IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i10p3349-d356947.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changing Exposure Perceptions: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Intervention with Smoking Parents

Author

Listed:
  • Vicki Myers

    (Department of Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel)

  • Shoshana Shiloh

    (School of Psychological Sciences, Gershon H. Gordon Faculty of Social Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel)

  • David M. Zucker

    (Department of Statistics, Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel)

  • Laura J. Rosen

    (Department of Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel)

Abstract

Children who live with smokers are at risk of poor health, and of becoming smokers themselves. Misperceptions of the nature of tobacco smoke exposure have been demonstrated among parents, resulting in continued smoking in their children’s environment. This study aimed to change parents’ perceptions of exposure by providing information on second- and third-hand exposure and personalised information on children’s exposure [NIH registry (NCT02867241)]. One hundred and fifty-nine families with a child < 8 years and at least one smoking parent were randomized into intervention (69), control (70), and enhanced control (20) groups. Reported exposure, parental smoking details, and a child hair sample were obtained at the start of the study and 6–8 months later. Parental perceptions of exposure (PPE) were assessed via a questionnaire. The intervention consisted of motivational interviews, feedback of home air quality and child’s hair nicotine level, and information brochures. PPE were significantly higher at the study end (94.6 ± 17.6) compared to study beginning (86.5 ± 19.3) in intervention and enhanced control groups (t(72) = −3.950; p < 0.001). PPE at study end were significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the regular control group ( p = 0.020). There was no significant interaction between time and group. Parallel changes in parental smoking behaviour were found. Parental perceptions of exposure were increased significantly post intervention, indicating that they can be altered. By making parents more aware of exposure and the circumstances in which it occurs, we can help parents change their smoking behaviour and better protect their children.

Suggested Citation

  • Vicki Myers & Shoshana Shiloh & David M. Zucker & Laura J. Rosen, 2020. "Changing Exposure Perceptions: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Intervention with Smoking Parents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-10, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3349-:d:356947
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3349/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3349/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morwitz, Vicki G & Johnson, Eric J & Schmittlein, David C, 1993. "Does Measuring Intent Change Behavior?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(1), pages 46-61, June.
    2. Vicki Myers & Laura J. Rosen & David M. Zucker & Shoshana Shiloh, 2020. "Parental Perceptions of Children’s Exposure to Tobacco Smoke and Parental Smoking Behaviour," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-10, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laura J. Rosen & David M. Zucker & Shannon Gravely & Michal Bitan & Ana M. Rule & Vicki Myers, 2023. "Tobacco Smoke Exposure According to Location of Home Smoking in Israel: Findings from the Project Zero Exposure Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-13, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    2. Siegfried K. Berninghaus & Lora R. Todorova & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "How Sensitive is Strategy Selection in Coordination Games?," FEMM Working Papers 120020, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    3. Alois Stutzer & Lorenz Goette & Michael Zehnder, 2011. "Active Decisions and Prosocial Behaviour: a Field Experiment on Blood Donation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(556), pages 476-493, November.
    4. Sutan, Angela & Grolleau, Gilles & Mateu, Guillermo & Vranceanu, Radu, 2018. "“Facta non verba”: An experiment on pledging and giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-15.
    5. Amar Cheema & Dipankar Chakravarti & Atanu R. Sinha, 2012. "Bidding Behavior in Descending and Ascending Auctions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 779-800, September.
    6. Choi, James J. & Haisley, Emily & Kurkoski, Jennifer & Massey, Cade, 2017. "Small cues change savings choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 378-395.
    7. Ozer, Muammer, 2011. "Understanding the impacts of product knowledge and product type on the accuracy of intentions-based new product predictions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 359-369, June.
    8. Attié, Elodie & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2022. "The acceptance and usage of smart connected objects according to adoption stages: an enhanced technology acceptance model integrating the diffusion of innovation, uses and gratification and privacy ca," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    9. Tami Kim & Leslie K. John & Todd Rogers & Michael I. Norton, 2019. "Procedural Justice and the Risks of Consumer Voting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5234-5251, November.
    10. Dikla Perez & Gal Oestreicher-Singer & Lior Zalmanson & Matthew Matan Rubin, 2023. "“No, Thanks”: How Do Requests for Feedback Affect the Consumption Behavior of Non-Compliers?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 83-97, March.
    11. Karlan, Dean S. & Zinman, Jonathan, 2005. "Elasticities of Demand for Consumer Credit," Center Discussion Papers 28485, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    12. Salma El-Amin & Jaana M. Kinnunen & Arja Rimpelä, 2022. "Adolescents’ Perceptions of Harmfulness of Tobacco and Tobacco-like Products in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-9, January.
    13. Damien Besancenot & Radu Vranceanu, 2019. "Pledges as a Social Influence Device: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers hal-02176269, HAL.
    14. Omar Merlo & Andreas B. Eisingerich & Wayne D. Hoyer, 2024. "Immunizing customers against negative brand-related information," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 140-163, January.
    15. Armstrong, J. Scott & Morwitz, Vicki G. & Kumar, V., 2000. "Sales forecasts for existing consumer products and services: Do purchase intentions contribute to accuracy?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 383-397.
    16. Locander, Jennifer A. & White, Allyn & Newman, Christopher L., 2020. "Customer responses to frontline employee complaining in retail service environments: The role of perceived impropriety," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 315-323.
    17. Momsen, Katharina & Stoerk, Thomas, 2014. "From intention to action: Can nudges help consumers to choose renewable energy?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 376-382.
    18. Thomas F. Crossley & Jochem Bresser & Liam Delaney & Joachim Winter, 2017. "Can Survey Participation Alter Household Saving Behaviour?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(606), pages 2332-2357, November.
    19. Sachin Gathani & Maria Paula Gomez & Ricardo Sabates & Dimitri Stoelinga, 2015. "The Effect of Monitoring," Evaluation Review, , vol. 39(6), pages 555-586, December.
    20. Sunil Gupta & Valarie Zeithaml, 2006. "Customer Metrics and Their Impact on Financial Performance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 718-739, 11-12.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3349-:d:356947. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.