Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 2;11(11):e0165086. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165086. eCollection 2016.

A Minimal Intervention to Promote Smoke-Free Homes among 2-1-1 Callers: North Carolina Randomized Effectiveness Trial.

Author information

Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America.
Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America.
Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory Prevention Research Center, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Health Communication Research Laboratory, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health, Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, California, United States of America.
United Way of North Carolina, NC 2-1-1, Cary, North Carolina, United States of America.


This study examined the extent to which delivery of the minimal Smoke-Free Homes intervention by trained 2-1-1 information and referral specialists had an effect on the adoption of home smoking bans in low-income households. A randomized controlled trial was conducted among 2-1-1 callers (n = 500) assigned to control or intervention conditions. 2-1-1 information and referral specialists collected baseline data and delivered the intervention consisting of 3 mailings and 1 coaching call; university-based data collectors conducted follow-up interviews at 3 and 6 months post-baseline. Data were collected from June 2013 through July 2014. Participants were mostly female (87.2%), African American (61.4%), and smokers (76.6%). Participants assigned to the intervention condition were more likely than controls to report a full ban on smoking in the home at both 3- (38.1% vs 19.3%, p = < .001) and 6-month follow-up (43.2% vs 33.2%, p = .02). The longitudinal intent-to-treat analysis showed a significant intervention effect over time (OR = 1.31, p = .001), i.e. OR = 1.72 at 6 months. This study replicates prior findings showing the effectiveness of the minimal intervention to promote smoke-free homes in low-income households, and extends those findings by demonstrating they can be achieved when 2-1-1 information and referral specialists deliver the intervention. Findings offer support for this intervention as a generalizable and scalable model for reducing secondhand smoke exposure in homes.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Conflict of interest statement

The authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Independent of her role in the study, RSW serves, unpaid, as member of the Board of Directors of United Way of North Carolina 2-1-1. MM was employed as the state 2-1-1 Director at the United Way of North Carolina at the time of this study and served as the liaison between United Way and university staff for matters of study logistics. These affiliations did not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center