Regular ArticleEffect of a Community Action Program on Adult Quit Smoking Rates in Rural Australian Towns: The CART Project☆
References (36)
- et al.
Evaluation of the New South Wales Cancer Council Pap test registry service
Aust J Pub Health
(1994) - et al.
Community organization to enhance the delivery of preventive health services
Am J Prev Med
(1989) - et al.
Community action for health promotion: A review of methods and outcomes 1990–1995
Am J Prev Med
(1997) - et al.
Experts' agreement on the relative effectiveness of 29 smoking reduction strategies
Prev Med
(1996) - et al.
Knowledge of cancer risk reduction practices in rural towns of New South Wales
Aust NZ J Public Health
(1996) - et al.
Data analysis and sample size issues in evaluation of community-based health promotion and disease prevention programs: a mixed-model analysis of variance approach
J Clin Epidemiol
(1991) National Cancer Prevention Policy 1993
(1993)Guide to clinical preventive services: an assessment of the effectiveness of 169 interventions
(1989)- Canadian Taskforce on the Periodic Health Examination, The Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care, Ottawa,...
- Coates, M, Smith, D, Taylor, R, McCredie, M, Cancer incidence and mortality by local government area and health region...
The quantification of drug caused morbidity and mortality in Australia 1988
Improving Australia's rural health and aged care services
Health promotion planning: an educational and environmental approach
Community based prevention of cardiovascular disease: The North Karelia project
The community-based strategy to prevent coronary heart disease: conclusions from ten years of the North Karelia Project
Annu Rev Public Health
Am J Public Health
Cited by (22)
The effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in rural and remote populations: Systematic review and meta-analyses
2022, International Journal of Drug PolicyCitation Excerpt :Table 1 presents the quality assessment ratings. For global rating, twelve studies were rated weak (Bullock et al., 2009; Choi et al., 2016; Cunningham & Kushnir, 2017; Dahne et al., 2020; Hancock et al., 2001; Harris & Reynolds, 2015; Jayakrishnan et al., 2013; Marley et al., 2014; Noonan et al., 2018; Richter et al., 2015; Stoops et al., 2009; Vander Weg et al., 2016) while four were rated moderate (Ferketich et al., 2014; Schoenberg et al., 2016; White et al., 2013; Zanis et al., 2011). For each meta-analysis, the certainty of evidence was rated ‘very low’, meaning we were very uncertain about the estimates.
A randomized controlled trial of a faith-placed, lay health advisor delivered smoking cessation intervention for rural residents
2016, Preventive Medicine ReportsCitation Excerpt :In one recent pilot CBPR project, quit rates were at least twice as high for intervention participants (Andrews et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2009). Two large RCTs of community-level approaches to smoking cessation and prevention, neither of which used CBPR, demonstrated moderate success among some population subgroups, but failed to produce significant community-level quit rates (Hancock et al., 2001; Secker-Walker et al., 2008; The COMMIT Research Group, 1995a, 1995b). Although numerous community-based smoking cessation interventions have been evaluated, the heterogeneity of research quality and rigor, study design, process variables, and outcomes recorded has impeded meaningful meta-analysis of the literature (Secker-Walker et al., 2008).
Limitations of the Randomized Controlled Trial in Evaluating Population-Based Health Interventions
2007, American Journal of Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :Who represents the community in these cases? Some community-based trials such as the COMMIT and CART trials7–9 have attempted to gain consent from perceived “community leaders.” Although this provided some protection in gaining informed consent, it is unclear how well these people and institutions represent those within the group who were directly affected by the project procedures.
The Multiple Baseline Design for Evaluating Population-Based Research
2007, American Journal of Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :The Cancer Action in Rural Towns project combined multiple interventions with previously demonstrated efficacy in 10 rural Australian communities in an attempt to improve cancer control.9 However, when these efficacious interventions were applied to actual communities, no statistically significant reduction in cancer risk behaviors was observed.10 This example highlights the need to rigorously test the effectiveness of an intervention at the population level before often-scarce resources are invested in their wide-scale implementation.
Mounting a community-randomized trial: Sample size, matching, selection, and randomization issues in PRISM
2004, Controlled Clinical Trials
- ☆
The Cancer Action in Rural Towns (CART) project was a collaborative project jointly funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and the NSW Cancer Council (Australia) (Professor Rob Sanson-Fisher, Principal Investigator). Our sincere appreciation goes to all community members and NSW Cancer Council staff who were involved in the CART project.
- 2
To whom reprint requests should be addressed at Hunter Centre for Health Advancement, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend 2287 NSW, Australia. Fax: 61-2-49246-209. E-mail: [email protected].