Post-implementation perspectives on smokefree prison policy: a qualitative study with staff and people in custody

Background

A comprehensive smokefree prison policy (SFPP) was introduced in Scottish prisons from November 2018, reflecting concern about inequalities in occupational exposures to second-hand smoke (SHS) and tobacco-related harms among people in custody (PiC). We aimed to address a gap, whereby few studies have sought to understand SFPP from the perspectives of people living and working in prisons.

Methods

As part of a comprehensive evaluation, focus groups and interviews with staff (n = 99) and interviews with PiC (n = 23) were conducted 6–9 months post-implementation of SFPP in Scotland. Data were analysed using the framework approach.

Results

Our study found that new restrictions on smoking had been widely accepted by PiC, after a period of adjustment which was less troublesome than participants had anticipated. Benefits of the SFPP for the safety and comfort of staff and PiC who were no longer exposed to SHS, and additionally for the health of PiC who were now smoking-abstinent, were widely acknowledged. Drawbacks of the SFPP, such as difficulties managing without tobacco and use of alternatives (e.g. e-cigarettes and changes in use of illegal drugs), were also reported. Contraband tobacco was not reported to be a major problem following prisons becoming smokefree.

Conclusions

The findings strengthen evidence that SFPPs can be implemented without causing major disruption and highlight the need for removal of tobacco to be underpinned by careful planning, partnership working and ensuring the availability of support for smokers. Experiences from Scotland may be of interest and some comfort, internationally for jurisdictions considering smoke-free rules in prisons.

Smoking cessation for substance misusers: A systematic review of qualitative studies on participant and provider beliefs and perceptions

INTRODUCTION

Smoking prevalence among those in substance misuse treatment remains much higher than the general population, despite evidence for effective cessation interventions that do not negatively impact substance misuse outcomes. This systematic review summarises qualitative data on barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation for people in substance misuse treatment, participants' and providers' perceptions about effects of smoking cessation on substance misuse treatment, timing of intervention delivery and aspects of interventions perceived to be effective.

METHODS

Systematic review of qualitative studies and thematic synthesis of published qualitative data.

RESULTS

10939 records and 132 full texts were screened. 22 papers reporting on 21 studies were included. Key themes identified were: strong relationships between smoking and other substance misuse; environmental influences; motivation; mental health; aspects of interventions perceived to be effective/ineffective; barriers and facilitators to intervention implementation; smoking bans/restrictions; and relationships with professionals. Many service users were motivated toward smoking cessation but were not offered support. Some felt interventions should be delivered after substance misuse treatment, whilst others felt concurrent/dual interventions would be beneficial, due to strong associations between smoking and other substances. Treatment providers felt they lacked training and resources for supporting smoking cessation, and were concerned about impact on substance misuse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Many substance misusers who also smoke are motivated to quit but perceive a lack of support from professionals. Additional training and resources are required to enable professionals to provide the support needed. More research is required to develop enhanced packages of care for this deprived group of smokers.

Smoking cessation in smoke-free prisons: a grounded theory study

Purpose

Prisoners are vulnerable to tobacco addiction and have a smoking prevalence significantly higher than that of the general community. The context of this study was the implementation of a “smoke-free prisons” policy, which imposed forced smoking cessation onto the Queensland, Australian prison population. The study asked the question: “What are the psychosocial processes in which male prisoners engage during smoking cessation in a smoke-free environment?”

Design/methodology/approach

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 prisoners in South-east Queensland smoke-free correctional centres. Grounded theory methodology was applied to construct a theory of the processes of smoking cessation.

Findings

The constructed theory was named Engaging with Quitting. In this model, prisoners proceed through a cycle of evaluations, adjustments and reflections on their reality as related to the smoke-free prison. The study gives first-hand accounts of the prisoners’ use (and abuse) of nicotine replacement therapy. Three personality typologies emerged from the data: The Angry Smoker, the Shifting Opportunist and the Optimistic Quitter.

Research limitations/implications

This qualitative study makes no claim of generalisability and cannot be taken to represent all prisoners. Females, youths and culturally diverse prisoners were not represented in the sample.

Practical implications

Smoking cessation in prisons must be recognised as an ongoing process, rather than a discrete event. A coordinated approach between custodial and health authorities is required to minimise maladaptive coping strategies.

Originality/value

This study provides a descriptive account of the processes prisoners undertake during involuntary smoking cessation and has described the manner in which prisoners manufacture home-made tobacco from nicotine patches. The study has produced an original theory named Engaging with Quitting.

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.

Smoking cessation in male prisoners: a literature review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to review the available literature relating to smoking cessation (SC) for the male prisoner population.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Databases PubMed, CINAHL and MEDLINE were searched for English language studies from 1990 to 2012. The authors identified 12 papers examining SC in male prisoners. Full-text articles were analysed for inclusion.

FINDINGS

A total of 12 studies were identified for inclusion. Four studies focused on forced abstinence (a smoking ban) while the remainder looked at various combinations of nicotine replacement, pharmacology and behavioural techniques. No robust studies were found that examined nursing approaches to SC for the prisoner population. The evidence shows a strong "pro-smoking" culture in prison and that many prisoners continue to smoke irrespective of an enforced ban. However, SC strategies can be successful if implemented systematically and supported by consistent policies.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Female-only prisoner studies were excluded as females comprise just 7 per cent of the Australian prisoner population. The analysis does not differentiate between maximum- or minimum-security prisons, or length of prison sentence. Results cannot be generalised to other forms of detention such as police custody or immigration detention centres. Studies were not appraised for quality, as exclusion on that basis would render further exploration untenable. The analysis was presented in a narrative rather than meta-analytical format and may be subject to interpretation.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This paper provides a foundation on which to build further research evidence into the smoking behaviour of prisoners. This information can be used to advocate for healthier public policy for a vulnerable and marginalised population.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first literature review into SC interventions in prisons. The authors apply the findings of this literature review to the five strategies for health promotion to propose a population approach to smoking cessation in male prisoners. Recommendations specific to the correctional environment are outlined for consideration by correctional health professionals.

Prison psychiatry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prison psychiatry is a secluded area of the psychiatric care system, which in fact often provides treatment for those who do not have access to community-based healthcare systems. The aim of this review is to give an impression of the special challenges of psychiatric work behind bars and to emphasize current trends in prison psychiatry.

RECENT FINDINGS

In prisoners, mental disorders are more common than in the general population. There is evidence that prison suicide rates do not reflect general population suicide rates, suggesting that variation in prison suicide rates possibly also reflects differences in the provision of psychiatric care. Good transitional preparation preceding release seems to be necessary to reduce the risk of poor health outcome, but is hard to achieve. Up to now, there is no clear decision on whether it is useful or possible to treat adult prisoners with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with stimulants.

SUMMARY

Prison psychiatry has to deal with a disproportionate burden of psychiatric disease in prisoners. Adequate psychiatric treatment options may reduce suicide behind bars. Further research should focus on the special needs of individuals who are out of reach of the conventional community-based health system.