Recruiting families for an intervention study to prevent second-hand smoke exposure in children

Abstract Background We evaluated the effectiveness of different recruitment strategies used in a study aimed at eliminating/reducing second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure in Dutch children 0–13 years of age with a high risk of asthma. Methods The different strategies include: 1) questionnaires distributed via home addresses, physicians or schools of the children; 2) cohorts from other paediatric studies; 3) physicians working in the paediatric field (family physicians, paediatricians and Youth Health Care (YHC) physicians); and 4) advertisements in a local newsletter, at child-care facilities, and day-care centres. Results More than 42,782 families were approached to take part in the screening of which 3663 could be assessed for eligibility. Of these responders, 196 families met the inclusion criteria for the study. However, only 58 (one third) could be randomised in the trial, mainly because of no interest or time of the parents. The results showed that recruiting families who expose their children to SHS exposure is very challenging, which may be explained by lack of ‘recognition’ or awareness that SHS occurs in homes. The presence of asthma in the family, respiratory symptoms in the children, and even incentives did not increase parental motivation for participation in the study. Conclusions The recruitment process for an intervention program addressing SHS exposure in children was considerably more challenging and time consuming than anticipated. Barriers at both a parents level and a doctor’s level can be discriminated

Addressing passive smoking in children.

BACKGROUND: A significant number of parents are unaware or unconvinced of the health consequences of passive smoking (PS) in children. Physicians could increase parental awareness by giving personal advice. AIM: To evaluate the current practices of three Dutch health professions (paediatricians, youth health care physicians, and family physicians) regarding parental counselling for passive smoking (PS) in children. METHODS: All physicians (n = 720) representing the three health professions in Limburg, The Netherlands, received an invitation to complete a self-administered electronic questionnaire including questions on their: sex, work experience, personal smoking habits, counselling practices and education regarding PS in children. RESULTS: The response rate was 34%. One tenth (11%) of the responding physicians always addressed PS in children, 32% often, 54% occasionally and 4% reported to never attend to it. The three health professions appeared comparable regarding their frequency of parental counselling for PS in children. Addressing PS was more likely when children had respiratory problems. Lack of time was the most frequently mentioned barrier, being very and somewhat applicable for respectively 14% and 43% of the physicians. One fourth of the responders had received postgraduate education about PS. Additionally, 49% of the responders who did not have any education about PS were interested in receiving it. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians working in the paediatric field in Limburg, The Netherlands, could more frequently address PS in children with parents. Lack of time appeared to be the most mentioned barrier and physicians were more likely to counsel parents for PS in children with respiratory complaints/diseases. Finally, a need for more education on parental counselling for PS was expressed

Motivational interviewing and urine cotinine feedback to stop passive smoke exposure in children predisposed to asthma: a randomised controlled trial

Abstract We tested the effectiveness of a program consisting of motivational interviewing (MI) and feedback of urine cotinine to stop passive smoking (PS) in children at risk for asthma. Fifty-eight families with children 0–13 years with a high risk of asthma and PS exposure were randomised in a one-year follow-up study. The intervention group received the intervention program during 6 sessions (1/month) and the control group received measurements (questionnaires, urine cotinine, and lung function) only. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of families stopping PS (parental report verified and unverified with the child’s urine cotinine concentration <10 μg/l) in children during the intervention program. The analyses were performed with Mixed Logistic Regression. After 6 months, a significant group difference was observed for the unverified parental report of stopping PS in children: 27% of parents in the intervention group versus 7% in the control group. For the verified parental report, the difference was similar (23% versus 7%) but was not statistically significant. Despite a limited sample size, the results suggest that the intervention program is probably an effective strategy to stop PS in children. A program longer than 6 months might be necessary for a longer lasting intervention effect

Facilitators.

<p>F1) A patient that you know for a longer time. F2) A patient that you see with a higher frequency of visits. F3) A child with known increased risk of respiratory diseases. F4) A child that presents for consultation with asthmatic complaints. F5) A family with a history of sudden infant death syndrome. F6) A child that presents for consultation with otitis media with effusion. F7) The smell of tobacco around the child and/or parents. F8) Parents with visible presence of smoking accessories. (P  =  paediatricians; YHCPs  =  youth health care physicians; FPs  =  family physicians; Tot  =  total). *Significant group differences for F1 (F(2,230) = 6.812 <i>p</i> = 0.001), F2 (F(2,230) = 9.673 <i>p</i><0.001), F5 (F(2,230) = 7.978 <i>p</i><0.001) and F6 (F(2,230) = 11.050 <i>p</i><0.001).</p

Frequency of addressing passive smoke exposure in children.

<p>The percentages of all the physicians (P  =  Paediatricians; YHCPs  =  youth health care physicians; FPs  =  family physicians) per frequency category are noted in the last columns. There were no significant differences between the three health professions (F(2,1) = 1.59, p = 0.206).</p

Number of reported facilitators and their association with addressing passive smoke (PS) exposure.

#<p>Numbers do not add up to 245 due to the exclusion of 11 physicians who never address PS exposure in children. OR  =  Odds Ratios; 95% CI  =  95% confidence interval; *<i>p</i><0.05.</p