To develop and test an intervention to reduce children’s exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) at homes in Yerevan, Armenia.
A single-blind, randomized trial in 250 households with 2- to 6-year-old children tested an intensive intervention (counseling sessions, distribution of tailored educational brochures, demonstration of home air pollution, and 2 follow-up counseling telephone calls) against minimal intervention (distribution of standard leaflets). At baseline and 4-month follow-up, researchers conducted biomonitoring (children’s hair) and surveys. The study used paired t tests, McNemar’s test, and linear and logistic regression analyses.
After adjusting for baseline hair nicotine concentration, child’s age and gender, the follow-up geometric mean (GM) of hair nicotine concentration in the intervention group was 17% lower than in the control group (P = .239). The GM of hair nicotine in the intervention group significantly decreased from 0.30 ng/mg to 0.23 ng/mg (P = .024), unlike in the control group. The follow-up survey revealed an increased proportion of households with smoking restrictions and decreased exposure of children to SHS in both groups. The adjusted odds of children’s less-than-daily exposure to SHS at follow-up was 1.87 times higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P = .077). The GM of mothers’ knowledge scores at follow-up was 10% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P = .006).
Intensive intervention is effective in decreasing children’s exposure to SHS through educating mothers and promoting smoking restrictions at home. However, superiority over minimal intervention to decrease children’s exposure was not statistically significant.
Comments
Ethical Considerations
Considering the entire escapade here. If, as Public Health and Tobacco Control researchers have concluded, as the sole basis of "protecting" people from second hand smoke, requiring; absolute bans in all indoor public spaces, that also include outdoor bans and bans in cars carrying children. "No safe level of tobacco smoke is concluded" without exception. throughout the medical institutions and lobby group fashioned political charities.
Was this research therefor a breach of ethics by placing all these children in harms way and therefore a crime? Were the parents warned and then reported to the child welfare authority, for child abuse, with evidence in hand they persisted?
So much to say and so little ethical consideration, by all of those involved, including the Journal which allowed an unethical research report to be published and used as promotion in aid of a for profit enterprise.
Either this is a gross breach of professional and ethical conduct, or the researchers, never for one moment, believed the children could be harmed by tobacco smoke.
I assume the crickets will preside.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared