Publication: The effects of community participation program on smokefree homes in a suburban community of Thailand
Issued Date
2021-05-01
Resource Type
ISSN
16179625
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85106456815
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Tobacco Induced Diseases. Vol.19, (2021)
Suggested Citation
Peeraya Suteerangkul, Sunee Lagampan, Surintorn Kalampakorn, Naruemon Auemaneekul The effects of community participation program on smokefree homes in a suburban community of Thailand. Tobacco Induced Diseases. Vol.19, (2021). doi:10.18332/TID/133876 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/78226
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
The effects of community participation program on smokefree homes in a suburban community of Thailand
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Smoking inside the home affects the health of both the smoker and family members via secondhand exposure. This research examined the impact of a community participation program on creating smoke-free homes in a suburban community in Thanyaburi district, Pathumthani province in Thailand. METHODS The study involved families, with a smoker in the home, that were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups each containing 27 families. The intervention group was administered with the community participation program for smoke-free homes for 5 sessions during the 6-month period of study. The program included providing information on secondhand smoking and harms, knowledge about quitting smoking and healthcare support, practice skills, campaigns in the community, visiting and encouraging, and reflecting and evaluation. The control group was normally treated by the community committee and health volunteers. Data collection was undertaken at baseline and at 6 months after implementation by an interview with questionnaires. RESULTS Our results show that after the implementation, the intervention group reported significantly higher mean score on skills in negotiating with smokers for a smoking-ban inside home and mean score on emotional support for nonsmoking inside the home than those at baseline and those of the control group. The proportion having smoking ban home rules in the intervention group was significantly higher than at baseline and that of the control group (92.6% vs 18.5%). The proportion of smoke-free homes was higher in the intervention than in the control group (75% vs 0%). CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that community participation programs for smoke-free home may be effective in raising awareness on the impact of secondhand smoke among family members and in working together to manage smoke-free home environments. The program may be applicable for further development within communities to achieve smoke-free homes.