BackgroundSmoking is strongly associated with disadvantage and is an important contributor to inequalities in health. Smoking cessation services have been implemented in the UK targeting disadvantaged smokers, but there is little evidence available on how to design services to attract this priority group.MethodsWe conducted focus groups with 39 smokers aged 21–75 from the most socio-economically deprived areas of Nottingham UK who had made an unsuccessful attempt to quit within the last year without using smoking cessation services, to identify specific barriers or motivators to gaining access to these services.ResultsBarriers to use of existing services related to fear of being judged, fear of failure, a perceived lack of knowledge about existing services, a perception that available interventions – particularly Nicotine Replacement Therapy – are expensive and ineffective, and negative media publicity about bupropion. Participants expressed a preference for a personalised, non-judgemental approach combining counselling with affordable, accessible and effective pharmacological therapies; convenient and flexible timing of service delivery, and the possibility of subsidised complementary therapies.ConclusionWe conclude that smokers from these deprived areas generally had low awareness of the services available to help them, and misconceptions about their availability and effectiveness. A more personalised approach to promoting services that are non-judgemental, and with free pharmacotherapy and flexible support may encourage more deprived smokers to quit smoking.

Background: Guidelines recommend that smoking cessation interventions are offered in all clinical settings to all smokers willing to make a quit attempt. Since the effectiveness of routine provision of behavioural counselling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to smokers admitted to hospital has not been established, a randomised controlled trial of these interventions given together compared with counselling alone or minimal intervention was performed in hospital inpatients. Methods: Medical and surgical inpatients who were current smokers at the time of admission were randomised to receive either usual care (no additional advice at admission), counselling alone (20 minute intervention with written materials), or NRT plus counselling (counselling intervention with a 6 week course of NRT). Continuous and point prevalence abstinence from smoking (validated by exhaled carbon monoxide <10 ppm) was measured at discharge from hospital and at 3 and 12 months, and self-reported reduction in cigarette consumption in smokers was assessed at 3 and 12 months. Results: 274 inpatient smokers were enrolled. Abstinence was higher in the NRT plus counselling group (n=91) than in the counselling alone (n=91) or usual care (n=92) groups. The difference between the groups was significant for validated point prevalence abstinence at discharge (55%, 43%, 37% respectively, p=0.045) and at 12 months (17%, 6%, 8%, p=0.03). The respective differences in continuous validated abstinence at 12 months were 11%, 4%, 8% (p=0.25). There was no significant difference between counselling alone and usual care, or in reduction in cigarette consumption between the treatment groups. Conclusions: NRT given with brief counselling to hospital inpatients is an effective routine smoking cessation intervention.

No abstract

Although products for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) have been available for over 20 years, they have been excluded until recently from state or insurance based health service provision in the United Kingdom and many other countries. They have therefore not been widely prescribed by doctors who help smokers wanting to quit. Recent changes in funding policy in the United Kingdom and new guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (which covers England and Wales) mean that NRT products can and should now be made available to all smokers who want to stop smoking. Like other pharmacological interventions for helping smokers to quit (see the next article in this series), NRT is most effective when used in conjunction with behavioural and other types of non-pharmacological cessation interventions.