Mental health professionals' perspectives on the implementation of smoke-free policies in psychiatric units across England

State of the literature discussing smoke-free policies globally: A narrative review

Despite the success of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), most jurisdictions in the world do not have policies that create 100% smoke-free environments in indoor workplaces, indoor public places, public transport, or other public places. We conducted a narrative review of articles that discuss smoke-free policies and describe the state of the current literature. A search of peer-reviewed and gray literature, published between 1 January 2004 and 30 April 2022, was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE databases. We classified articles based on the location of the policy discussed (WHO region, World Bank income classification) and the environment that was being made smoke-free. Insights related to policy development and implementation, as well as compliance and enforcement, were also identified. The search identified 4469 unique citations; 134 articles met the criteria for inclusion and underwent data extraction by two independent coders. The sample included articles published in or about jurisdictions in each WHO region, in high- and low- and mediumincome countries, and articles that discussed policies regulating smoke-free indoor workplaces, indoor public places, public transport, outdoor/quasi-outdoor environments, and other (unspecified) public places. Some important insights from the literature related to smoke-free policy implementation included tobacco industry interference, the important role of civil society, and the need for effective communication, education, and leadership. Enforcement officials' awareness and training, stakeholders' attitudes and beliefs, and understanding social norms were identified as relevant determinants of effective smoke-free policies. There continue to be challenges for implementing smoke-free policies in jurisdictions throughout the globe, in high- and low- and middle-income countries. The literature includes insights to support 100% smoke-free policies in each environment that must be made smoke-free as per the FCTC.

A systematic review of mental health professionals, patients and carers' perceived barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings

Introduction

Evidence-based smoking cessation and temporary abstinence interventions to address smoking in mental health settings are available, but the impact of these interventions is limited.

Aims and Methods

We aimed to identify and synthesize the perceived barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings. Six databases were searched for articles reporting the investigation of perceived barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings. Data were extracted and coded using a mixed inductive/deductive method to the theoretical domains framework, key barriers and enablers were identified through the combining of coding frequency, elaboration, and expressed importance.

Results

Of 31 included articles, 56 barriers/enablers were reported from the perspectives of mental healthcare professionals (MHPs), 48 from patient perspectives, 21 from mixed perspectives, and 0 from relatives/carers. Barriers to supporting smoking cessation or temporary abstinence in mental health settings mainly fell within the domains: environmental context and resources (eg, MHPs lack of time); knowledge (eg, interactions around smoking that did occur were ill informed); social influences (eg, smoking norms within social network); and intentions (eg, MHPs lack positive intentions to deliver support). Enablers mainly fell within the domains: environmental context and resources (eg, use of appropriate support materials) and social influences (eg, pro-quitting social norms).

Conclusions

The importance of overcoming competing demands on staff time and resources, the inclusion of tailored, personalized support, the exploitation of patients wider social support networks, and enhancing knowledge and awareness around the benefits smoking cessation is highlighted.

Implications

Identified barriers and enablers represent targets for future interventions to improve the support of smoking cessation in mental health settings. Future research needs to examine the perceptions of the carers and family/friends of patients in relation to the smoking behavior change support delivered to patients.

Supporting mental health service users to stop smoking: findings from a process evaluation of the implementation of smokefree policies into two mental health trusts

BACKGROUND

Life expectancy is 10-20 years lower among people with a severe mental health disorder. Most of these early deaths are due to chronic conditions, including cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Smoking is a major risk factor for these conditions and introducing smokefree policies has been recommended to mental health service providers in England by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), in their Public Health Guideline 48: Smoking: acute, maternity and mental health services. This paper reports a process evaluation of introducing these policy recommendations, which were updated in 2013.

METHOD

Process data were collected through semi-structured interviews with staff (n = 51), members of partnering organisations (n = 5), service users (n = 7) and carers (n = 2) between November 2016 - April 2017. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) was used to design the data collection tools and analyse the data. A framework approach was taken with the analysis, using the four concepts of NPT: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring.

RESULTS

The policy made sense to some staff, patients and carers (coherence) who 'bought-into' the idea (cognitive participation) but other participants disagreed. Although smokefree policies were operationalised (collective action), sometimes they were opposed. Progress was made, especially in some units, but continued to be resisted in others. Informal appraisal of progress (reflexive monitoring) presented a varied picture.

CONCLUSION

Some progress has been made in terms of changing an entrenched, smoking culture into one that is smokefree on Trust sites across the region. Perseverance and resourcing over the long-term is required to establish a non-smoking culture in on-site provision of mental health services.

Targeted Intervention to Reduce Smoking among People with Severe Mental Illness: Implementation of a Smoking Cessation Intervention in an Inpatient Mental Health Setting

Background and Objectives: Smoking and smoking-related harms are highly prevalent among people with severe mental illness. Targeted smoking cessation programs are much needed in this population. This pilot study aimed to assess the effectiveness of implementing smoking cessation system change interventions within an acute inpatient mental health unit. Materials and Methods: Design: Pre-post intervention study. System change interventions for smoking cessation were delivered over a three-month period (05 March 2018-04 June 2018) on an acute inpatient mental health unit. Participants (n = 214) were all individuals receiving care as inpatients during the three-month intervention. Outcomes assessed pre- and post-intervention were: (i) recording of patient smoking status in medical notes, (ii) number of inpatients offered smoking cessation medication, and iii) number of violent incidents reported. Results: Recording of smoking status significantly increased from 1.9% to 11.4% (X² = 14.80; p ≤ 0.001). The proportion of inpatients offered smoking cessation treatment significantly increased from 11.0% to 26.8% (X² = 16.01; p ≤ 0.001). The number of violent incidents decreased by half, which was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Evidence-based smoking cessation interventions can be successfully implemented on an inpatient mental health unit. Modest gains were made in routine screening for smoking and in smoking cessation treatment prescription. Future studies should prioritize effective participatory collaboration with staff to optimize effectiveness of interventions and should include additional strategies such as brief intervention training and smoking cessation treatments such as varenicline and buproprion in addition to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

Smokefree mental health inpatient settings – a matter of debate?

Abstract. Background: The prevalence of tobacco smoking among people with severe mental illness (SMI) substantially exceeds smoking rates in the general population and has been identified as the largest contributor to health inequalities in this group. Historically deeply embedded in the culture of mental health treatment environments, smoking until very recently was the norm in inpatient settings and still prevails in many settings internationally. In England however, mental health Trusts are currently implementing recent national guidance, according to which mental health settings will become entirely smokefree, with no exemptions, providing comprehensive evidence-based support to patients for smoking cessation and smoking abstinence during the inpatient stay. Aim: The aim of this article is to summarise the rationale for and the debate surrounding smokefree mental health inpatient settings, and to review and discuss the evidence on challenges, opportunities and impact of smokefree policy implementation in these settings, with a focus on the English debate and experience to date.

“Resisting the Ban”

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to present an evocative story “Resisting the Ban” which illustrates the ethical and pragmatic issues that nurses face when contending with smoking ban policies in inpatient psychiatric settings.

Design/methodology/approach

The creative story “Resisting the Ban” was developed based on an organisational auto-ethnographic approach. The story was crafted through employing creative writing techniques and through framing and critiquing memories via several theoretical frames.

Findings

The story illustrates how smoking ban policies have created pragmatic and ethical issues on wards. The work practices of nurses have changed as have their relationships with patients. The liberties of involuntary patients have also been infringed.

Research limitations/implications

This approach can illuminate links between acts of resistance and issues associated with public policies.

Practical implications

The effects of smoking bans need to be considered more carefully particularly in relation to their effects on workers and patients. The social meaning of the smoking bans needs closer investigation. Policy needs to be recrafted so that it better addresses the liberties of involuntary patients. Also ward nurses need to be able to carry out their roles in a manner which is consistent with their values.

Social implications

Public policies, such as smoking bans, can produce negative consequences maligning relationships, practices and cultures. Critical auto-ethnography provides a means of understanding issues that have resulted from problematic policies.

Originality/value

Scholarly work conducted on the relationship between everyday resistance in workplaces and public policies is rare. This study offers new “insider” insights into the negative effects of a smoking ban policy in psychiatric inpatient settings.

An Exploration of the Perspectives of Associate Nurse Unit Managers Regarding the Implementation of Smoke-free Policies in Adult Mental Health Inpatient Units

CONTEXT

In Adult Mental Health Inpatient Units, it is not unexpected that leadership of Associate Nurse Unit Managers contributes to successful implementation of smoke-free policies.

AIM

In light of challenges facing mental health nursing, and limited research describing their leadership and the role it plays in addressing smoke-free policy implementation, the aim of this study is to explore Associate Nurse Unit Managers perspectives' regarding the implementation of smoke-free policies, which were introduced on 1 July, 2015.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Individual in-depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken six months post the implementation of smoke-free policies. In this qualitative descriptive study, six Associate Nurse Unit Managers working in a Victorian public Adult Mental Health Inpatient Unit, were asked eight questions which targeted leadership and the implementation and enforcement of smoke-free policies. Associate Nurse Unit Managers provide leadership and role modeling for staff and they are responsible for setting the standards that govern the behavior of nurses within their team. All participants interviewed believed that they were leaders in the workplace.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Education and consistency were identified as crucial for smoke-free policies to be successful. Participants acknowledged that the availability of therapeutic interventions, staff resources and the accessibility of nicotine replacement therapy were crucial to assist consumers to remain smoke-free while on the unit.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this research may help to improve the understanding of the practical challenges that Associate Nurse Unit Manager's face in the implementation of smoke-free policies with implications for policies, nursing practice, education and research.

Violence in mental health settings: A systematic review

The introduction of smoke-free policies is increasingly common in mental health settings, to improve health. However, a barrier to implementing smoke-free polices is staff concern that violence will increase. We conducted a systematic review comparing the rates of violence before and after the introduction of smoke-free policies in mental health settings. Two authors searched major electronic databases. We included studies reporting the prevalence of violence (verbal and/or physical or combined) before and after the introduction of a smoke-free policy in a mental health, forensic, or addiction setting. We included 11 studies in the review. A narrative synthesis was used to describe the key results of each study. Six studies measured physical violence specifically; four reported a decrease or no change and two reported a short-term increase. Five of these six studies also measured verbal violence; two found an increase, with one of the studies reporting that this increase was temporary. Three reported a decrease in verbal violence. A further five studies evaluated the rate of combined verbal and physical violence; four reported a decrease or no change and the other an increase. We conclude that the introduction of smoke-free policies generally does not lead to an increase in violence. There is a need for more robust studies to support this finding. However, the conclusions from this review may be a step in reducing staff concerns.

Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR+): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Smoking is highly prevalent among people who have experience of severe mental ill health, contributing to their poor physical health. Despite the ‘culture’ of smoking in mental health services, people with severe mental ill health often express a desire to quit smoking; however, the services currently available to aid quitting are those which are widely available to the general population and may not be suitable or effective for people with severe mental ill health. The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation intervention specifically targeted at people with severe mental ill health.

Methods/design

SCIMITAR+ is a multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial.

We aim to recruit 400 participants aged 18 years and above with a documented diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who smoke. Potentially eligible participants identified in primary or secondary care will be screened, and baseline data collected. Eligible, consenting participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups. In the intervention arm, the participant will be assigned a mental health professional trained to deliver smoking-cessation interventions who will work with the participant and participant’s GP or mental health specialist to provide an individually tailored smoking-cessation service. The comparator arm will be usual care – following current NICE guidelines for smoking cessation, in line with general guidance that is offered to all smokers, with no specific adaptation or enhancement in relation to severe mental ill health.

The primary outcome will be self-reported smoking cessation at 12 months verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurement. Secondary outcome measures include Body Mass Index at 12 months, the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence, Motivation to Quit questionnaire, SF-12, PHQ-9, GAD-7, EQ-5D-5 L, and health service utilisation at 6 and 12 months. The economic evaluation at 12 months will be conducted in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis.

Discussion

SCIMITAR+ trial is the largest trial to our knowledge to investigate the effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation service for people with severe mental ill health.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number, ISRCTN72955454. Registered on 16 January 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1789-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of institutional smoking bans on reducing harms and secondhand smoke exposure

BACKGROUND

Smoking bans or restrictions can assist in eliminating nonsmokers' exposure to the dangers of secondhand smoke and can reduce tobacco consumption amongst smokers themselves. Evidence exists identifying the impact of tobacco control regulations and interventions implemented in general workplaces and at an individual level. However, it is important that we also review the evidence for smoking bans at a meso- or organisational level, to identify their impact on reducing the burden of exposure to tobacco smoke. Our review assesses evidence for meso- or organisational-level tobacco control bans or policies in a number of specialist settings, including public healthcare facilities, higher education and correctional facilities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent to which institutional smoking bans may reduce passive smoke exposure and active smoking, and affect other health-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the reference lists of identified studies. We contacted authors to identify completed or ongoing studies eligible for inclusion in this review. We also checked websites of state agencies and organisations, such as trial registries. Date of latest searches was 22nd June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered studies that reported the effects of tobacco bans or policies, whether complete or partial, on reducing secondhand smoke exposure, tobacco consumption, smoking prevalence and other health outcomes, in public healthcare, higher educational and correctional facilities, from 2005 onwards.The minimum standard for inclusion was having a settings-level policy or ban implemented in the study, and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. We included quasi-experimental studies (i.e. controlled before-and-after studies), interrupted time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. Due to variation in the measurement of outcomes we did not conduct a meta-analysis for all of the studies included in this review, but carried out a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis, pooling 11 of the included studies. We evaluated all studies using a qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 observational studies in this review. We found no randomized controlled trials. Twelve studies are based in hospitals, three in prisons and two in universities. Three studies used a controlled before-and-after design, with another site used for comparison. The remaining 14 studies used an uncontrolled before-and-after study design. Five studies reported evidence from two participant groups, including staff and either patients or prisoners (depending on specialist setting), with the 12 remaining studies investigating only one participant group.The four studies (two in prisons, two in hospitals) providing health outcomes data reported an effect of reduced secondhand smoke exposure and reduced mortality associated with smoking-related illnesses. No studies included in the review measured cotinine levels to validate secondhand smoke exposure. Eleven studies reporting active smoking rates with 12,485 participants available for pooling, but with substantial evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 72%). Heterogeneity was lower in subgroups defined by setting, and provided evidence for an effect of tobacco bans on reducing active smoking rates. An analysis exploring heterogeneity within hospital settings showed evidence of an effect on reducing active smoking rates in both staff (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval ( CI) 0.64 to 0.78) and patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98), but heterogeneity remained in the staff subgroup (I² = 76%). In prisons, despite evidence of reduced mortality associated with smoking-related illnesses in two studies, there was no evidence of effect on active smoking rates (1 study, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16).We judged the quality of the evidence to be low, using the GRADE approach, as the included studies are all observational.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of an effect of settings-based smoking policies on reducing smoking rates in hospitals and universities. In prisons, reduced mortality rates and reduced exposure to secondhand smoke were reported. However, we rated the evidence base as low quality. We therefore need more robust studies assessing the evidence for smoking bans and policies in these important specialist settings.

Preparing for Completely Smoke-Free Mental Health Settings: Findings on Patient Smoking, Resources Spent Facilitating Smoking Breaks, and the Role of Smoking in Reported Incidents from a Large Mental Health Trust in England

INTRODUCTION

Despite high smoking prevalence and excessive smoking-related morbidity and mortality among people with mental disorder compared to the general population, smoking treatment is often neglected in mental health settings. The UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recently issued public health guidance stipulating completely smoke-free mental health settings. This project evaluated existing smoking-related practices in preparation for guidance implementation. The objectives were to: audit the recording of smoking-related information and treatment provision; explore current arrangements relating to the facilitation of patient smoking; measure staff time spent and identify costs of facilitating smoking; and explore the role of smoking in smoking-related incidents.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was conducted across four acute adult mental health wards, accommodating 16 patients each, over six months. It included a case-note audit, on-site observations, and a qualitative content analysis of incident reports.

RESULTS

Smoking status was recorded for less than half of the 290 patients admitted (138, 48%). Of those, 98 (71%) were recorded as current smokers, of whom 72 (74%) had received brief smoking cessation advice. Staff spent 6028 h facilitating smoking, representing an annual cost of £ 131,040 across four wards. Incident reports demonstrated that smoking facilitation was often central to the cause of incidences, triggered frustration in patients, and strained staff resources.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the importance and potential of implementing completely smoke-free policies using comprehensive pathways.

Type of unit and population served matters when implementing a smoke-free policy in mental health settings: Perceptions of unit managers across England

BACKGROUND

Globally, smoking remains a significant issue for mental health populations. Many mental health trusts in England are facing challenges of implementing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance according to which all mental health settings, no matter the type, should be entirely smoke-free and provide comprehensive smoking cessation support.

AIM

The aim of this paper was to determine if unit type and unit manager smoking status influence mental health smoke-free policy implementation.

METHOD

This paper reports on the secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey of 147 mental health inpatient settings in England, in 2010. The original study's main aim was to understand unit managers' perceived reasons for success or failure of smoke-free policy.

RESULTS

Unit managers (n = 131) held a positive stance towards supporting smoke-free policy and most perceived that the policy was successful. Non-smoker unit managers were more likely to adopt complete bans than smoker unit managers, whereas smoker unit managers were more likely than non-smoker unit managers to think that stopping smoking aggravated patients' mental illness. Smoking rates for staff and patients remain high, as perceived by unit managers, regardless of unit type. Proportion of units offering nicotine replacement therapy and peer support to patients was significantly higher in locked units compared to semi-locked or residential rehabilitation. Applied strategies significantly vary by type of unit, whereas unit managers' knowledge, attitude and practices vary by their smoking status.

DISCUSSION

There are nuanced differences in how smoke-free policy is enacted which vary by unit type. These variations recognise the differing contexts of care provision in different types of units serving different patient groups. Addressing staff smoking rates, promoting consistency of staff response to patients' smoking and providing staff education and support continue to be key strategies to successful smoke-free policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate the importance of taking into account the type of unit and acuity of patients when enacting smoke-free policy and addressing staff smoking.

Do people with mental illness receive adequate smoking cessation advice? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prevalence rates of smoking in people with mental illness are high, and premature mortality attributed to tobacco related physical comorbidity is a major concern. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing rates of receipt of smoking cessation advice among people with and without mental illness.

METHOD

Major electronic databases were searched from inception till August 2014 for studies comparing rates of receipt of smoking cessation advice of people with and without a mental illness. Two independent authors completed methodological appraisal and extracted data. A random-effects meta-analysis was utilized.

RESULTS

Seven studies of satisfactory methodological quality (n mental illness=68,811, n control=652,847) were included. Overall there was no significant difference in smoking cessation advice rates between those with and without a mental illness [relative risk (RR)=1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.94-1.11, n=721,658, Q=1421, P<.001]. Subgroup analyses demonstrated people with severe mental illness (SMI) received comparable rates of smoking cessation advice to those without SMI (RR=1.09, 95% CI=0.98-1.2, n=559,122). This remained true for people with schizophrenia (RR=1.09, 95% CI=0.68-1.70) and bipolar disorder (RR=1.14, 95% CI=0.85-1.5). People with non-SMIs were slightly more likely to receive smoking cessation advice (RR=1.16, 95% CI=1.04-1.30, Q=1364, P<.001, n=580,206).

CONCLUSIONS

People with SMI receive similar smoking cessation advice rates to people without mental illness, while those with non-SMI are slightly more likely to receive smoking cessation advice. While progress has been made, offering smoking cessation advice should receive a higher priority in everyday clinical practice for patients with a mental health diagnosis.