Housing evidence / case study · working draft
Kick It for Good: Boston public-housing peer advocate trial
A public-housing trial trained resident Tobacco Treatment Advocates to make repeated motivational contacts and help neighbours access treatment.
01 / THE APPROACH
What was tried
Kick It for Good trained Boston public-housing residents as Tobacco Treatment Advocates to support neighbours who smoked. The approach used a peer living in the same housing community to help people build confidence and find treatment.
Participants could receive repeated visits incorporating motivational conversations, practical quitting skills and help navigating quitlines, clinics and nicotine replacement. Advocates received training and supervision; this was a supported role rather than leaflet distribution by volunteers.
The comparison offer included standard information and one basic visit. Of 331 residents entering follow-up after a first visit, 250 completed the twelve-month questionnaire and formed the main analysis.
02 / THE FINDINGS
What was learned
Among those completing twelve-month follow-up, verified seven-day abstinence was 16.5% with the peer intervention and 10.1% with the comparison offer. Verified thirty-day abstinence was 14.9% and 7.8%, respectively. Treatment use was also higher in the intervention group.
These are smoking-free periods measured at twelve months, not continuous abstinence throughout the year. The percentages describe follow-up respondents, rather than all residents initially recruited.
03 / TRANSFER TO WALES
What Wales could learn
Resident advocates needed training, supervision and real links to cessation treatment. Repeated contact included practical help using services, rather than asking neighbours simply to pass on information.
This is an example of a supported peer role. Its staffing and supervision requirements matter as much as the encouraging follow-up results.
Sources & review
Brooks et al., Twelve-Month Outcomes of a Group-Randomized Community Health Advocate-Led Smoking Cessation Intervention in Public Housing, Nicotine & Tobacco Research. Main analysis and Table 2 checked 22 October 2026. Percentages shown are for twelve-month respondents; the paper also reports missing-data sensitivity analyses.
