Upload
maura
View
33
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
An Intervention to Promote Smoke free Policy Development in Rural Kentucky. Ellen Hahn, DNS, RN, Principal Investigator University of Kentucky College of Nursing National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) RO1 HL086450 October 8, 2008. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
An Intervention to Promote Smoke free Policy
Development in Rural Kentucky
Ellen Hahn, DNS, RN, Principal InvestigatorUniversity of Kentucky College of Nursing
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)RO1 HL086450
October 8, 2008
PAR-06-039 Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health
Study Purpose To test the effects of a community
intervention on smoke-free policy outcomes in rural underserved communities. To accelerate the ‘diffusion-of-innovations curve’
in rural communities through tailored, evidence-based dissemination and implementation efforts.
Long-term Goal
To develop a best practices framework for disseminating the information on the state of scientific knowledge about the effects of secondhand smoke and smoke-free laws and implementing effective community policy change and maintenance strategies in rural underserved communities.
Background Enacting smoke-free laws typically depends
on the readiness of local people who have the greatest and most sustainable impact in solving local problems.
Rural residents more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke than those living in urban areas, reflecting a major rural-urban disparity in smoke-free laws.
Kentucky Communities with 100% Smoke-free Workplace* and/or Public Place Ordinances or Regulations
Lexington Georgetown* Letcher County Morehead* Frankfort Ashland* Elizabethtown* Paducah Hardin County*
(unincorporated areas) Madison County* Louisville* Danville*
4/27/04 10/1/05 7/1/06 8/1/06 8/22/06 10/1/06 12/1/06 4/1/07 4/1/07
6/11/07 7/1/07 and 1/11/08 8/8/08
Primary Hypotheses Controlling for contextual factors:
H1: The overall change in stage of readiness for smoke-free policy will be greater for Treatment than Control communities;
H2: Media coverage will be more favorable toward smoke-free environments in Treatment than Control communities; and
H3: Treatment communities will be more likely than Control communities to demonstrate initial, intermediate, and final smoke-free policy outcomes.
Secondary Aims Test the effects of community readiness
assessment on stage of community readiness and smoke-free policy outcomes;
Evaluate the implementation of the intervention; and
Test for the influence of secular trends in diminishing the difference between Treatment and Control communities in change over time.
Research Design
Treatment O1 X1X2 O2 X1X2 O3 X1X2 O4 X1X2 O5 X1
Control I O1 X1 O2 X1 O3 X1 O4 X1 O5 X1
Control II O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 X1
O = Community observations: print media evaluation, smoke-free policy outcomes, secular trends, contextual variablesX1 = Intervention component I: Assessment of stage of community readiness.X2 = Intervention component II: Stage-specific, tailored strategies.
Study Counties Treatment (n = 22)
Readiness Assessment Annually and Intervention Control I (n = 8)
Readiness Assessment Annually Control II (n = 10)
Readiness Assessment Year 5 Only
*Note. The PRC CAB is taking a leadership role in Perry County, an Eastern Kentucky county.
Study Intervention
Component I: Stage of Readiness
• Unawareness• Vague Awareness• Pre-planning• Preparation• Initiation• Endorsement
Component II:Stage-specific Tailored Strategies
• Translation and dissemination of knowledge
• Building capacity for smoke-free policy• Building demand for smoke-free policy
Figure 5: Study Intervention Components
Component 1: Assessment of Community Readiness
Existing smoke-free policies
Community climate
Political climate
Resources
Community knowledge about
SHS & existing efforts
Leadership
Translation & Dissemination of Science Policymaker Assessments Public Opinion Studies Air Quality Studies Smoke-free Toolkit
Building Capacity Coalition Building Building Organizational Capacity Basic Legal Information Growing Legislative Champions Training on local policymaking process Leveraging funds (each county awarded
mini-grant, $2500 per year x 5 years)
Building Demand
Build on the existing rural infrastructure Media advocacy Advocacy: grassroots and grasstops Branding a smoke-free campaign
Primary Measures Community Readiness
3-5 Key Informants (community advocates) Mayors and County Judge Executives
Print Media Evaluation NewsClipz
Smoke-free Outcomes No policy outcomes (0); work group or resolution
(1); draft ordinance (2); ordinance enacted (3); comprehensive ordinance (4)
Project StaffCommunity Advisors
◦ Shevawn Akers/Heather Robertson◦ Carol Riker◦ Brenda Vestal◦ Carol Whipple/Sarah Cavendish
Community Liaisons◦ Baretta Casey, MD, Director, UK Center for Rural
Health◦ Peggy Lewis, State Office of Rural Health◦ James Rousey, Public Health Director, Madison
County Health Department
Project Consultants Judy Owens, JD, Legal Consultant
Collaborates with the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium at the University of Minnesota.
Todd A. Warnick, MA, MHA, CADC, Smoke-free Campaign Consultant
Key Support Staff Kathy Begley, Data Management Coordinator Karen Arrowood, Research Assistant Amanda Fallin, Research Associate Erin Lee, Project Assistant Kiyoung Lee, Assistant Professor and Environmental
Scientist, UK College of Public Health Mary Kay Rayens, Professor and Mei Zhang, Data
Analyst Heather Robertson, Manager, Clean Indoor Air
Partnership
5-Year Project Summary Readiness Interviews (Spring/Summer)
Advocates Elected Officials (County Judge Executives and Mayors)
Readiness Reports to Communities (September) Community Advisors serve communities as they
develop/revise a tailored roadmap for next steps or review existing plans (ongoing)
Community and Community Advisor prepare scope of work for mini-grant contract with UK (annually)
Community advocates use roadmap to take action based on stage of readiness (ongoing, regular contact with Community Advisor as needed)
What Have We Learned? The community with the highest overall
baseline readiness score at baseline (Year 1) enacted a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance in Year 2.
Communities with more Capacity for tobacco control (i.e., leadership, numbers of personnel committed to tobacco control as well as linkages between key agencies and advocacy groups) are more ready for smoke-free policy.
Communities that report more Efforts related to tobacco control (i.e., time spent on media advocacy, training and technical assistance, policy advocacy) are more ready for smoke-free policy.
Readiness dimension TreatmentMean (SD)
(n = 22)
Control IMean (SD)
(n = 8)
t-test (p-value)
Leadership Political climateCommunity climate ResourcesExisting smoke-free policiesCommunity knowledgeOverall readiness
0.51 (.09)0.56 (.15)0.44 (.09)0.61 (.08)0.42 (.13)0.40 (.17)2.94 (.52)
0.42 (.09)0.55 (.08)0.43 (.08)0.55 (.08)0.35 (.17)0.27 (.09)2.58 (.31)
2.2 (.03)0.1 (1.0)0.4 (.7)1.7 (.1)1.2 (.2)
2.1 (.04)1.8 (.08)
Average readiness scores by group, with comparisons based on two-sample t-tests for means (N = 30)
Note. The community with the highest baseline readiness score enacted a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance in Year 2.
Lessons Learned Tailoring interventions
Popular, low-cost communication channels (e.g., weekly shopper bulletins and weekend ‘trader’ radio shows)
Opposition tactics (e.g., ‘little tobacco’) Air quality monitoring
Special concerns in small communities where everyone knows everyone
Concerns that businesses do not have advance notice when monitoring conducted
Summary The Rural Smoke-free Communities
Project assists rural partners and acts as a value-added resource as they work toward implementing comprehensive smoke-free policies in their communities.
We believe that successfully moving toward smoke-free policy goals needs to be a carefully planned, community driven effort by committed local advocates.