Abstract

Objective: Rural public health agency staff and University researchers formed a collaborative partnership to explore the association between local secondhand smoke policy efforts and the opinions of residents in 17 rural counties. The University had provided evaluation technical assistance for these public health agencies through state tobacco endowment funding, which provided the opportunity to collaborate on this project.

Methods: Public health agencies and the University shared the costs for this project. The University held phone conferences to gather feedback from agency staff on survey content and held trainings on conducting mailed surveys across the state. Local public health staff assembled mailings and tracked survey responses. University staff developed two surveys, entered and analyzed data.

Results: Rural public health agencies benefited from this project because they received assistance with survey development and analysis and were able to obtain high-quality local opinion data. Agencies could then use their community data to plan future policy work and to inform local key decision-makers about their residents' opinions. University researchers valued the insights of agency staff in order to make the survey content significant for each community. University researchers also benefited from this project because they were able to analyze the combined survey data to make comparisons across multiple communities.

Conclusion: By working together, both groups obtained data that was useful to their respective goals.

Background The Minnesota Youth Tobacco Prevention

Initiative (MYTPI) is a result of an endowment created from Minnesota's 1998 settlement with the tobacco industry, and focuses on youth ages 12 - 17.

Local public health agencies were one of the types of projects that received funding.

Local public health agencies were required to focus on decreasing exposure to secondhand smoke, since it is an effective means of preventing youth tobacco use.

The Program Evaluation Assistance Center (PEAC), at the University of Minnesota, is also funded through the MYTPI to provide local public health agencies and other community-based programs with assistance in evaluating their activities.

In addition to providing evaluation assistance, PEAC collects information and reports on common types of tobacco prevention activities that are occurring throughout Minnesota as part of the MYTPI.

OBJECTIVE

Overview of the Study The main goal of agency staff was to obtain high-quality

local data on their residents’ opinions of secondhand smoke and support for smoke-free policies across various public venues.

The main goal for University researchers was to collect information to describe the relationship between secondhand smoke reduction efforts and local public opinion.

In order to achieve this goal, University researchers collaborated with 17 local public health agencies to conduct a mailed survey project about secondhand smoke and smoke-free policies.

Inclusion Criteria Agencies needed to be willing and able to commit the

resources necessary to participate, such as funding for survey mailing materials, time for participation in workshops and time to assemble survey packets and track survey returns.

Agencies could have various levels of experience with secondhand smoke reduction efforts, but must have proposed a substantial secondhand smoke effort for the 2002-2003 grant cycle.

Agencies needed to survey a defined geographic area (county, city, section of a county).

Participating Communities

The following counties were surveyed:Blue Earth, Carlton, Chisago, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Jackson, Koochiching, Mille Lacs, Mower, Olmsted, St. Louis (excluding Duluth, Hibbing, & Virginia), Todd, Winona, and Wright.

Two cities were surveyed: Granite Falls and Owatonna.

QuickTime™ and aGIF decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aGIF decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

METHODS

Division of Labor and Materials

University Responsibilities:

Sample of residents Survey duplication Postcard duplication Postage for the postcards Address and ID labels Tracking log Incentives-flag lapel pins Fed.Ex. to return surveys

for data entry

Phone conferences Workshop Data entry and editing Data analysis Custom spreadsheet of

data Custom report of results Custom press-release

materials

Public Health Agency Staff Responsibilities:

Letterhead Envelopes Postage for surveys Printing cover letter Stuffing and mailing

survey envelopes Logging returns Mailing postcard

Shipping completed surveys via Fed.Ex. for data entry/analysis

Participation in 2 phone conferences

Participation in 1 workshop

Survey Development University researchers contributed survey design

expertise including experience with designing questions around smoke-free policies and SHS attitudinal questions.

Local public health agency staff provided input into the content of the survey.

Input from local agency staff was beneficial since it made the content of the survey relevant for all the communities involved in the study.

Tools Used to FacilitateLocal Agency Capacity

Custom Tracking Log for each agency Calendar of Survey Administration Tasks Custom Results Spreadsheet Custom Report of local results Custom Press Release Custom Briefing Points University Website with local and aggregate

results http://www.epi.umn.edu/research/SHSstudy

RESULTS

University researchers successfully conducted an inferential analysis using the survey results in combination with data on local SHS reduction activities.

To learn how useful the survey project was to the local agencies, University staff hired experienced interviewers to conduct phone interviews with 15/17 local agency coordinators. Two coordinators were unavailable.

The phone interview gathered information on how the secondhand smoke survey results were used, barriers to using the survey results, and opinions on the usefulness of the survey project overall.

All local agency staff agree that information from the SHS survey will help to improve their agency’s tobacco control efforts

All local agency staff agree that the SHS project met their needs and program interests

14/15 local agency staff agree that if they had the opportunity to do the project again or in another community they would.

Agency Staff Shared the Survey Results With:

1514

10

76

12

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Has Shared Results Plans to Share Results Within the Next Month

Agency Director

Other Agency Staff

Coalitions Advocacy Organizations

Politicians Newspaper Radio or T.V. stations

Nu

mb

er o

f L

ocal

Age

nci

es

Agency Staff Used the Survey Results:

4

8

13

8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

To Work on aSmoke-Free Policy

To Work on aSecondhand Smoke

Campaign

In a GrantProposal

Awarded Fundingas a Result of

Grant Proposal

Nu

mbe

r of

Loc

al A

gen

cies

Feedback from Agency staff:Barriers to Using the Survey Results

“Getting media interested in the work going on.”

“In terms of relaying it to the media, only certain papers printed it. When I did go on the radio, the person kind of put it in a bad light, made it into a debate.”

“The only thing is the money. We just don’t have the grant money anymore.”

“Lack of money for the time being to spend on the secondhand smoke issue.”

“Main barrier was lack of momentum, politically for tobacco policy all over the state and in (this) county.”

“The politics are greater than that of the research itself, the research was pure, but there are city and county and local coalition politics that have created huge barriers.”

Barriers to Using the SHS Survey Results

9

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Lack of Funding, Time or Staff Lack of Support from Local PolicyMakers

Nu

mbe

r of

Loc

al A

gen

cies

Overall Feedback from Agency Staff

“(University) support was really good. Education and consultation, direction on the survey…everything was really helpful and good all around.”

“I think we couldn’t have done it ourselves, it took (University staff) to get us going, it took a collaborative effort...I think we (have) a good groundwork started.”

“It was a good partnership, it was very cost effective for us...”

CONCLUSIONS

• Cooperation between University researchers and local public health agencies can result in information useful to both organizations.

• Sharing labor and materials, each focusing on strengths, is an efficient way to conduct the project.

• Capacity building is a side result.