Beyond ‘Reach’: Evaluating a Smoke-Free Homes Social Marketing Campaign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is an important public health risk, with children especially vulnerable to its adverse effects. This study evaluates an evidence-based social marketing and community engagement campaign designed to address children's exposure to ETS in the home. A pre- and post-intervention quasi-experimental non-equivalent control group design was utilized. The intervention targeted households in which having a smoke-free home within the next six months was not even contemplated. Respondents from 1135 households in which both a smoker and a child lived participated in a pre-intervention telephone survey, with 1044 participating one year later, following the intervention. Outcome measures were awareness of the campaign in the intervention and control sites, and movement along Prochaska's stages of change model toward smoke-free home status. Respondents in the intervention site were more likely to recall particulars of the social marketing campaign at post-test than were those from the control site (65% vs. 10%) (χ2 (1, N = 1042) = 323.724, p<.001). The proportion of pre-contemplation households in the intervention site dropped substantially between pre-intervention and post-intervention surveys (χ2 (1, N = 1107) = 37.950, p<.001), but the same was true in the control site (χ2 (1, N = 1068) = 36.627 p<.001). The magnitude of change toward smoke-free homes did not differ between intervention and control sites. Caution is urged in respect to strategies often used to evaluate social marketing campaigns, such as focus on campaign reach, attention to knowledge and attitudes but not behaviour, and failure to utilize control sites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".