A randomized trial of air cleaners and a health coach to improve indoor air quality for inner-city children with asthma and secondhand smoke exposure.
A randomized trial of air cleaners and a health coach to improve indoor air quality for inner-city children with asthma and secondhand smoke exposure.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.111
复制
发表时间：
2011-08
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Rand C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Butz AM;Matsui EC;Breysse P;Curtin-Brosnan J;Eggleston P;Diette G;Williams D;Yuan J;Bernert JT;Rand C
测试空气净化器和健康教练的干预措施，以减少二手烟暴露，与单独使用空气净化器或不使用空气净化器相比，在减少颗粒物 (PM)、空气尼古丁和尿液可替宁浓度方面，以及增加与吸烟者居住的哮喘儿童的无症状天数方面。随机对照试验，随机化嵌入研究数据库。约翰·霍普金斯医院儿童中心和儿童之家。与吸烟者住在一起的患有哮喘的儿童被随机分配到仅使用空气净化器（n = 41）、空气净化器加健康教练（n = 41）或延迟空气净化器（对照）（n = 44）的干预措施。为期 6 个月的研究期间 PM、空气尼古丁和尿液可替宁浓度以及无症状天数的变化。总体随访率较高（91.3%）。与对照组相比，两个空气净化器组的细颗粒物和粗颗粒物（PM2.5 和 PM2.5–10）平均浓度变化（基线至 6 个月）均显着低于对照组（PM2.5 浓度的平均差异：对照，3.5 μg/m3；仅空气净化器，-19.9 μg/m3；空气净化器加健康教练，-16.1 μg/m3；P=.003；PM2.5-10 浓度：对照，2.4 μg/m3；仅空气净化器，-8.7 μg/m3；空气净化器加健康教练，-10.6 μg/m3；空气尼古丁或尿液可替宁浓度没有差异。健康教练没有提供进一步降低 PM 浓度的信息。与对照组相比，两个空气净化器组的无症状天数均显着增加 (P=.03)。尽管使用空气净化器可以显着降低室内PM浓度并显着增加无症状天数，但这还不足以防止接触二手烟。
To test an air cleaner and health coach intervention to reduce secondhand smoke exposure compared with air cleaners alone or no air cleaners in reducing particulate matter (PM), air nicotine, and urine cotinine concentrations and increasing symptom-free days in children with asthma residing with a smoker. Randomized controlled trial, with randomization embedded in study database. The Johns Hopkins Hospital Children’s Center and homes of children. Children with asthma, residing with a smoker, randomly assigned to interventions consisting of air cleaners only (n=41), air cleaners plus a health coach (n=41), or delayed air cleaner (control) (n=44). Changes in PM, air nicotine, and urine cotinine concentrations and symptom-free days during the 6-month study. The overall follow-up rate was high (91.3%). Changes in mean fine and coarse PM (PM2.5 and PM2.5–10) concentrations (baseline to 6 months) were significantly lower in both air cleaner groups compared with the control group (mean differences for PM2.5 concentrations: control, 3.5 μg/m3; air cleaner only, −19.9 μg/m3; and air cleaner plus health coach, −16.1 μg/m3; P=.003; and PM2.5–10 concentrations: control, 2.4 μg/m3; air cleaner only, −8.7 μg/m3; and air cleaner plus health coach, −10.6 μg/m3; P=.02). No differences were noted in air nicotine or urine cotinine concentrations. The health coach provided no additional reduction in PM concentrations. Symptom-free days were significantly increased in both air cleaner groups compared with the control group (P=.03). Although the use of air cleaners can result in a significant reduction in indoor PM concentrations and a significant increase in symptom-free days, it is not enough to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1164/rccm.200909-1338oc
发表时间：
2010-06-01
影响因子：
24.7
作者：
Carlens, Cecilia;Hergens, Maria-Pia;Askling, Johan
通讯作者：
Askling, Johan
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Coggins, Christopher R. E.;Gaworski, Charles L.
通讯作者：
Gaworski, Charles L.
影响因子：
8
作者：
Hovell, MF;Meltzer, SB;Pirkle, JL
通讯作者：
Pirkle, JL
影响因子：
11.4
作者：
Batterman, S;Godwin, C;Jia, CR
通讯作者：
Jia, CR
影响因子：
5.8
作者：
Hacker, DW;Sparrow, EM
通讯作者：
Sparrow, EM