Elsevier

Preventive Medicine

Volume 32, Issue 2, February 2001, Pages 118-127
Preventive Medicine

Regular Article
Effect of a Community Action Program on Adult Quit Smoking Rates in Rural Australian Towns: The CART Project

https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2000.0798Get rights and content

Abstract

Background. This article describes one outcome of a randomized controlled trial of community action for cancer prevention. The aims of this article were to (a) explore the effectiveness of a community action program in decreasing community smoking rates in rural Australian towns and (b) describe the relationship between adult smoking quit and uptake rates and demographic variables.

Methods.In 1992, 20 towns were selected for randomization. Community action involved formation of community committees and utilization of access point networks to initiate and maintain intervention strategies. At post-test, outcomes were proportion of “quit ters” from a cohort of self-described smokers, proportion of “uptakers” from a cohort of self-described nonsmokers, and “net effect.rdquo;

Results. Differences in quit rate, uptake rate, and net effect for intervention compared to control condition favored the intervention in all cases, although mainly nonsignificant. Significantly more male smokers quit in intervention towns than in control towns [7.0% (95% CI: 0.6, 13.5)].

Conclusions. Given that CART utilized and improved upon strategies argued as effective in the literature, the limited success of the project in reducing adult smoking, considered in combination with COMMIT findings, suggests the need for further innovation in the field.

References (36)

  • The quantification of drug caused morbidity and mortality in Australia 1988

    (1990)
  • NSW Department of Health. NSW health survey 1997—current smoking. [http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/hs97/...
  • M Reid et al.

    Improving Australia's rural health and aged care services

    (1992)
  • LW Green et al.

    Health promotion planning: an educational and environmental approach

    (1991)
  • P Puska

    Community based prevention of cardiovascular disease: The North Karelia project

  • P Puska et al.

    The community-based strategy to prevent coronary heart disease: conclusions from ten years of the North Karelia Project

    Annu Rev Public Health

    (1985)
  • Am J Public Health

    (1995)
  • Cited by (22)

    • The effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in rural and remote populations: Systematic review and meta-analyses

      2022, International Journal of Drug Policy
      Citation 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 Reports
      Citation 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 Medicine
      Citation 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 Medicine
      Citation 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.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    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].

    View full text