months.

Caldwell AL, Tingen MS Nguyen JT, Andrews JO, Heath J, Waller JL, Treiber FA. (2018). Parental Smoking Cessation: Impacting Children’s Tobacco Smoke Exposure in the Home. Pediatrics. 2018 Jan;141(Suppl 1):S96-S106. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1026M.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5745674/

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): CAREGIVER, Motivational Interviewing/Counseling, PATIENT/CONSUMER, Motivational Interviewing, Educational Material, Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Educational Material (caregiver), Telephone Support

Intervention Results:

Intervention group showed a larger increase in self-reported smoking abstinence over time than the control group. For cotinine, the intervention group showed a decrease from baseline and then maintenance through year 4, whereas the control group showed increases from baseline.

Chan SS, Lam TH, Salili F, Leung GM,Wong DC, Botelho RJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial of an individualized motivational intervention on smoking cessation for parents of sick children: a pilot study. Applied Nursing Research 2005;18(3):178–81.

Link: http://europepmc.org/article/med/16106336

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Telephone Support, Motivational Interviewing, CAREGIVER, Motivational Interviewing/Counseling

Intervention Results:

Preliminary results showed that the quit rate in the intervention group was 7.5% (95% CI, 0–21) versus 2.5% (95% CI, 0–7) in the control group. A total of 15% of the intervention group versus 10% of the control group reduced smoking consumption by half; 20.0% of the intervention group versus 7.5% of the control group reported quit attempts in the past 30 days; and 17.5% of the intervention group versus 10% of the control group moved up the stage of readiness to quit. The results were not statistically significant because of the small sample size.

Chan S, Lam TH. Protecting sick children from exposure to passive smoking through mothers’ actions: a randomized controlled trial of a nursing intervention. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2006;54(4):440–9.

Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03842.x

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Educational Material, CAREGIVER, Educational Material (caregiver)

Intervention Results:

Baseline comparison showed no significant differences between the two groups in the mothers’ actions to protect the children from passive smoking exposure. More mothers in the intervention group than the control group had always moved the children away when they were exposed to the fathers’ smoke at home at 3‐month follow up (78·4% vs. 71·1%; P = 0·01) but became non‐significant at 6 and 12 months.

Chellini E, Gorini G, Carreras G, Da noi non si fuma Study Group. The “Don’t smoke in our home” randomized controlled trial to protect children from second-hand smoke exposure at home. Tumori Journal 2013;99(1):23–9.]

Link: http://europepmc.org/article/med/23548995

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Peer Counselor, CAREGIVER, Educational Material (caregiver), Motivational Interviewing/Counseling

Intervention Results:

Outcomes were: Reported smoking restrictions in home and car and change in smoking status reported. All participants independently of the study arm recorded significant increases of 12 and 15 percentage points in TSFH and TSFC, respectively. Few smokers quit smoking (7%), stopped smoking indoors (5%), and stopped smoking in cars (7%), with no differences between the intervention and control groups.

Chen YT, Hsiao FH, Lee CM, Wang RH, Chen PL. Effects of a parent-child interactive program for families on reducing the exposure of school-aged children to household smoking. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2016;18(3):330–40.

Link: https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/18/3/330/2583990

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Group Education, Telephone Support, Educational Material, CAREGIVER, Education/Training (caregiver), Educational Material (caregiver)

Intervention Results:

The percentage of children with urine cotinine levels greater than or equal to 6ng/ml was significantly lower in the intervention group than it was in the control group at both the 8-week and 6-month assessments. The intervention significantly reduced parental smoking in the presence of children and increased parents’ prevention of children’s ETS exposure and children’s ETS avoidance behavior from the baseline to the 20-week assessment.

Chilmonczyk BA, Palomaki GE, Knight GJ, Williams J, Haddow JE. An unsuccessful cotinine-assisted intervention strategy to reduce environmental tobacco smoke exposure during infancy. American Journal of Diseases of Children 1992;146(3):357–60.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1543187

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Telephone Support, CAREGIVER, Educational Material (caregiver)

Intervention Results:

Follow-up urine cotinine measurements were obtained in 27 (52%) of 52 infants from the intervention group and in 29 (57%) of the 51 controls 2 months later. The mean log ratio of the follow-up to initial urine cotinine measurements was 6% lower in the intervention group than in the control group. This difference was not statistically significant.

Collins BN, Nair US, Hovell MF, DiSantis KI, Jaffe K, Tolley NM, et al. Reducing underserved children’s exposure to tobacco smoke: a randomized counseling trial with maternal smokers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2015;49(4):534–44.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4575825/

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Peer Counselor, Intensive Therapy, CAREGIVER, Motivational Interviewing/Counseling

Intervention Results:

Participation in Philadelphia Family Rules for Establishing Smokefree Homes (FRESH) behavioral counseling was associated with lower child cotinine (β=-0.18, p=0.03) and reported tobacco smoke exposure (β=-0.57, p=0.03) at the end of treatment. Mothers in behavioral counseling smoked fewer cigarettes/day (β=-1.84, p=0.03) and had higher bioverified quit rates compared with controls (13.8% vs 1.9%, χ(2)=10.56, p<0.01). There was no moderating effect of other smokers living at home.

Collins BN, Lepore SJ, Winickoff JP, Nair US, Moughan B, Bryant-Stephens T, Davey A, Taylor D, Fleece D, Godfrey M. (2018). An Office-Initiated Multilevel Intervention for Tobacco Smoke Exposure: A Randomized Trial. Pediatrics. 2018 Jan;141(Suppl 1):S75-S86. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1026K

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5745677/

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, HOSPITAL, Continuing Education of Hospital Providers, Policy/Guideline (Hospital), Educational Material (Provider), Guideline Change and Implementation

Intervention Results:

Complete case analysis demonstrated that compared with control parents (29.9%), significantly more parents in the experimental condition (45.8%) eliminated their children’s exposure to all sources of tobacco smoke both inside and outside their homes at 3-month follow-up. In addition, more parents in AAR/counseling than in AAR/attention control eliminated all sources of TSE (45.8% vs. 29.9%) and quit smoking (28.2% vs. 8.2%).

Conway TL, Woodruff SI, Edwards CC, Hovell MF, Klein J. Intervention to reduce environmental tobacco smoke exposure in Latino children: null effects on hair biomarkers and parent reports. Tobacco Control 2004;13(1):90–2.

Link: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/13/1/90.long

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Community Health Workers (CHWs), Outreach (Provider), PATIENT/CONSUMER, Motivational Interviewing, Telephone Support, Home Visits

Intervention Results:

There were no significant condition-by-time interactions. Significant or near significant time main effects were seen for children’s hair cotinine and parent’s report of exposure.

Cooper S, Lewis S, Thornton JG, Marlow N, Watts K, Britton J, et al. The SNAP trial: a randomized placebo- controlled trial of nicotine replacement therapy in pregnancy - clinical effectiveness and safety until 2 years after delivery, with economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment 2014;18(54):1–128.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25158081

NPM: 14-2: Smoking in the Household
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Nicotine Replacement Therapy

Intervention Results:

Smoking outcomes: at delivery, the validated, prolonged smoking cessation rate was 9.4% in the NRT and 7.6% in the placebo group (OR for cessation with NRT 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.96). At 1 month, the validated cessation rate was significantly higher in the NRT group (21.3% vs. 11.7%, OR for cessation with NRT 2.05, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.88). After delivery, there were no statistically significant differences in cessation. Self-reported prolonged abstinence since the quit date was: at 6 months, 5.4% in the NRT group and 3.2% in the placebo group; at 1 year, 3.7% and 2.1%; and, at 2 years, 2.9% and 1.7%, respectively.
    Next Page »

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.