Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T21:39:48.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

Manpreet Bains ,
Andrea Venn ,
Rachael L. Murray ,
Ann McNeill  and
Laura L. Jones
Manpreet Bains*
Affiliation:
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Andrea Venn
Affiliation:
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Rachael L. Murray
Affiliation:
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Ann McNeill
Affiliation:
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK
Laura L. Jones
Affiliation:
Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
*
Addresses for correspondence: Manpreet Bains PhD, Lecturer in Qualitative and Mixed Methods Health Research, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. E-mail: Manpreet.Bains@nottingham.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Stop smoking servicesaccessibility of servicescommunity-based settingsqualitativelongitudinal
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Smoking Cessation , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , June 2015 , pp. 65 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Australian Academic Press Pty Ltd 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bains, M., Venn, A., Murray, R. L., McNeill, A., & Jones, L. L. (2011). A qualitative exploration of smokers’ views regarding aspects of a community-based mobile stop smoking service in the United Kingdom. BMC Public Health, 11: 873. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-873Google Scholar
Bauld, L., Bell, K., McCullough, L., Richardson, L., & Greaves, L. (2010). The effectiveness of NHS smoking cessation services: a systematic review. Journal of Public Health, 32 (1), 71–82.Google Scholar
Bauld, L., Judge, K., & Platt, S. (2007). Assessing the impact of smoking cessation services on reducing health inequalities in England. Tobacco Control, 16 (6), 400–404.Google Scholar
Lacy, N., Paulman, L. A., Reuter, M. D., & Lovejoy, B. (2004). Why we don't come: patient perceptions on no-shows. Annals of Family Medicine, 2 (6), 541–545.Google Scholar
Lader, D. (2009). Smoking-related Behaviour and Attitudes 2008/09. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
Murray, R. L., Bauld, L., Hackshaw, L. E., & McNeill, A. (2009). Improving access to smoking cessation services for disadvantaged groups: a systematic review. Journal of Public Health, 31 (2), 258–277.Google Scholar
Owens, C., & Springett, J. (2006). The Roy Castle fag ends stop smoking service: a successful client-led approach to smoking cessation. Journal of Smoking Cessation, 1 (1), 13–18.Google Scholar
Parrott, S. (2004). Economics of smoking cessation. British Medical Journal, 328, 947–949. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7445.947CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pesata, V., Pallija, G., & Webb, A. A. (1999). A descriptive study of missed appointments: families’ perceptions of barriers to care. Journal Pediatric Health Care, 13 (4), 178–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pound, E., Coleman, T., Adams, C., Bauld, L., & Ferguson, J. (2005). Targeting smokers in priority groups: the influence of government targets and policy statements. Addiction, 100 (2), 28–35.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Roddy, E., Antoniak, M., Britton, J., Molyneux, A., & Lewis, S. (2006). Barriers and motivators to gaining access to smoking cessation services amongst deprived smokers – a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 6, 147. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siahpush, M., McNeill, A., Borland, R., & Fong, G. T. (2006). Socioeconomic variations in nicotine dependence, self-efficacy, and intention to quit across four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control, 15 (3), 71–75.Google Scholar
Springett, J., Owens, C., & Callaghan, J. (2007). The challenge of combining lay knowledge with evidence-based practice in health promotion: fag ends smoking cessation service. Critical Public Health, 17 (3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tengs, T. O., Adams, M. E., Pliskin, J. S., Safran, D. G., Siegel, J. E., Weinstein, M. C., et al. (1995). Five-hundred lifesaving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Analysis, 15 (3), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, R., McNeill, A., & Raw, M. (2000). Smoking cessation guidelines for health professionals: an update. Thorax, 55 (12), 987–999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, R., & Raw, M. (2003).Meeting Department of Health Smoking Cessation Targets. Recommendations for Service Providers. London: Health Development Agency.Google Scholar