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

The smoke-free home study: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of a smoke-free home intervention in permanent supportive housing

Background

Formerly chronically homeless adults who live in permanent supportive housing (PSH) have high prevalence of smoking. It is uncommon to find smoke-free policies in PSH because of the concern that such policies contradict PSH’s harm reduction framework and could increase homelessness should residents lose their housing because of the policy. However, in the absence of such policies, non-smoking PSH residents face the harmful effects of secondhand smoke exposure while residents who smoke see increased risks from high rates of smoking throughout their residence. Our pilot work highlighted the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention designed to promote voluntary adoption of a smoke-free home. Here we report a protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of the smoke-free home intervention for formerly chronically homeless residents in PSH.

Methods

The smoke-free home intervention provides face-to-face counseling and instruction to PSH residents on how to adopt a smoke-free home and offers training for PSH staff on how to refer residents to tobacco cessation services. We will randomize 20 PSH sites in the San Francisco Bay Area to either the intervention or wait-list control arms. We will enroll 400 PSH residents who smoke cigarettes in their housing unit and 120 PSH staff who work at the sites. At baseline, three- and six-months follow-up, we will ask residents to report their tobacco use and cessation behaviors and adoption of smoke-free homes. We will ask staff to answer questions on their knowledge, attitudes, practices, and barriers related to supporting residents’ smoking cessation. The primary outcome for PSH residents is adoption of smoke-free homes for 90 days or more at six-months follow-up, and the secondary outcome is point prevalence tobacco abstinence. The primary outcome for PSH staff is change in Smoking Knowledge Attitudes Practices survey score.

Discussion

Voluntary adoption of smoke-free homes is a promising approach for reducing exposure to secondhand smoke and reducing tobacco use among a population facing high rates of tobacco-related disease, and is aligned with PSH’s harm reduction framework. Findings from this study have the potential to inform adoption of tobacco control policies among vulnerable populations most at risk for smoking-related harms.

Trial registration

This study was registered with the U.S. National Institute of Health Clinical Trials register on April 22, 2021: NCT04855357.

A community-based tobacco cessation program for individuals experiencing homelessness

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is common among persons experiencing homelessness (PEH), and interventions are needed. We conducted a community-based, single-arm uncontrolled trial of a pharmacy-linked intervention for smoking cessation for PEH.

METHODS

The intervention took place between September 2019 and June 2021 in homeless shelters in San Francisco, CA. We trained shelter staff on how to provide brief cessation counseling, then tested a program among PEH in two shelters that included one-time pharmacist-delivered cessation counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for 3 months. We examined factors associated with cigarette consumption and quit attempts.

RESULTS

We trained 69 staff from 8 shelters and selected 2 of those shelters as pilot sites for the program. Of the 52 participants, 71% were male and 49% were Black. The majority of participants reported making a quit attempt (70%) and using NRT (84%). Having an encounter with staff in the past week was associated with a 40% reduction in weekly consumption (Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.57-0.67) and using medications in the past week was associated with a 23% reduction in weekly consumption (IRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.75-0.81). Using medications in the past week increased the odds of a quit attempt 2.89 times compared to not using medications (Adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 2.89, 95% CI 1.45-5.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight a role for leveraging community-based pharmacists to expand smoking cessation services in homeless shelters to reduce tobacco use among PEH.

Policy Support for Smoke-Free and E-Cigarette Free Multiunit Housing

PURPOSE

Estimate public support for prohibiting multiunit housing (MUH) e-cigarette and cigarette use.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Data from an online panel survey.

SAMPLE

A Fall 2018 nationally representative sample of 3,415 (99.3% response rate) United States (US) adults 18-64 years old.

MEASURES

Policy support for prohibiting MUH smoking and e-cigarette use, sociodemographics, and tobacco perceptions and behaviors.

ANALYSIS

Weighted multivariate logistic regression examined predictors of support for prohibiting 1) cigarette use and 2) e-cigarette use in MUH.

RESULTS

Most respondents expressed support for prohibiting smoking (76.9%) and e-cigarette use (74.0%) in MUH. About 17% (n = 588) of the sample lived in MUH, and living in MUH was not predictive of support for either policy. For both cigarette and e-cigarette policies, current smokers (n = 630; OR = 0.44, p < 0.001; OR = 0.59, p < 0.01) and current e-cigarette users (n = 305; OR = 0.42, p < 0.001; OR = 0.22, p < 0.001) had lower odds of support. Notably, while most smokers supported prohibiting cigarette (51.4%) and e-cigarette use in MUH (51.1%), there was less support among current e-cigarette users for prohibiting cigarette (48.1%) and e-cigarette use in MUH (34.5%).

CONCLUSION

Majority support for prohibiting smoking and e-cigarette use in MUH is promising for policy adoption; however, lower support of both policies among e-cigarette users needs to be examined, as increasing use of e-cigarettes may be shifting social norms away from support for smoke free housing policies.

Responses to Graphic Warning Labels among Low-income Smokers

Objective: Graphic warning labels (GWLs) are effective in communicating tobacco-related harms. Methods: In this mixed-methods study, we used purposive sampling to recruit 100 low-income smokers in the San Francisco Bay Area between October 2017 and February 2018 to participate in an intervention promoting smoke-free homes. We presented the 2009 Food and Drug Administration-proposed GWLs and explored perceptions of affect, efficacy, and appeal using questionnaires at baseline, 3- and 6-months follow-up. Because of participants' interest in this topic, we subsequently conducted a qualitative sub-study among 20 participants exploring perceived efficacy of GWLs on smoking cessation. Results: In all, 87.3% and 59.2% agreed that GWLs were useful and would motivate cessation behaviors, respectively, at baseline. We found that the most common responses were shock (61.8%) and disgust (55.3%), whereas anger (29.0%) and annoyance (19.7%) were less common. Participants also reported that GWLs unequivocally illustrating smoking's harmful effects were more appealing than non-specific images, as were images that depicted positive cessation-related effects. Conclusions: GWLs appear to be an important health communication among low-income smokers. Future studies on GWLs should examine the association of negative affect and cessation among this population.

Clinician Training in the Adaptation of a Comprehensive Tobacco-Free Workplace Program in Agencies Serving the Homeless and Vulnerably Housed

Tobacco use is exceedingly high among those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness but not commonly addressed by clinicians. Taking Texas Tobacco Free (TTTF) is a tobacco control program that addresses known clinician barriers to intervention (e.g., low training receipt, limited resources). Here, we examine the process and outcomes of TTTF's adaptation within four agencies that provide housing or other services to individuals who are homeless or vulnerably housed. Pre- and post-implementation data were collected from clinicians (N = 68) to assess changes in training receipt, knowledge, and intervention behaviors, relative to program goals. Results indicated significant gains in clinicians' receipt of training in 9 (of 9) target areas (p's ≤ 0.0042) and a 53% knowledge gain (p < 0.0001). From pre- to post-implementation, there were mean increases in the use of the 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist, and arrange) and other evidence-based interventions for tobacco cessation, with significant gains seen in assisting residents/clients to quit, arranging follow-ups, and providing or referring for non-nicotine medications (p's ≤ 0.0491). All program goals, except gains related to advising smokers to quit and the use of specific interventions (behavioral counseling), were met. Overall, TTTF improved clinicians' capacity to address tobacco use among homeless and vulnerably housed individuals and can serve as a model for tobacco control efforts in similar agencies.