Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27278101›Full record

Trial reportBMC psychiatry2016

Making the journey with me: a qualitative study of experiences of a bespoke mental health smoking cessation intervention for service users with serious mental illness.

Sarah Knowles, Claire Planner, Tim Bradshaw, Emily Peckham, Mei-See Man, Simon Gilbody

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Acceptability of integrating smoking cessation treatment into routine care for people with mental illness: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah KnowlesNIHR School for Primary Care Research and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. sarah.knowles@manchester.ac.uk.
Claire PlannerNIHR School for Primary Care Research and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Tim BradshawSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Emily PeckhamDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Mei-See ManSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Simon GilbodyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of York · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Department of Health 07/41/05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmoking is one of the major modifiable risk factors contributing to early mortality for people with serious mental illness. However, only a minority of service users access smoking cessation interventions and there are concerns about the appropriateness of generic stop-smoking services for this group. The SCIMITAR (Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill-Health Trial) feasibility study explored the effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation intervention delivered by mental health workers. This paper reports on the nested qualitative study within the trial.

methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 service users receiving the intervention and 3 of the MHSCPs (mental health smoking cessation practitioners) delivering the intervention. Topic guides explored the perceived acceptability of the intervention particularly in contrast to generic stop-smoking services, and perceptions of the implementation of the intervention in practice. Transcripts were analysed using the Constant Comparative Method.

resultsGeneric services were reported to be inappropriate for this group, due to concerns over stigma and a lack of support from health professionals. The bespoke intervention was perceived positively, with both practitioners and service users emphasising the benefits of flexibility and personalisation in delivery. The mental health background of the practitioners was considered valuable not only due to their increased understanding of the service users' illness but also due to the more collaborative relationship style they employed. Challenges involved delays in liaising with general practitioners and patient struggles with organisation and motivation, however the MHSCP was considered to be well placed to address these problems.

conclusionThe bespoke smoking cessation intervention was acceptable to service users and the both service users and practitioners reported the value of a protected mental health worker role for delivering smoking cessation to this group. The results have wider implications for understanding how to achieve integrated and personalised care for this high-risk population and further underscore the need for sensitised smoking cessation support for people with serious mental illness.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN79497236 . Registered 3(rd) July 2009.

Indexed as

AdultCombined Modality TherapyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMental DisordersMotivationPatient Acceptance of Health CarePsychotherapyQualitative ResearchSmokingSmoking Cessation

Identifiers

PMID27278101
PMCPMC4898392
OpenAlexW2415078538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.