4.6 Article

Reducing Tobacco Smoke Exposure in High-Risk Infants: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 218, Issue -, Pages 35-+

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.10.070

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. US National Institutes of Health (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute) [NHLBI R01 HL107404]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To evaluate a hospital-initiated intervention to reduce tobacco smoke exposure in infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. Study design A randomized, controlled trial compared motivational interviewing plus financial incentives with conventional care on infant urine cotinine at 1 and 4 months' follow-up. Mothers of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (N = 360) who reported a smoker living in the home were enrolled. Motivational interviewing sessions were delivered in both the hospital and the home. Financial incentives followed session attendance and negative infant cotinine tests postdischarge. Results The intervention effect on infant cotinine was not significant, except among mothers who reported high baseline readiness/ability to protect their infant (P <= .01) and mothers who completed the study within 6 months postdischarge (per protocol; P <= .05). Fewer mothers in the motivational interviewing plus financial incentives condition were smoking postdischarge (P <= .01). More mothers in the motivational interviewing plus financial incentives group reported a total home and car smoking ban at follow-up (P <= .05). Conclusions Motivational interviewing combined with financial incentives reduced infant tobacco smoke exposure in a subset of women who were ready/able to protect their infant. The intervention also resulted in less maternal smoking postpartum. More robust interventions that include maternal and partner/household smoking cessation are likely needed to reduce the costly effects of tobacco smoke exposure on children and their families.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available