Bethany Hipple

Tobacco Promotion and the Initiation of Tobacco Use: Assessing the Evidence for Causality

OBJECTIVE. We sought to determine whether there is evidence of a causal link between exposure to tobacco promotion and the initiation of tobacco use by children. METHODS. We conducted a structured search in Medline, PsycINFO, and ABI/INFORM Global to identify relevant empirical research. The literature was examined against the Hill epidemiologic criteria for determining causality. RESULTS. (1) Children are exposed to tobacco promotion before the initiation of tobacco use; (2) exposure increases the risk for initiation; (3) there is a dose-response relationship, with greater exposure resulting in higher risk; (4) the increased risk is robust; it is observed with various study methods, in multiple populations, and with various forms of promotion and persists after controlling for other factors; (5) scientifically plausible mechanisms whereby promotion could influence initiation exist; and (6) no explanation other than causality can account for the evidence. CONCLUSIONS. Promotions foster positive attitudes, beliefs, and expectations regarding tobacco use. This fosters intentions to use and increases the likelihood of initiation. Greater exposure to promotion leads to higher risk. This is seen in diverse cultures and persists when other risk factors, such as socioeconomic status or parental and peer smoking, are controlled. Causality is the only plausible scientific explanation for the observed data. The evidence satisfies the Hill criteria, indicating that exposure to tobacco promotion causes children to initiate tobacco use.

Implementation of a Parental Tobacco Control Intervention in Pediatric Practice

OBJECTIVE: To test whether routine pediatric outpatient practice can be transformed to assist parents in quitting smoking. METHODS: Cluster RCT of 20 pediatric practices in 16 states that received either CEASE intervention or usual care. The intervention gave practices training and materials to change their care delivery systems to provide evidence-based assistance to parents who smoke. This assistance included motivational messaging; proactive referral to quitlines; and pharmacologic treatment of tobacco dependence. The primary outcome, assessed at an exit interview after an office visit, was provision of meaningful tobacco control assistance, defined as counseling beyond simple advice (discussing various strategies to quit smoking), prescription of medication, or referral to the state quitline, at that office visit. RESULTS: Among 18 607 parents screened after their child’s office visit between June 2009 and March 2011, 3228 were eligible smokers and 1980 enrolled (999 in 10 intervention practices and 981 in 10 control practices). Practices’ mean rate of delivering meaningful assistance for parental cigarette smoking was 42.5% (range 34%–66%) in the intervention group and 3.5% (range 0%–8%) in the control group (P < .0001). Rates of enrollment in the quitline (10% vs 0%); provision of smoking cessation medication (12% vs 0%); and counseling for smoking cessation (24% vs 2%) were all higher in the intervention group compared with the control group (P < .0001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: A system-level intervention implemented in 20 outpatient pediatric practices led to 12-fold higher rates of delivering tobacco control assistance to parents in the context of the pediatric office visit.

A National Survey of the Acceptability of Quitlines to Help Parents Quit Smoking

OBJECTIVE. Provision of telephone smoking cessation counseling can increase the rate of quitting smoking. The US Public Health Service recently helped to establish a free national quitline enrollment service. No previous surveys have assessed the acceptability to parents of enrollment in quitline counseling in the context of their childs health care visits. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess acceptability to parents of enrollment in quitline counseling and to compare that with the reported rate of actually being enrolled in any smoking cessation counseling outside the office in the context of the childs health care visit. METHODS. Data were collected by a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of households from September to November 2004. The sample is weighted by race and gender on the basis of the current US Census to be representative of the US population. RESULTS. Of 3615 eligible respondents contacted, 3011 (83.3%) completed surveys; 958 (31.8%) who completed the survey were parents with children under the age of 18 years. Of these parents, 187 (19.7%) were self-identified smokers. Of the parents who smoked, 113 (64.2%) said that they would accept enrollment in a telephone cessation program if the childs doctor offered it to them. In contrast, of the 122 smoking parents who accompanied their child to the doctor in the past year, only 11 (9%) had any counseling recommended to them, and only 1 (0.8%) was actually enrolled. These results did not vary by parent age, gender, race, or child age. CONCLUSIONS. When interacting with parents who smoke, child health care providers have low rates of referring and enrolling parents in any services related to smoking. Enrollment in quitlines would be acceptable to the majority of parents in the context of their childs health care visit. Tobacco control efforts in the child health care setting should include implementation of office systems that can facilitate enrollment of parental smokers in telephone quitlines.

Sustainability of a parental tobacco control intervention in pediatric practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an evidence-based pediatric outpatient intervention for parents who smoke persisted after initial implementation. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial of 20 pediatric practices in 16 states that received either Clinical and Community Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) intervention or usual care. The intervention provided practices with training to provide evidence-based assistance to parents who smoke. The primary outcome, assessed by the 12-month follow-up telephone survey with parents, was provision of meaningful tobacco control assistance, defined as discussing various strategies to quit smoking, discussing smoking cessation medication, or recommending the use of the state quitline after initial enrollment visit. We also assessed parental quit rates at 12 months, determined by self-report and biochemical verification. RESULTS: Practices’ rates of providing any meaningful tobacco control assistance (55% vs 19%), discussing various strategies to quit smoking (25% vs 10%), discussing cessation medication (41% vs 11%), and recommending the use of the quitline (37% vs 9%) were all significantly higher in the intervention than in the control groups, respectively (P < .0001 for each), during the 12-month postintervention implementation. Receiving any assistance was associated with a cotinine-confirmed quitting adjusted odds ratio of 1.89 (95% confidence interval: 1.13–3.19). After controlling for demographic and behavioral factors, the adjusted odds ratio for cotinine-confirmed quitting in intervention versus control practices was 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 0.64–1.78). CONCLUSIONS: Intervention practices had higher rates of delivering tobacco control assistance than usual care practices over the 1-year follow-up period. Parents who received any assistance were more likely to quit smoking; however, parents’ likelihood of quitting smoking was not statistically different between the intervention and control groups. Maximizing parental quit rates will require more complete systems-level integration and adjunctive cessation strategies.

Parents smoking in their cars with children present.

OBJECTIVE: To determine prevalence and factors associated with strictly enforced smoke-free car policies among smoking parents. METHODS: As part of a cluster, randomized controlled trial addressing parental smoking, exit interviews were conducted with parents whose children were seen in 10 control pediatric practices. Parents who smoked were asked about smoking behaviors in their car and receipt of smoke-free car advice at the visit. Parents were considered to have a “strictly enforced smoke-free car policy” if they reported having a smoke-free car policy and nobody had smoked in their car within the past 3 months. RESULTS: Of 981 smoking parents, 817 (83%) had a car; of these, 795 parents answered questions about their car smoking policy. Of these 795 parents, 29% reported having a smoke-free car policy, and 24% had a strictly enforced smoke-free car policy. Of the 562 parents without a smoke-free car policy, 48% reported that smoking occurred with children present. Few parents who smoke (12%) were advised to have a smoke-free car. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for parent age, gender, education, and race showed that having a younger child and smoking ≤10 cigarettes per day were associated with having a strictly enforced smoke-free car policy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of smoking parents exposed their children to tobacco smoke in cars. Coupled with the finding of low rates of pediatricians addressing smoking in cars, this study highlights the need for improved pediatric interventions, public health campaigns, and policies regarding smoke-free car laws to protect children from tobacco smoke.

Global teens and tobacco: a review of the globalization of the tobacco epidemic.

Worldwide, the burden of suffering to children caused by tobacco does not just originate from exposure to tobacco smoke or smoking, but includes exposure to tobacco-friendly media, poverty associated with money spent on tobacco, increased incidence of tobacco-related fires, and the harms related to child labor in tobacco cultivation. Despite global efforts through human rights acts, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and the MPOWER report, tobacco use continues to accelerate in most countries. While the efforts that have been taken, such as smoking bans in public, are worthy actions, not enough is being done to protect children and teens. More can be done at the policy level, by individuals, and by health care providers.

Thirdhand Smoke Beliefs of Parents

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the belief that thirdhand smoke is harmful to children is associated with smoking parents’ attitudes, home or car smoking policies, and quitting behaviors. METHODS: Data from a national randomized controlled trial, Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure, assessed thirdhand smoke beliefs of 1947 smoking parents in an exit survey after a pediatric office visit in 10 intervention and 10 control practices. Twelve-month follow-up data were collected from 1355 parents. Multivariable logistic regression determined whether belief that thirdhand smoke harms the health of children is independently associated with parental behaviors and attitudes 12 months later. A χ2 test assessed whether parents who disagreed that thirdhand smoke is harmful were more likely to make a quit attempt if they later believed that thirdhand smoke is harmful. RESULTS: Belief at the exit survey that thirdhand smoke is harmful was independently associated with having a strictly enforced smoke-free home policy (adjusted odds ratio: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.37–3.05) and car policy (adjusted odds ratio: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.04–2.74) at the 12-month follow-up. A significantly higher percentage (71% vs 50%) of parents who did not hold the thirdhand smoke harm belief at baseline made at least 1 quit attempt if they agreed that thirdhand smoke is harmful at the 12-month follow-up (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Thirdhand smoke harm belief was associated with a strictly enforced smoke-free home and car and attempts to quit smoking. Sensitizing parents to thirdhand smoke risk could facilitate beneficial tobacco control outcomes.

Acceptability of Testing Children for Tobacco-Smoke Exposure: A National Parent Survey

BACKGROUND: Tests are available to measure childrens exposure to tobacco smoke. One potential barrier to testing children for tobacco-smoke exposure is the belief that parents who smoke would not want their child tested. No previous surveys have assessed whether testing children for exposure to tobacco smoke in the context of their childs primary care visit is acceptable to parents. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether testing children for tobacco-smoke exposure is acceptable to parents. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of households from September to November 2006. The sample was weighted by race and gender, based on the 2005 US Census, to be representative of the US population. RESULTS: Of 2070 eligible respondents contacted, 1803 (87.1%) completed the surveys. Among 477 parents in the sample, 60.1% thought that children should be tested for tobacco-smoke exposure at their childs doctor visit. Among the parental smokers sampled, 62.0% thought that children should be tested for tobacco-smoke exposure at the childs doctor visit. In bivariate analysis, lower parental education level, allowing smoking in the home, nonwhite race, and female gender were each associated (P < .05) with wanting the child tested for tobacco-smoke exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of nonsmoking and smoking parents want their children tested for tobacco-smoke exposure during the childs health care visit.

Distance-based training in two community health centers to address tobacco smoke exposure of children

BackgroundThe CEASE (Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure) intervention was developed to help pediatricians routinely and effectively address the harms of family smoking behaviors. Based on paper versions of CEASE, we partnered with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ online education department and developed a completely distance-based training, including an online CME training, handouts and education materials for families, and phone and email support.MethodsThe pediatric offices of two low income health clinics with primarily Medicaid populations were selected for the study. Pre and post intervention data by survey of the parents was collected in both practices (Practice 1 n = 470; Practice 2 n = 177). The primary outcome for this study was a comparison of rates of clinician’s asking and advising parents about smoking and smoke-free home and cars.ResultsExit surveys of parents revealed statistically significant increases in rates of clinicians asking about parental smoking (22% vs. 41%), smoke-free rules (25% vs. 44%), and asking about other smoking household members (26% vs. 48%).ConclusionsThrough a completely distance based intervention, we were able to train pediatricians who see low income children to ask parents about smoking, smoke-free home and car rules, and whether other household members smoke. Implementing a system to routinely ask about family tobacco use and smoke-free home and car rules is a first step to effectively addressing tobacco in a pediatric office setting. By knowing which family members use tobacco, pediatricians can take the next steps to help families become completely tobacco-free.Trial registrationClinical trials number: NCT01087177

Black Versus White Differences in Rates of Addressing Parental Tobacco Use in the Pediatric Setting

OBJECTIVE To examine racial differences in rates of screening parents for cigarette smoking during pediatric outpatient visits and to determine if a parental tobacco control intervention mitigates racial variation in whether cigarette smoking is addressed. METHODS As part of the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) randomized controlled trial, exit interviews were conducted with parents at 10 control and 10 intervention pediatric practices nationally. Parents were asked to report if during the visit did anyone ask if they smoke cigarettes. A generalized linear mixed model was used to estimate the effect of black vs white race on asking parents about cigarette smoking. RESULTS Among 17,692 parents screened at the exit interview, the proportion of black parents who were current smokers (16%) was lower than the proportion of white parents who smoked (20%) (P < .001). In control group practices, black parents were more likely to be asked (adjusted risk ratio 1.23; 95% confidence interval 1.08, 1.40) about cigarette smoking by pediatricians than whites. In intervention group practices both black and white parents were more likely to be asked about smoking than those in control practices and there was no significant difference between black and white parents in the likelihood of being asked (adjusted risk ratio 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.93, 1.09). CONCLUSIONS Although a smaller proportion of black parents in control practices smoked than white, black parents were more likely to be asked by pediatricians about smoking. The CEASE intervention was associated with higher levels of screening for smoking for both black and white parents.