SHORT REPORT
Smoke-free home initiative in Bantul, Indonesia: Development and preliminary evaluation
 
More details
Hide details
1
Division of Health Promotion Program, Public Health Department, Universitas Respati Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2
Doctoral Program, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
3
Centre for Health Economics and Policy Innovations, Imperial College Business School, London, United Kingdom
4
Faculty of Economy and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
5
Division of Health Policy and Administration Program, Public Health Department, Universitas Respati Yogyakarta, Indonesia
6
Department of Health Behavior, Environment and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
7
Center of Health Behavior and Promotion, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Heni Trisnowati   

Division of Health Promotion Program, Public Health Department, Universitas Respati Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Publish date: 2019-11-15
Submission date: 2019-05-31
Final revision date: 2019-10-15
Acceptance date: 2019-10-24
 
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2019;5(November):40
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Tobacco control policies in Indonesia are still limited. This study aims to describe the process of the implementation of the smokefree home (SFH) program in rural areas in Indonesia and to conduct a preliminary evaluation of its implementation.

Methods:
The development of SFH (or Rumah Bebas Asap Rokok) applies the theory of diffusion of innovation with the following stages: innovation, dissemination, adoption, implementation, and evaluation. The preliminary evaluation of the SFH program used an observational method combined with a cross-sectional survey. The population of this study was all houses in Karet hamlet, in Bantul district, Yogyakarta province with 378 houses as population, from which 196 houses were selected as sample using the proportional random sampling technique. Quantitative data analysis used multiple linear regression in Stata 15.1.

Results:
SFH is a community-based tobacco control innovation program that began with a community declaration. Preliminary evaluation after one-year implementation showed that 55% and 45% of respondents were smokers and non-smokers, respectively. Among smokers, 95%, 78% and 56% reported not smoking near pregnant women, children, and nonsmokers, respectively. Moreover, 52% of respondents reported having a front-door ashtray, and 46% reported guests not smoking; among nonsmokers, the corresponding values were 56% and 60%.

Conclusions:
SFH implementation has an impact on the community’s smoking pattern. Awareness of smokers to protect women and children from secondhand smoke is very high. While the results are promising, more political and resource support is needed from the local and national policymakers to support SFH initiatives.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the village head, community leaders and the community members in Karet Village for their time spent for interview and filling in the questionnaire. We acknowledge the contribution of Enge Surabina Ketaren, Eka Sopi Suwariyanti and Afrezah as enumerators.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
FUNDING
Support was provided by the Center for Islamic Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia with funding awarded by Bloomberg Philanthropies to Johns Hopkins University. The manuscript’s content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Bloomberg Philanthropies or Johns Hopkins University (No.085.10/ UN2.F6.D2.LDM/HKP/2018).
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
 
REFERENCES (18)
1.
World Health Organization. Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2011: Warning about the Dangers of Tobacco. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011. https://apps.who.int/iris/bits.... Accessed May 31, 2019.
 
2.
World Health Organization. Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2017: Monitoring Tobacco Use and Prevention Policies. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2017. https://apps.who.int/iris/bits.... Accessed May 31, 2019.
 
3.
U.S. National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization. The Economics of Tobacco and Tobacco Control. National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph 21. NIH Publication No. 16-CA-8029A. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; and Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2016. https://cancercontrol.cancer.g.... Accessed May 31, 2019.
 
4.
Ministry of Health. [Report of Basic Health Survey Riskesdas 2018]. Jakarta: Ministry of Health; 2019.
 
5.
World Health Organization. Factsheet 2018: Indonesia. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/bits.... Accessed May 31, 2019.
 
6.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking-50 years of progress: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p.... Accessed May 31, 2019.
 
7.
Olasky SJ, Levy D, Moran A. Secondhand smoke and CVD in low-and middle-income countries: A case for action. Global Heart. 2012;7(2):151-160. doi:10.1016/j.gheart.2012.05.002
 
8.
Nichter M, Padmawati S, Danardono M, Ng N, Prabandari Y, Nichter M. Reading culture from tobacco advertisements in Indonesia. Tob Control. 2009;18(2):98-107. doi:10.1136/tc.2008.025809
 
9.
Lubick N. Smoking and secondhand smoke: Global Estimate of SHS Burden. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(2):A66-A69. doi:10.1289/ehp.119-a66
 
10.
Wipfli HL, Samet JM. Second-hand smoke’s worldwide disease toll. Lancet. 2011;377(9760):101-102. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61922-8
 
11.
Messer K, Mills AL, White MM, Pierce JP. The Effect of Smoke-Free Homes on Smoking Behavior in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(3):210-216. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.023
 
12.
Kennedy RD, Ellens-Clark S, Nagge L, Douglas O, Madill C, Kaufman P. Smoke free community Housing Policy: Change in Report Smoking Behavior-Finding from waterloo Region, Canada. J Community Health. 2015;40(6):1207-1215. doi:10.1007/s10900-015-0050-0
 
13.
Alwan N, Siddiqi K, Thomson H, Lane J, Cameron I. Can a community-based “smoke-free homes” intervention persuade families to apply smoking restrictions at homes? J Public Health. 2011;33(1):48-54. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdq073
 
14.
Nichter M, Padmajam S, Nichter M, et al. Developing a smoke free homes initiative in Kerala, India. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):480. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1815-1
 
15.
Padmawati R, Prabandari Y, Istiyani T, Nichter M, Nichter M. Establishing a community-based smoke-free homes movement in Indonesia. Tob Prev Cessation. 2018;4(November):1-10. doi:10.18332/tpc/99506
 
16.
Jatmika SE, Maulana M, Kuntoro, Martini S, Anjani BS. The Readiness of Smokers to Quit Smoking. Global Journal of Health Science. 2019;11(1):172-181. doi:10.5539/gjhs.v11n1p172
 
17.
Ministry of Health. [Report of Basic Health Survey Riskesdas 2013: Yogyakarta Province]. Jakarta: Ministry of Health; 2013.
 
18.
Bantul Regent. [Regulation 18/2016 on Smoke Free Area]. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Ho.... Accessed May 31, 2019.
 
eISSN:2459-3087