Dataset Information

Smoke-Free Home Intervention in Permanent Supportive Housing: A Multifaceted Intervention Pilot.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Smoke-free homes (SFHs), the voluntary adoption of home smoking restrictions, are associated with reduced secondhand smoke exposure. However, SFHs are uncommon in permanent supportive housing (PSH) for formerly homeless adults, who have fivefold higher smoking rates than the general population. We pilot-tested a brief intervention to increase voluntary adoption of SFHs among PSH residents in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Aims and methods

We pilot-tested a brief intervention to increase voluntary adoption of SFHs among PSH residents in the San Francisco Bay Area. Rest of the methods, PSH residents (n = 100) and staff (n = 62) from 15 PSH sites participated in the intervention between October 2017 and February 2018. Research staff provided counseling to PSH residents on how to adopt an SFH and trained PSH staff on how to counsel residents on smoking cessation. The primary outcome was self-reported voluntary adoption of an SFH for ?90 days, and the secondary outcome was carbon monoxide-verified PPA at 6-month follow-up. PSH staff completed the Smoking Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices survey at baseline and 3-month follow-up.

Results

At 6 months, 31.3% of PSH residents had adopted an SFH (vs. 13.0% at baseline) and 16.9% reported carbon monoxide-verified PPA. A positive attitude toward an SFH policy was associated with increased odds of SFH adoption (adjusted odds ratio = 8.68, 95% confidence interval: 2.42, 31.17). Voluntary SFH adoption was associated with increased PPA (adjusted odds ratio = 26.27, 95% confidence interval: 3.43, 201.30). PSH staff reported improved attitudes toward and self-efficacy in delivering cessation care, and decreased barriers to discussing smoking cessation among PSH residents between baseline and 3-month follow-up.

Conclusions

In this single-arm study, a brief intervention increased SFH adoption and PPA among PSH residents.

Implications

To date, few interventions have addressed SFHs and their association with tobacco use among PSH residents. A "ground-up" approach that relies on buy-in from residents and that promotes voluntary SFHs is an innovative way to increase smoke-free living environments in PSH. This approach could pave a pathway for smoke-free policy implementation in these sites. PSH can play a role in reducing the burden of tobacco use by empowering its residents to adopt voluntary SFHs, which could increase smoking cessation among residents.

SUBMITTER: Durazo A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7789947 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Smoke-Free Home Intervention in Permanent Supportive Housing: A Multifaceted Intervention Pilot.

Durazo Arturo A Hartman-Filson Marlena M Perez Kenneth K Alizaga Natalie M NM Petersen Anne Berit AB Vijayaraghavan Maya M

Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 20210101 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Smoke-free homes (SFHs), the voluntary adoption of home smoking restrictions, are associated with reduced secondhand smoke exposure. However, SFHs are uncommon in permanent supportive housing (PSH) for formerly homeless adults, who have fivefold higher smoking rates than the general population. We pilot-tested a brief intervention to increase voluntary adoption of SFHs among PSH residents in the San Francisco Bay Area.<h4>Aims and methods</h4>We pilot-tested a brief interven ...[more]

PMID: 32123908

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextPoor physical and mental health and substance use disorder can be causes and consequences of homelessness. Approximately 2.1 million persons per year in the United States experience homelessness. People experiencing homelessness have high rates of emergency department use, hospitalization, substance use treatment, social services use, arrest, and incarceration.ObjectivesA standard approach to treating homeless persons with a disability is called Treatment First, requiring clients be "housing ready"-that is, in psychiatric treatment and substance-free-before and while receiving permanent housing. A more recent approach, Housing First, provides permanent housing and health, mental health, and other supportive services without requiring clients to be housing ready. To determine the relative effectiveness of these approaches, this systematic review compared the effects of both approaches on housing stability, health outcomes, and health care utilization among persons with disabilities experiencing homelessness.DesignA systematic search (database inception to February 2018) was conducted using 8 databases with terms such as "housing first," "treatment first," and "supportive housing." Reference lists of included studies were also searched. Study design and threats to validity were assessed using Community Guide methods. Medians were calculated when appropriate.Eligibility criteriaStudies were included if they assessed Housing First programs in high-income nations, had concurrent comparison populations, assessed outcomes of interest, and were written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals or government reports.Main outcome measuresHousing stability, physical and mental health outcomes, and health care utilization.ResultsTwenty-six studies in the United States and Canada met inclusion criteria. Compared with Treatment First, Housing First programs decreased homelessness by 88% and improved housing stability by 41%. For clients living with HIV infection, Housing First programs reduced homelessness by 37%, viral load by 22%, depression by 13%, emergency departments use by 41%, hospitalization by 36%, and mortality by 37%.ConclusionsHousing First programs improved housing stability and reduced homelessness more effectively than Treatment First programs. In addition, Housing First programs showed health benefits and reduced health services use. Health care systems that serve homeless patients may promote their health and well-being by linking them with effective housing services.

Project description:ImportanceSecondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is associated with many health conditions in children and adults. Millions of individuals in the US are currently exposed to SHS in their homes.ObjectiveTo investigate whether a federal ban on smoking in public housing settings was associated with a decrease in indoor SHS levels in New York City public housing developments 12 months after the policy's implementation.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study tracked indoor air quality longitudinally from April 2018 to September 2019 and used difference-in-differences analysis to examine SHS exposure before vs after implementation of the 2018 federal smoke-free housing (SFH) policy in 10 New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings vs 11 matched low-income buildings not subject to the SFH policy (ie, Section 8 buildings).ExposuresFederal SFH policy implementation, beginning July 30, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresComparison of nicotine concentration levels from passive, bisulfate-coated filters before vs 12 months after implementation of the federal SFH policy. Secondary outcomes included changes in particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in diameter, measured with low-cost particle monitors, and counts of cigarette butts in common areas.ResultsAir quality was measured repeatedly in a total of 153 NYCHA and 110 Section 8 nonsmoking households as well as in 91 stairwells and hallways. Before the SFH policy implementation, air nicotine was detectable in 19 of 20 stairwells (95.0%) in NYCHA buildings and 15 of 19 stairwells (78.9%) in Section 8 buildings (P = .19) and in 17 of 19 hallways (89.5%) in NYCHA buildings and 14 of 23 hallways (60.9%) in Section 8 buildings (P = .004). Nicotine was detected less frequently inside nonsmoking apartments overall (26 of 263 [9.9%]) but more frequently in NYCHA apartments (20 of 153 [13.1%]) than in Section 8 apartments (6 of 110 [5.5%]) (P = .04). One year after policy implementation, there was no differential change over time in nicotine concentrations measured in stairwells (DID, 0.03 μg/m3; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.06 μg/m3) or inside nonsmoking households (DID, -0.04 μg/m3; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.15 μg/m3). Larger decreases in nicotine concentration were found in NYCHA hallways than in Section 8 hallways (DID, -0.43 μg/m3; 95% CI, -1.26 to 0.40 μg/m3).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that there was no differential change in SHS in NYCHA buildings 12 months after SFH policy implementation. Additional support may be needed to ensure adherence to SFH policies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether randomization to permanent supportive housing (PSH) versus usual care reduces the use of acute health care and other services among chronically homeless high users of county-funded services.Data sourcesBetween 2015 and 2019, we assessed service use from Santa Clara County, CA, administrative claims data for all county-funded health care, jail and shelter, and mortality.Study designWe conducted a randomized controlled trial among chronically homeless high users of multiple systems. We compared postrandomization outcomes from county-funded systems using multivariate regression analysis.Data collectionWe extracted encounter data from an integrated database capturing health care at county-funded facilities, shelter and jails, county housing placement, and death certificates.Principal findingsWe enrolled 423 participants (199 intervention; 224 control). Eighty-six percent of those randomized to PSH received housing compared with 36 percent in usual care. On average, the 169 individuals housed by the PSH intervention have remained housed for 28.8 months (92.9 percent of the study follow-up period). Intervention group members had lower rates of psychiatric ED visits IRR 0.62; 95% CI [0.43, 0.91] and shelter days IRR 0.30; 95% CI [0.17, 0.53], and higher rates of ambulatory mental health services use IRR 1.84; 95% CI [1.43, 2.37] compared to controls. We found no differences in total ED or inpatient use, or jail. Seventy (37 treatment; 33 control) participants died.ConclusionsThe intervention placed and retained frequent user, chronically homeless individuals in housing. It decreased psychiatric ED visits and shelter use, and increased outpatient mental health care, but not medical ED visits or hospitalizations. Limitations included more than one-third of usual care participants received another form of subsidized housing, potentially biasing results to the null, and loss of power due to high death rates. PSH can house high-risk individuals and reduce emergent psychiatric services and shelter use. Reductions in hospitalizations may be more difficult to realize.

Dataset Information

Smoke-Free Home Intervention in Permanent Supportive Housing: A Multifaceted Intervention Pilot.

Introduction

Aims and methods

Results

Conclusions

Implications

Publications

Smoke-Free Home Intervention in Permanent Supportive Housing: A Multifaceted Intervention Pilot.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets