Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that children's decisions to smoke are influenced by family and friends. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help family members to strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We also searched unpublished material, and the reference lists of key articles. We performed both free-text Internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and we hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We also consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was performed in July 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and family members to deter the use of tobacco. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed them for methodological quality. The studies were too limited in number and quality to undertake a formal meta-analysis, and we present a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 19 RCTs of family interventions to prevent smoking. We identified five RCTs in Category 1 (minimal risk of bias on all counts); nine in Category 2 (a risk of bias in one or more areas); and five in Category 3 (risks of bias in design and execution such that reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from the study).Considering the fourteen Category 1 and 2 studies together: (1) four of the nine that tested a family intervention against a control group had significant positive effects, but one showed significant negative effects; (2) one of the five RCTs that tested a family intervention against a school intervention had significant positive effects; (3) none of the six that compared the incremental effects of a family plus a school programme to a school programme alone had significant positive effects; (4) the one RCT that tested a family tobacco intervention against a family non-tobacco safety intervention showed no effects; and (5) the one trial that used general risk reduction interventions found the group which received the parent and teen interventions had less smoking than the one that received only the teen intervention (there was no tobacco intervention but tobacco outcomes were measured). For the included trials the amount of implementer training and the fidelity of implementation are related to positive outcomes, but the number of sessions is not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some well-executed RCTs show family interventions may prevent adolescent smoking, but RCTs which were less well executed had mostly neutral or negative results. There is thus a need for well-designed and executed RCTs in this area.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents (Protocol)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help family members strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members by identifying and assessing RCT's that provide training, skills and support to family members to prevent smoking initiation. Hypothesis: This is an exploratory review, and only one hypothesis based on the literature review will be tested: "Interventions to help family members strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members are more effective in preventing children starting smoking than no intervention."

Ants, apples and the ABCs: The use of commercial phonics programmes in prior-to-school children's services

Commercial phonics programmes (e.g. Jolly Phonics and Letterland) are becoming widely used in the early years of school. These programmes claim to use a systematic explicit approach, considered as the preferred method of phonics instruction for teaching alphabetic code-breaking skills in Australia and the UK in the first years of school (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005; Rose, 2006). However, little is known about the extent to which they are being used in prior-to-school settings, and the reasons behind decisions to use them. This study surveyed 283 early childhood staff in Sydney, Australia and found that commercial phonics programmes were being used in 36% of the early childhood settings surveyed. Staff with early childhood univer- sity qualifications and staff working in not-for-profit service types were less likely to use a commercial phonics programme than staff without university qualifications and staff working in for-profit services. Staff with less than 10 years’ experience were also more likely to use a commercial phonics programme. The rationale behind decisions deter- mining whether or not staff used the programmes ranged from pragmatic reasons, such as parent pressure or higher management decisions, to pedagogical reasons, such as teacher beliefs about how children learn to read and write. The practices staff engage in to teach phonics are explored.

Fall rates in hospital rehabilitation units after individualised patient and staff education programmes: A pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial

- Background Falls are the most frequent adverse events that are reported in hospitals. We examined the effectiveness of individualised falls-prevention education for patients, supported by training and feedback for staff, delivered as a ward-level programme. - Methods Eight rehabilitation units in general hospitals in Australia participated in this stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised study, undertaken during a 50 week period. Units were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups by use of computer-generated, random allocation sequences. We included patients admitted to the unit during the study with a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of more than 23/30 to receive individualised education that was based on principles of changes in health behaviour from a trained health professional, in addition to usual care. We provided information about patients' goals, feedback about the ward environment, and perceived barriers to engagement in falls-prevention strategies to staff who were trained to support the uptake of strategies by patients. The coprimary outcome measures were patient rate of falls per 1000 patient-days and the proportion of patients who were fallers. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials registry, number ACTRN12612000877886). - Findings Between Jan 13, and Dec 27, 2013, 3606 patients were admitted to the eight units (n=1983 control period; n=1623 intervention period). There were fewer falls (n=196, 7·80/1000 patient-days vs n=380, 13·78/1000 patient-days, adjusted rate ratio 0·60 [robust 95% CI 0·42–0·94], p=0·003), injurious falls (n=66, 2·63/1000 patient-days vs 131, 4·75/1000 patient-days, 0·65 [robust 95% CI 0·42–0·88], p=0·006), and fallers (n=136 [8·38%] vs n=248 [12·51%] adjusted odds ratio 0·55 [robust 95% CI 0·38 to 0·81], p=0·003) in the intervention compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in length of stay (intervention median 11 days [IQR 7–19], control 10 days [6–18]). - Interpretation Individualised patient education programmes combined with training and feedback to staff added to usual care reduces the rates of falls and injurious falls in older patients in rehabilitation hospital-units.