Search

Introduction: \ud To assess the socio-economic gradient in early smoking initiation at age 11 years and the extent to which any inequality was explained after accounting for longitudinal exposure to adult smoking.\ud \ud Methods: \ud Analysis of the UK Millennium Cohort Study, based on 9, 609 children from ages 9 months to 11 years. The outcome was smoking initiation by age 11. Odds ratios (ORs) for smoking initiation were estimated using logistic regression, according to maternal education, whilst adjusting for baseline demographic factors. Longitudinal exposure to a regular smoker in the same room was assessed as potential mediator of the association between maternal education and early smoking, along with other socially patterned risk factors for early smoking initiation, such as parental separation and mental health.\ud \ud Results: \ud Overall 2.7% (95% CI: 2.3–3.1) of children had tried a cigarette by age eleven. Children of mothers with no qualifications were more than six times as likely to have tried a cigarette than children of mothers with degree level qualifications or higher (OR 6.0 [95%CI 3.5–10.1]), with clear social gradient. Controlling for potentially mediating variables, particularly exposure to a regular adult smoker reduced the OR smoking initiation in children of mothers with no qualifications by 63% (aOR 2.9 [95%CI 1.7 to 5.1]).\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud Smoking initiation is more common in disadvantaged children, and this is largely explained by regular exposure to an adult smoker in the same room. Reducing adult smoking in front of children may reduce inequalities in smoking initiation in children by over a half.

The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link. Open access article. Background Severe mental illness is a major driver of worldwide disease burden. Shared decision-making is critical for high quality care, and can enhance patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, it has not been translated into routine practice. This reflects a lack of evidence on the best way to implement shared decision-making, and the challenges of implementation in routine settings with limited resources. Our aim was to test whether we could deliver a practical and feasible intervention in routine community mental health services to embed shared decision-making for patients with severe mental illness, by improving patient and carer involvement in care planning. Methods We cluster randomised community mental health teams to the training intervention or usual care, to avoid contamination. Training was co-delivered to a total of 350 staff in 18 teams by clinical academics, working alongside patients and carers. The primary outcome was the Health Care Climate Questionnaire, a self-report measure of `autonomy support'. Primary and secondary outcomes were collected by self-report, six months after allocation. Findings In total, 604 patients and 90 carers were recruited to main trial cohort. Retention at six months was 82% (n = 497). In the main analysis, results showed no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between the intervention and usual care at 6 months (adjusted mean difference -0.064, 95% CI -0.343 to 0.215, p = 0.654). We found significant effects on only 1 secondary outcome. Conclusions An intervention to embed shared decision-making in routine practice by improving involvement in care planning was well attended and acceptable to staff, but had no significant effects on patient outcomes. Enhancing shared decision-making may require considerably greater investment of resources and effects may only be apparent over the longer term.