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

Psychological Therapies Used for the Reduction of Habitual Cigarette Smoking Cigarette Consumption: A Systematic Review

Globally, there are around 1.3 billion cigarette consumers, indicating it to be the second highest risk factor for early death and morbidity. Meanwhile, psychological therapy offers tools based on its different models and techniques, which can contribute to smoking cessation. In this context, this study gathers scientific evidence to identify psychological therapies that can be used to reduce cigarette consumption. A systematic review of controlled clinical studies was conducted, implementing the PRISMA methodology. Search queries were performed with terms extracted from MESH (Medical Subject Headings) and DECS (Descriptors in Health Sciences). Subsequently, the search was queried in the scientific databases of Medline/PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Science Direct, ProQuest, and PsycNet, with subsequent verification of methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. The selected documents revealed that cognitive behavioral therapy prevails due to its use and effectiveness in seven publications (25%). The cognitive approach with mindfulness therapy is found in 4 publications (14%), the transtheoretical model with motivational therapy in 4 publications (14%), brief psychological therapy in 3 publications (10%), and the remaining 10 documents (37%) correspond with others. Intervention studies refer to cognitive behavioral therapy as the most used in reducing cigarette consumption; in terms of the duration of abstinence, scientific evidence shows beneficial effects with short-term reduction.

A theory and evidence-based co-design approach to develop a supported self-management intervention for people with severe mental illness and type 2 diabetes (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes is 2 to 3 times more common among people with severe mental illness (SMI). Self-management is crucial, with additional challenges faced by people with SMI. Therefore, it is essential that any diabetes self-management program for people with SMI addresses the unique needs of people living with both conditions and the inequalities they experience within health care services.

OBJECTIVE

We combined theory, empirical evidence, and co-design approaches to develop a type 2 diabetes self-management intervention for people with SMI.

METHODS

The development process encompassed 4 steps: step 1 involved prioritizing the mechanisms of action (MoAs) and behavior change techniques (BCTs) for the intervention. Using findings from primary qualitative research and systematic reviews, we selected candidate MoAs to target in the intervention and candidate BCTs to use. Expert stakeholders then ranked these MoAs and BCTs using a 2-phase survey. The average scores were used to generate a prioritized list of MoAs and BCTs. During step 2, we presented the survey results to an expert consensus workshop to seek expert agreement with the definitive list of MoAs and BCTs for the intervention and identify potential modes of delivery. Step 3 involved the development of trigger films using the evidence from steps 1 and 2. We used animations to present the experiences of people with SMI managing diabetes. These films were used in step 4, where we used a stakeholder co-design approach. This involved a series of structured workshops, where the co-design activities were informed by theory and evidence.

RESULTS

Upon the completion of the 4-step process, we developed the DIAMONDS (diabetes and mental illness, improving outcomes and self-management) intervention. It is a tailored self-management intervention based on the synthesis of the outputs from the co-design process. The intervention incorporates a digital app, a paper-based workbook, and one-to-one coaching designed to meet the needs of people with SMI and coexisting type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention development work was underpinned by the MoA theoretical framework and incorporated systematic reviews, primary qualitative research, expert stakeholder surveys, and evidence generated during co-design workshops. The intervention will now be tested for feasibility before undergoing a definitive evaluation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of a specialist smoking cessation package compared with standard smoking cessation services for people with severe mental illness in England: a trial-based economic evaluation from the SCIMITAR+ study

AIMS

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a specialist smoking cessation package for people with severe mental illness DESIGN: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective over a 12-month time horizon. Total costs, including smoking cessation, health-care and social services costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), derived from the five-level EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5 L), collected from a randomized controlled trial, were used as outcome measures. The bootstrap technique was employed to assess the uncertainty.

SETTING

Sixteen primary care and 21 secondary care mental health sites in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult smokers with bipolar affective disorder, schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia and related illnesses (n = 526).

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

A bespoke smoking cessation (BSC) package for people with severe mental illness offered up to 12 individual sessions with a mental health smoking cessation practitioner versus usual care (UC). Of the participants who were randomized, 261 were in UC group and 265 were in BSC group.

MEASUREMENTS

BSC intervention cost was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of UC, health-care and social services and EQ-5D-5 L were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Incremental costs and incremental QLAYs were estimated using regression adjusting for respective baseline values and other baseline covariates.

FINDINGS

The mean total cost in the BSC group was £270 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -£1690 to £1424] lower than in the UC group, while the mean QALYs were 0.013 (95% CI = -0.008 to 0.045) higher, leading to BSC dominating UC (76% probability of cost-effective at £20 000/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

A bespoke smoking cessation package for people with severe mental illness is likely to be cost-effective over 12 months compared with usual care provided by the UK's National Health Service and personal social services.

A bespoke smoking cessation service compared with treatment as usual for people with severe mental ill health: the SCIMITAR+ RCT

BACKGROUND

There is a high prevalence of smoking among people with severe mental ill health (SMI). Helping people with SMI to quit smoking could improve their health and longevity, and reduce health inequalities. However, those with SMI are less likely to access and engage with routine smoking cessation services than the general population.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation (BSC) intervention with usual stop smoking services for people with SMI.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care and secondary care mental health services in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years with SMI who would like to cut down on or quit smoking.

INTERVENTIONS

A BSC intervention delivered by mental health specialists trained to deliver evidence-supported smoking cessation interventions compared with usual care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported, CO-verified smoking cessation at 12 months. Smoking-related secondary outcomes were self-reported smoking cessation, the number of cigarettes smoked per day, the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence and the Motivation to Quit questionnaire. Other secondary outcomes were Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 items and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, to assess mental health and body mass index measured at 6 and 12 months post randomisation.

RESULTS

The trial randomised 526 people (265 to the intervention group, 261 to the usual-care group) aged 19 to 72 years (mean 46 years). About 60% of participants were male. Participants smoked between 3 and 100 cigarettes per day (mean 25 cigarettes per day) at baseline. The intervention group had a higher rate of exhaled CO-verified smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months than the usual-care group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 12 months: 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9 to 2.8; adjusted OR 6 months: 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7]. This was not statistically significant at 12 months (p = 0.12) but was statistically significant at 6 months (p = 0.01). In total, 111 serious adverse events were reported (69 in the BSC group and 42 in the usual-care group); the majority were unplanned hospitalisations due to a deterioration in mental health (n = 98). The intervention is likely (57%) to be less costly but more effective than usual care; however, this result was not necessarily associated with participants' smoking status.

LIMITATIONS

Follow-up was not blind to treatment allocation. However, the primary outcome included a biochemically verified end point, less susceptible to observer biases. Some participants experienced difficulties in accessing nicotine replacement therapy because of changes in service provision. Efforts were made to help participants access nicotine replacement therapy, but this may have affected participants' quit attempt.

CONCLUSIONS

People with SMI who received the intervention were more likely to have stopped smoking at 6 months. Although more people who received the intervention had stopped smoking at 12 months, this was not statistically significant.

FUTURE WORK

Further research is needed to establish how quitting can be sustained among people with SMI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72955454.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

E-cigarette use and associated factors among smokers with severe mental illness

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is more prevalent among people with severe mental illness (SMI) than the general population. E-cigarettes could provide an effective means of helping people to quit smoking. The aim of this paper is to explore the use of e-cigarettes and factors related to their use in people smokers with SMI.

METHODS

This is a cross sectional study including adult smokers with a documented diagnosis of SMI (ICD-10) recruited to the SCIMITAR + trial (2015-2016) from primary and secondary care. At baseline, participants were asked for demographic information and about their use of e-cigarettes. Data was were analysed to explore factors associated with e-cigarette use. After testing bivariate associations, logistic regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

Among 526 participants, 58.7% were male, mean age 46 years (SD 12.1), the majority (70.3%) had tried an e-cigarette. Among those who had ever tried an e-cigarette, over half (54.6%) reported the reason was to quit smoking, while 13.9% reported that the reason was to reduce smoking. Having an educational qualification of GCSE or higher (odds ratio 2.17, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.86, p = 0.008) and having made a quit attempt in the past six months (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.63, p = 0.032) was associated with ever having tried an e-cigarette.

CONCLUSIONS

Ever use of an e-cigarette was associated with education levels and recent quit attempts. Future trials could explore the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid in this participant group.

Smoking cessation in inpatient psychiatry treatment facilities: A review

•

Smoking rates are high among people with psychiatric illness.

•

Smoking cessation interventions are rarely available in inpatient psychiatry settings.

•

Smokers with psychiatric illness are just as interested in quitting smoking.

Background

Tobacco-related diseases are a leading cause of death among individuals with severe mental illness (SMI), yet interventions to address tobacco cessation are rare in inpatient settings where persons with SMI are hospitalized. While cigarette smoking rates have declined in the general population, they remain high in persons with SMI. Inpatient settings would be a prime location to intervene on tobacco consumption among persons with SMI. The objective of this review was to examine evidence of smoking cessation interventions in psychiatric inpatient facilities.

Method

Using narrative overview guidelines, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for smoking cessation RCT studies published between 1950 and 2018. Studies included had to have at least started in inpatient psychiatry settings. Examples of search terms included: smoking cessation in inpatient psychiatry, smoking cessation in inpatient mental health treatment facilities, and smoking cessation and mental health.

Results

Following the inclusion criteria, eight RCT studies were reviewed. One study was among adolescent psychiatric inpatient smokers ages 13–17, and 7 were among adult psychiatric inpatients with mean age 41 years. Treatment periods lasting 8 to 12 weeks started in inpatient settings and continued post discharge. A combination of behavioral and pharmacological interventions were used. Pharmacological interventions were nicotine replacement therapies, and at least one study used varenicline. At baseline, participants smoked an average of 18.1 cigarettes per day.

Conclusion

Smoking cessation in inpatient psychiatry settings is rare or delayed. There is a need for more tailored treatments among this population to help them quit smoking.

The effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive to improve trial follow up; a randomised study within a trial (SWAT)

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive (£10 note in addition to a routinely provided £10 voucher) versus no contingent financial incentive, on improving the retention rate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods A two arm 'Study within a Trial' (SWAT) embedded within a host RCT (SCIMITAR+). Participants were randomised to the SWAT using a 2:1 (intervention:control) allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants completing a CO breath measurement at the first SCIMITAR+ follow up time point (6 months). Secondary outcomes were withdrawing from follow-up after contact and time from assessment due date to completion.  Analyses were conducted using logistic or Cox Proportional Hazards regression as appropriate. Results A total of 434 participants were randomised into this SWAT. Completion of the CO breath measurement at 6 months was 88.5% (n=247) in the intervention arm of the SWAT and 85.4% (n=123) in the control arm (Difference 3.1%, OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71-2.33, p=0.41). There was also no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants withdrawing from follow-up after contact (intervention n=7 (2.5%), control n=5 (3.5%); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.23-2.44, p=0.64), nor in terms of proximity of 6-month visit completion to due date (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86-1.33, p=0.55). Conclusion It is unclear if contingent financial incentives increased rates of face-to-face follow-up completion within the SCIMITAR+ trial population. However, the sample size of this SWAT was constrained by the size of the host trial and power was limited. This SWAT adds to the body of evidence for initiatives to increase response rates in trials.

SCIMITAR+ Trial: A randomised study within a trial (SWAT) of a contingent financial reward to improve trial follow-up

Background: To evaluate the effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive (£10 note in addition to a routinely provided £10 voucher) versus no contingent financial incentive, on improving the retention rate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods: A two arm 'Study within a Trial' (SWAT) embedded within a host RCT (SCIMITAR+). Participants were randomised to the SWAT using a 2:1 (intervention:control) allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants completing a CO breath measurement at the first SCIMITAR+ follow up time point (6 months). Secondary outcomes were withdrawing from follow-up after contact and time from assessment due date to completion.  Analyses were conducted using logistic or Cox Proportional Hazards regression as appropriate. Results: A total of 434 participants were randomised into this SWAT. Completion of the CO breath measurement at 6 months was 88.5% (n=247) in the intervention arm of the SWAT and 85.4% (n=123) in the control arm. The difference (3.1%) was not statistically significant (p=0.36; OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71-2.33, p=0.41). There was also no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants withdrawing from follow-up after contact (intervention n=7 (2.5%), control n=5 (3.5%); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.23-2.44, p=0.64), nor in terms of proximity of 6-month visit completion to due date (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86-1.33, p=0.55). Conclusion: Contingent financial incentives did not statistically significantly increase rates of face-to-face follow-up completion within the SCIMITAR+ trial population. However, the sample size of this SWAT was constrained by the size of the host trial and power was limited. This SWAT adds to the body of evidence for initiatives to increase response rates in trials.

Standard smoking cessation services in sites participating in the SCIMITAR+ trial for people with severe mental ill health

Aims and methodThe SCIMITAR+ trial was commissioned to evaluate the effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation intervention for people with severe mental ill health compared with usual services. It is difficult to define what constitutes usual care in smoking cessation services. We aimed to define what this was during the trial. Twenty-two National Health Service healthcare providers participated in a bespoke survey asking about usual care in their area. RESULTS: All sites offered smoking cessation support; however, service provider and service type varied substantially. In some cases services were not streamlined, meaning that people received smoking cessation counselling from one organisation and smoking cessation medication from another.Clinical implicationsTo better implement the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline PH48, clearer referral pathways need to be implemented and communicated to patients, staff and carers. People with severe mental ill health need to be able to access services that combine nicotine replacement therapy and behavioural support in a streamlined manner.Declaration of interestNone.

Smoking cessation for people with severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are three times more likely to smoke than the wider population, contributing to widening health inequalities. Smoking remains the largest modifiable risk factor for this health inequality, but people with severe mental illness have not historically engaged with smoking cessation services. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a combined behavioural and pharmacological smoking cessation intervention targeted specifically at people with severe mental illness.

METHODS

In the smoking cessation intervention for severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+) trial, a pragmatic, randomised controlled study, we recruited heavy smokers with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia from 16 primary care and 21 community-based mental health sites in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, and smoked at least five cigarettes per day. Exclusion criteria included substantial comorbid drug or alcohol problems and people who lacked capacity to consent at the time of recruitment. Using computer-generated random numbers, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a bespoke smoking cessation intervention or to usual care. Participants, mental health specialists, and primary care physicians were unmasked to assignment. The bespoke smoking cessation intervention consisted of behavioural support from a mental health smoking cessation practitioner and pharmacological aids for smoking cessation, with adaptations for people with severe mental illness-such as, extended pre-quit sessions, cut down to quit, and home visits. Access to pharmacotherapy was via primary care after discussion with the smoking cessation specialist. Under usual care participants were offered access to local smoking cessation services not specifically designed for people with severe mental illnesses. The primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 12 months ascertained via carbon monoxide measurements below 10 parts per million and self-reported cessation for the past 7 days. Secondary endpoints were biologically verified smoking cessation at 6 months; number of cigarettes smoked per day, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and Motivation to Quit (MTQ) questionnaire; general and mental health functioning determined via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); and body-mass index (BMI). This trial was registerd with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN72955454, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 16, 2016, 526 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the bespoke smoking cessation intervention (n=265) or usual care (n=261). 309 (59%) participants were male, median age was 47·2 years (IQR 36·3-54·5), with high nicotine dependence (mean 24 cigarettes per day [SD 13·2]), and the most common severe mental disorders were schizophrenia or other psychotic illness (n=343 [65%]), bipolar disorder (n=115 [22%]), and schizoaffective disorder (n=66 [13%]). 234 (88%) of intervention participants engaged with the treatment programme and attended 6·4 (SD 3·5) quit smoking sessions, with an average duration of 39 min (SD 17; median 35 min, range 5-120). Verified quit data at 12 months were available for 219 (84%) of 261 usual care and 223 (84%) of 265 intervention participants. The proportion of participants who had quit at 12 months was higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group, but non-significantly (34 [15%] of 223 [13% of those assigned to group] vs 22 [10%] of 219 [8% of those assigned to group], risk difference 5·2%, 95% CI -1·0 to 11·4; odds ratio [OR] 1·6, 95% CI 0·9 to 2·9; p=0·10). The proportion of participants who quit at 6 months was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (32 [14%] of 226 vs 14 [6%] of 217; risk difference 7·7%, 95% CI 2·1 to 13·3; OR 2·4, 95% CI 1·2 to 4·6; p=0·010). The incidence rate ratio for number of cigarettes smoked per day at 6 months was 0·90 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·01; p=0·079), and at 12 months was 1·00 (0·89 to 1·13; p=0·95). At both 6 months and 12 months, the intervention group was non-significantly favoured in the FTND (adjusted mean difference 6 months -0·18, 95% CI -0·53 to 0·17, p=0·32; and 12 months -0·01, -0·39 to 0·38, p=0·97) and MTQ questionnaire (adjusted mean difference 0·58, -0·01 to 1·17, p=0·056; and 12 months 0·64, 0·04 to 1·24, p=0·038). The PHQ-9 showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months 0·20, 95% CI -0·85 to 1·24 vs 12 months -0·12, -1·18 to 0·94). For the SF-12 survey, we saw evidence of improvement in physical health in the intervention group at 6 months (adjusted mean difference 1·75, 95% CI 0·21 to 3·28), but this difference was not evident at 12 months (0·59, -1·07 to 2·26); and we saw no difference in mental health between the groups at 6 or 12 months (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·73, 95% CI -2·82 to 1·36, and 12 months -0·41, -2·35 to 1·53). The GAD-7 questionnaire showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·32 95% CI -1·26 to 0·62 vs 12 months -0·10, -1·05 to 0·86). No difference in BMI was seen between the groups (adjusted mean difference 6 months 0·16, 95% CI -0·54 to 0·85; 12 months 0·25, -0·62 to 1·13).

INTERPRETATION

This bespoke intervention is a candidate model of smoking cessation for clinicians and policy makers to address high prevalence of smoking. The incidence of quitting at 6 months shows that smoking cessation can be achieved, but the waning of this effect by 12 months means more effort is needed for sustained quitting.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Successful recruitment to trials: findings from the SCIMITAR+ Trial

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) can struggle to recruit to target on time. This is especially the case with hard to reach populations such as those with severe mental ill health. The SCIMITAR+ trial, a trial of a bespoke smoking cessation intervention for people with severe mental ill health achieved their recruitment ahead of time and target. This article reports strategies that helped us to achieve this with the aim of aiding others recruiting from similar populations.

METHODS

SCIMITAR+ is a multi-centre pragmatic two-arm parallel-group RCT, which aimed to recruit 400 participants with severe mental ill health who smoke and would like to cut down or quit. The study recruited primarily in secondary care through community mental health teams and psychiatrists with a smaller number of participants recruited through primary care. Recruitment opened in October 2015 and closed in December 2016, by which point 526 participants had been recruited. We gathered information from recruiting sites on strategies which led to the successful recruitment in SCIMITAR+ and in this article present our approach to trial management along with the strategies employed by the recruiting sites.

RESULTS

Alongside having a dedicated trial manager and trial management team, we identified three main themes that led to successful recruitment. These were: clinicians with a positive attitude to research; researchers and clinicians working together; and the use of NHS targets. The overriding theme was the importance of relationships between both the researchers and the recruiting clinicians and the recruiting clinicians and the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This study makes a significant contribution to the limited evidence base of real-world cases of successful recruitment to RCTs and offers practical guidance to those planning and conducting trials. Building positive relationships between clinicians, researchers and participants is crucial to successful recruitment.

Implementation of a Quit Smoking Programme in Community Adult Mental Health Services-A Qualitative Study

Little is known about the experiences of people with severe mental health difficulties in smoking cessation interventions. This study aimed to review the implementation of a smoking cessation programme across 16 community mental health day services. The aim was to establish the experience from both service user and facilitator perspectives and refine implementation for future groups. In-depth interviews were conducted with 20 service users and four focus groups held with 17 facilitators. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data for emergent themes in relation to key enablers and barriers to implementation. Data from service users and facilitators revealed that implementation was enabled by an open and engaged recruitment approach; the resourcefulness of facilitators; programme materials and group-based format; combining the cessation programme with other and broader health initiatives; and participants' motivations, including health and money. Barriers included the structure of the service; the lack of a joined-up approach across the health services; literacy issues and the serial/logical process assumed by the programme. Barriers perceived as more specific to those with mental health difficulties included the use of smoking as a coping mechanism, lack of alternative activities/structure and lack of consistent determination. The tobacco free policy, implemented shortly before the programme, interestingly emerged as both a barrier and an enabler. In conclusion, although this group-based cessation programme in community mental health settings was well-received overall, a number of key barriers persist. A joined-up approach which addresses the culture of smoking in mental health settings, inconsistencies in smoking policies, and provides consistent cessation support, is needed. Care needs to be taken with the timing as overall it may not be helpful to introduce a new smoking cessation programme at the same time as a tobacco free policy.