Chest
Volume 120, Issue 5, November 2001, Pages 1709-1722
Journal home page for Chest

Occupational and Environmental Lung Disease
A Controlled Trial of an Environmental Tobacco Smoke Reduction Intervention in Low-Income Children With Asthma

https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.120.5.1709Get rights and content

Study objectives

To determine the effectiveness of a cotinine-feedback, behaviorally based education intervention in reducing environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure and health-care utilization of children with asthma.

Design

Randomized controlled trial of educational intervention vs usual care.

Setting

The pediatric pulmonary service of a regional pediatric hospital.

Participants

ETS-exposed, Medicaid/Medi-Cal-eligible, predominantly minority children who were 3 to 12 years old and who were seen for asthma in the hospital’s emergency, inpatient, and outpatient services departments (n = 87).

Intervention

Three nurse-led sessions employing behavior-changing strategies and basic asthma education and that incorporated repeated feedback on the child’s urinary cotinine level.

Measurements

The primary measurements were the urinary cotinine/creatinine ratio (CCR) and the number of acute asthma medical visits. The secondary measurements were number of hospitalizations, smoking restrictions in home, amount smoked, reported exposures of children, and asthma control.

Results

The intervention was associated with a significantly lower odds ratio (OR) for more than one acute asthma medical visit in the follow-up year, after adjusting for baseline visits (total visits, 87; OR, 0.32; p = 0.03), and a comparably sized but nonsignificant OR for one or more hospitalization (OR, 0.34; p = 0.14). The follow-up CCR measurement and the determination of whether smoking was prohibited inside the home strongly favored the intervention group (n = 51) (mean difference in CCR adjusted for baseline, −0.38; p = 0.26; n = 51) (60; OR [for proportion of subjects prohibiting smoking], 0.24; p = 0.11; n = 60).

Conclusions

This intervention significantly reduced asthma health-care utilization in ETS-exposed, low-income, minority children. Effects sizes for urine cotinine and proportion prohibiting smoking were moderate to large but not statistically significant, possibly the result of reduced precision due to the loss of patients to active follow-up. Improving ETS reduction interventions and understanding their mechanism of action on asthma outcomes requires further controlled trials that measure ETS exposure and behavioral and disease outcomes concurrently.

Section snippets

Interventions to Reduce ETS Exposure in Children

Legal, regulatory, and taxation changes, antismoking education programs, and smoking cessation assistance that incorporates nicotine replacement therapy have been associated with a reduction in the overall smoking rates in the United States, but reductions in the rates among young women, especially those with less education, have lagged behind those of men.13 Attempts to encourage nonvolunteer female smokers of childbearing age, including pregnant women and new mothers, to quit smoking or to

Eligibility:

Eligible children had the following characteristics: (1) age between 3 and 12 years; (2) had been examined because of acute asthma within the preceding year in the ED or urgent-care (Peds Plus) clinics and/or had been admitted to the inpatient service of the Valley Children’s Hospital (VCH) (VCH had been located in Fresno County, CA, until its new facility [in-patient services, ED, and specialty clinics] opened just across the Fresno-Madera County line in September 1998; the Peds Plus

Demographic Characteristics:

The sample consisted of approximately equal numbers of male and female children (Table 1). Approximately 44% of the sample was Hispanic and 38% was black. One third of the primary caregivers (28 of 87 caregivers) had not graduated from high school, and only 3 caregivers were college graduates. None of these demographic characteristics differed significantly between the intervention and control groups.

Smoking Practices:

The primary maternal caregiver (who was not always the child’s natural mother) was a smoker in

Discussion

We found that an educational intervention that emphasized reduction in ETS exposure and that used a variety of motivational, instructional, and other aides to promote behavior change was associated with significantly lower odds of having more than one acute medical visit for asthma (OR, 0.32; p = 0.03 [after controlling for baseline visits]) and also with a nonsignificant trend toward lower odds of hospitalization (OR, 0.34; p = 0.14). Using statistical bootstrap procedures, we confirmed that

Session 1

  • I.

    Introduction

    • a.

      Overview of the program

    • b.

      Identify problems that the parent has in managing the child’s asthma

  • II.

    Asthma pathophysiology

    • a.

      Explain how the lungs and breathing system work

    • b.

      Explain how this system is affected during and after an acute asthma episode

    • c.

      Explain inflammation and how to prevent and control it

    • d.

      Explain the effects of irritants/allergens on the lungs

    • e.

      Explain what it means to control asthma: environmental control and medications

    • f.

      Parental practice in explaining asthma to someone else

  • III.

    Understand

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge the contributions of the participating families and of Patricia Springer, RN, Pediatric Pulmonary Department, Monica Dibble, RRT, RPFT, and Terry Driscoll, RRT, CPFT, of the Pulmonary Function Laboratory, Eldon Swanson, Supervisor of the Immunology Laboratory, and Leo Baranda and Christine Davies of the Information Services Department, all of VCH, Madera, CA, for their assistance with the identification of patients, recruitment and follow-up, laboratory testing, and the

*** (42)

  • Institute of Medicine

    Clearing the air: asthma and indoor air exposures; Committee on the Assessment of Asthma and Indoor Air, Division of Health Promotion and Prevention, Institute of Medicine (IOM)

    (2000)
  • University of California

    Cancer prevention, and control program (CPCP): tobacco control in California; who's winning the war?—final report to the California Department of Health Services

    (1998)
  • W Carr et al.

    Variations in asthma hospitalization and deaths in New York City

    Am J Public Health

    (1992)
  • PJ Gergen et al.

    Changing patterns of asthma hospitalization among children: 1979–1987

    JAMA

    (1990)
  • DM Mannino et al.

    Surveillance for Asthma: United States, 1960–1995

    MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep

    (1998)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    Forecasted state-specific estimates of self-reported asthma prevalence: United States, 1998

    MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep

    (1998)
  • AM Butz et al.

    Passive smoking among children with chronic respiratory disease

    J Asthma

    (1992)
  • JK Ockene

    Smoking among women across the life span: prevalence, interventions, and implications for cessation research

    Ann Behav Med

    (1993)
  • JE Haddow et al.

    Cotinine-assisted intervention in pregnancy to reduce smoking and low birthweight delivery

    Br J Obstet Gynaecol

    (1991)
  • BA Chilmonczyk et al.

    An unsuccessful cotinine-assisted intervention strategy to reduce environmental tobacco smoke exposure during infancy

    Am J Dis Child

    (1992)
  • A Woodward et al.

    Trial of an intervention to reduce passive smoking in infancy

    Pediatr Pulmonol

    (1987)
  • Cited by (111)

    • Randomized Trial to Reduce Air Particle Levels in Homes of Smokers and Children

      2018, American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      The strategy of reducing exposure has demonstrated efficacy and does not rely on smoking cessation by all household smokers, which is important because the majority of parents do not quit smoking.19,20 A new line of intervention research was launched with the provision of delayed feedback of household nicotine levels to families, and delayed feedback of children’s cotinine levels (a biomarker of SHS exposure) to clinicians and families.21–24 The provision of delayed feedback of particle levels measured over 24 hours total was investigated in two recent studies of households with smokers and children.

    • Design of a pragmatic trial in minority children presenting to the emergency department with uncontrolled asthma: The CHICAGO Plan

      2017, Contemporary Clinical Trials
      Citation Excerpt :

      Home visits take 60 to 90 min, and occur approximately 2–3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 month, and 6 months after ED discharge (Table 1). Environmental tobacco smoke was a focus of trigger avoidance because exposure to it is prevalent in this population, increases morbidity due to asthma, and is actionable [25–27]. Emphasis was placed on pest allergens because inner city homes have high levels of exposure to both cockroach and mouse allergen, and both of these are common sensitizers and associated with significant morbidity including respiratory symptoms and healthcare utilization [28–32].

    • Reducing tobacco smoke exposure in children aged below 4years - A randomized controlled trial

      2014, Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Employing the CUCL as an outcome measure, the efficacy of the intervention could not be demonstrated. Given that the effect of the setting cannot be separated from the intervention (Gehrman and Hovell, 2003), the comparability of the results with null findings in previous studies using CUCL feedback in settings with children with respiratory illness is limited (Chilmonczyk et al., 1992; McIntosh et al., 1994; Wakefield et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 2001). However, two previous studies that addressed the parents of children below the age of 4 years and that used higher doses of interventions found significant differences in cotinine levels between study groups (Emmons et al., 2001; Hovell et al., 2000).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This research was supported by award No. U60/CCU912212 from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by the Medi-Cal Special Projects Section and Tobacco Control Section, California Department of Health Services.

    View full text