A qualitative exploration of smokers' views regarding aspects of a community-based mobile stop smoking service in the United Kingdom

Understanding the multitude of barriers that prevent smokers in lower socioeconomic groups from accessing smoking cessation support: A literature review

One explanation for the increasing smoking-related health inequalities is the limited access of lower socioeconomic status (SES) smokers to smoking cessation support. In order to understand this limited access - and to eventually improve accessibility - we provide a structured overview of the barriers that lower SES smokers face in the successive phases of access to cessation support. Our literature review included 43 papers on barriers of access to cessation support for lower SES smokers, published before June 2016. We used the access to health care framework to categorize the extracted barriers into (a) either the abilities of smokers or dimensions of cessation support and (b) one of the successive phases of access to support. We found that lower SES smokers encounter many barriers. They are present in all phases of access to cessation support, and different barriers may be important in each of these phases. We also found that each phase transition is hampered by barriers related to both the abilities of smokers and the dimensions of cessation support, and that these barriers tend to interact, both with each other and with the disadvantaged living conditions of lower SES smokers. In conclusion, reducing smoking-related health inequalities by improving lower SES smokers' access to smoking cessation support requires a comprehensive approach. Our structured overview of barriers may serve as a starting point for tailoring such an approach to the multitude of barriers that prevent lower SES smokers from accessing cessation support, while simultaneously taking into account their disadvantaged living conditions.

Accessing National Health Service Stop Smoking Services in the UK: a COM-B analysis of barriers and facilitators perceived by smokers, ex-smokers and stop smoking advisors

OBJECTIVE

Smokers who access free National Health Service (NHS) Stop Smoking Services (SSS) in the UK are four times more likely to stop smoking, yet uptake of the services has been in decline in recent years. Evidence was collated to explore the beliefs of smokers, ex-smokers and Stop Smoking Advisors (SSAs) about SSS and the barriers and facilitators to access.

STUDY DESIGN

Mixed-methods design including i) a search of the literature; ii) a cross-sectional online questionnaire completed by 38 smokers and ex-smokers; and iii) semistructured interviews with 5 SSAs.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Prospero and the NIHR Portfolio were searched in October 2017 to identify relevant studies. Smokers and ex-smokers were recruited to the online questionnaire via Public Health websites and social media in Warwickshire. SSAs identified via Public Health Warwickshire were invited to take part in an interview conducted over the telephone. Findings were collated and analysed using the COM-B ('Capability', 'Opportunity', 'Motivation' and 'Behaviour') model framework.

RESULTS

A range of practical and psychological or belief-based barriers and facilitators to accessing SSS were identified within all the components of the COM-B model, aside from physical capability, for example; 'Psychological capability', such as lack of understanding about what the service offers; 'Reflective motivation', such as lack of confidence in service efficacy; and 'Social opportunity', such as recommendations from healthcare professionals to attend. Suggestions and consideration on how future tobacco control intervention and public health messages can address these components are reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health interventions and campaigns may benefit from focussing on addressing the well-known perceived barriers and facilitators smokers experience, in particular focussing on the components of the COM-B that have been identified as being important to increase the uptake of SSS.

‘You Just Went In and You Got It All Sorted Straightaway’ – What is the Appeal of a Community-Based Mobile Stop Smoking Service?

Introduction: Not enough smokers access existing stop smoking services (SSS). Developing more accessible and effective SSS is important, particularly for smokers from socioeconomically disadvantaged groups where smoking is more prevalent.

Aims: To consider smokers’ reasons for accessing a community-based mobile SSS (MSSS) for initial and follow-up consultations, and to explore their experiences of the service over time.

Methods: The MSSS was delivered in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of Nottingham (UK). Thirty-six smokers were interviewed, and 11 of these also completed follow-up interviews four to six weeks after their quit date. Interviews were analysed using the framework approach.

Results: Many participants had considered quitting before they had knowledge of the MSSS. Features of the MSSS participants found appealing for both initial and follow-up consultations included the drop-in format, convenient times and locations that fit around their existing routines, and that the service was informal and held in a non-health setting. Participants found visiting standard SSS, particularly clinics held in health settings, stressful and formal resulting in them feeling uncomfortable discussing smoking in these settings.

Conclusions: Developing instantly accessible and convenient SSS that can be delivered in familiar and informal settings within smokers’ communities may facilitate access and help to retain service users over time.

Effectiveness of a mobile, drop-in stop smoking service in reaching and supporting disadvantaged UK smokers to quit

BACKGROUND

In countries where there are large disparities in smoking with persistent high rates among disadvantaged groups, there is a need to ensure that stop smoking services (SSS) reach such smokers. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile, drop-in, community-based SSS in reaching more disadvantaged smokers, particularly those from routine and manual (RM) occupation groups, than standard services; secondary aims were to evaluate effectiveness in reaching those who had not previously accessed SSS, triggering unplanned quit behaviour, helping people quit and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Following a 4-week pilot period, a mobile drop-in SSS was delivered across various public locations in Nottingham City, UK for 6 months, offering behavioural and pharmacological support via one-to-one consultations with trained cessation advisors. Detailed demographic and smoking behaviour data were collected from all clients accessing the mobile SSS, and Nottingham's standard SSS for comparison.

RESULTS

Compared with smokers accessing the standard SSS (n=1856), mobile SSS smokers (n=811) were significantly more likely to be from the RM group (33.3% vs 27.2%, p=0.002), and to be first-time SSS users (67.8% vs 59.3%, p<0.001). Nearly 1 in 10 smokers setting a quit date through the mobile SSS had no prior quit intentions. The cost per smoker setting a quit date for the mobile SSS was only slightly higher than the standard SSS (£224 vs £202).

CONCLUSIONS

A mobile drop-in SSS is an effective way of reaching more disadvantaged smokers from RM occupations, as well as those who have not previously accessed standard SSS and those without prior quit intentions.

Patients' and healthcare professionals' views on a specialist smoking cessation service delivered in a United Kingdom hospital: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Hospital admission provides a powerful opportunity to promote smoking cessation. We explored patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCP) views of a specialist smoking cessation service comprising systematic smoking ascertainment, default provision of pharmacotherapy and behavioural counselling at the bedside, and post-discharge follow-up, in a clinical trial in a United Kingdom teaching hospital.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 30 patients who were offered the intervention, and 27 HCPs working on intervention wards, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The shock of being admitted, and awareness that smoking may have contributed to the need for hospital admission, caused many patients to reassess their quit intentions. Most patients felt the service was too good an opportunity to pass up, because having long-term support and progress monitored was more likely to result in abstinence than trying alone. Had they not been approached, many patients reported that they would have attempted to quit alone, though some would have been discouraged from doing so by pharmacotherapy costs. Service delivery by a specialist advisor was favoured by patients and HCPs, largely because HCPs lacked time and expertise to intervene. HCPs reported that in usual practice, discussions about smoking were usually limited to ascertainment of smoking status. Timing of service delivery and improved co-ordination between service staff and inpatient ward staff were matters to address.

CONCLUSIONS

A hospital-based specialist smoking cessation service designed to identify smokers and initiate cessation support at the bedside was deemed appropriate by patients and HCPs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration: ISRCTN25441641.