Fisher 1998.
Methods |
Study design: controlled before‐after (independent samples) Sampling frame: non‐institutionalized adults residing within block boundaries of intervention neighborhoods or within zip code boundaries of control areas with a working telephone Sampling method: random‐digit dialing, then individuals selected at random within the household based on the number and sex of adult members of the household and the last digit of the telephone number Collection method: telephone interview (n = 1491) Description of the community coalition: Neighbors for a Smoke Free North Side was initiated by a partnership between Washington University and Grace Hill Neighborhood Services in conjunction with neighborhood steering committees composed of 10 to 15 volunteer community members and 1 Grace Hill staff person to serve as a facilitator. A "Nuts and Bolts" committee comprising representatives from Washington University and Grace Hill and the facilitator from each neighborhood committee performed central planning of project activities. Neighborhood committees were responsible for approving and carrying out all activities. In addition, a city‐wide advisory council with representatives from major corporate, medical, religious, and community groups, most of whom were African American, met monthly to provide resources and advice |
|
Participants |
Communities: urban neighborhoods in St Louis and Kansas City Country: USA Ages included in assessment: 18+ Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: historically underserved, low income, urban settings Intervention community (population size): 3 neighborhoods of St Louis, MO (38,000) Comparison community (population size): 4 zip codes of Kansas City, MO (256,500) |
|
Interventions |
Name of intervention: Neighbors for a Smoke Free North Side Theory: not reported Aim: to evaluate a community organization approach to smoking cessation among African Americans Description of costs and resources: not reported Components of the intervention: Intervention activities included smoking cessation classes, billboards, door‐to‐door campaigns, and a “gospelfest” Start date: April 1990 Duration: 24 months |
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes and measures: smoking prevalence (self report) Time points: baseline (1990) and follow‐up (1992) |
|
Notes | Outcomes measured at population level by telephone survey Source of funding: government |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | High risk | Intervention not randomly assigned |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | No allocation concealment |
Baseline outcome measurement similar | Low risk | Smoking prevalence exactly the same between intervention and control groups at baseline |
Baseline characteristics similar | High risk | Intervention and control groups differed on many demographic characteristics |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Population‐based telephone survey |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Independent samples lower the risk of incomplete outcome data |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | No blinding was performed; unclear whether this would have any effect on self reported smoking status |
Protection against contamination | Low risk | No protection against contamination noted; groups resided in different cities |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Main outcome reported |