Aim: This study aims to understand pregnant women’s experiences of smoking cessation with an incentive scheme in a deprived UK city. This is important because smoking cessation with pregnant women is one of the most crucial public health initiatives to promote, and is particularly challenging in deprived areas. While financial incentive schemes are controversial, there is a need to better understand pregnant women’s experiences. The scheme combined quasi-financial incentives (shopping vouchers) for validated quits (carbon monoxide (CO) validated at < 10 ppm), enhanced support from smoking cessation advisors, the opportunity to identify a ‘Significant Other Supporter’ and nicotine replacement therapy. Methods: With the focus on understanding pregnant women’s experiences, a qualitative design was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were completed with 12 pregnant women from the scheme, and the three advisors. All interviews were transcribed, and thematic analysis conducted. Results: Pregnant women reported various challenges to quitting, including long-established routines, and stress. Participants were aware of stigma around incentives but were all very positive about the scheme. The relationship with advisors was described as fundamental. The women valued their advice and support, while uptake of the ‘Significant Other Supporter’ appeared low. Participants viewed the CO monitoring as ‘an incentive’, while the vouchers were framed as a ‘bonus’. Advisors perceived the vouchers as helping engage pregnant women and maintain quit status, and women appreciated the vouchers both as financial assistance and recognition of their accomplishments. Conclusion: This study highlights the great value women placed on the support, advice and monitoring from specialist advisors. The distinction between vouchers as a welcomed bonus, rather than ‘the incentive’ to engage, is important. How smoking cessation and schemes to promote this are communicated to pregnant women and health professionals is important, particularly given the stigma and controversy involved.
Hospital discharge for people experiencing homelessness is a perennial challenge. The Homeless Reduction Act 2017 (HRA) places new responsibilities on hospitals, but it remains unknown whether this has affected discharge practices. This qualitative study explores stakeholders' views on the challenges around hospital discharge for people experiencing homelessness, in the context of a deprived English city. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 27 stakeholders. Participants were purposively recruited from local authority, third sector and the National Health Service. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis conducted. Analysis generated three main themes. First, a need for better planning and communication with the third sector, particularly around medication, prescriptions and information sharing. Second, the need to improve awareness and ‘upskill’ hospital staff to work more effectively with people experiencing homelessness, including understanding their needs, the wider support available and HRA requirements. Third, there were calls for (re)investment in a different approach to better support this population, based on outreach and flexibility. The need for improved partnership working and investment was emphasised. Whilst recognising the challenges faced by hospitals, especially within the context of funding cuts, this study highlights the need to recognise the third sector's contribution in supporting people experiencing homelessness in the community. Developing site‐specific checklists for practice before discharge (and as early as possible) may help to ensure appropriate measures are in place. Improving legal literacy in the context of what an appropriate discharge is for people experiencing homelessness may help develop staff confidence to challenge the focus on ‘quick’ discharges.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.