The Study Of Intervention Effect Of Second Hand Smoking And Related Influence Factors In DATONG City And JISHAN County

ObjectiveTo understand the implementation of intervention strategies on site, to explore the problems and reasons during the process of interventions, to offer advice on how to improve the feasibility of strategies.MethodsWe selected DATONG City and JISHAN County as the study site. The major study method was field study, and followed by analyzing the data of progress report, process evaluation and effectiveness evaluation.ResultsDATONG project agency has implemented every key activity in all strategies except strategy III "review the implementation of the hospital regulation". And JISHAN accomplished all the key activities except strategy II "develop a communication plan", and strategy III" review the implementation of the hospital regulation "&evaluation. The reason why they have not accomplished the key activities is the lack of a clear comprehension of these activities. Both DATONG City and JISHAN County have implemented many key project activities, and communicated by the local medium. However, there is deficiency in the guidance of the constructive process of focus intervention institutions. All focus intervention hospitals faced with problems such as the low feasibility of tobacco control regulations, the lack of managerial function of tobacco control department, shortage in the implementation mechanism. In addition, DATONG City started "Policy Development" late, policy advocacy efforts are not enough, and the time of supervision is limited.The results of Regular process evaluation and field research are inconsistent, but the results of impact evaluation and field research correspond with each other.Conclusion1 DATONG City and JISHAN County carried out most the key recommendation project activities, but did not carry out several activities because of the shortage in full comprehension.2 DATONG City and JISHAN County accurately reported the implementation of the activities.3 The results of Regular process evaluation cannot reflect the implementation of a single project steadily.4 The results of effect evaluation suggest the intervention is effective. For the knowledge level, attitude and behavior, focus institutions are better than non-focus institutions, and both are better than the baseline survey.5 The factors influence the implementation effect include the ignorance on tobacco control of the leaders, and the poor feasibility of smoke-free rules or regulations, and lack of follow-up mechanism.