Cargando…
A ‘Cut-Down-To-Stop’ intervention for smokers who find it hard to quit: a qualitative evaluation
BACKGROUND: English Stop Smoking Services primarily deliver behavioural interventions to support abrupt quit attempts. Recent evidence suggests an alternative approach could be offered to clients involving a more gradual reduction of cigarettes smoked leading to complete abstinence, known as ‘Cut Do...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466646/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30987623 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6738-9 |
_version_ | 1783411147182964736 |
---|---|
author | Robinson, J. McEwen, A. Heah, R. Papadakis, S. |
author_facet | Robinson, J. McEwen, A. Heah, R. Papadakis, S. |
author_sort | Robinson, J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: English Stop Smoking Services primarily deliver behavioural interventions to support abrupt quit attempts. Recent evidence suggests an alternative approach could be offered to clients involving a more gradual reduction of cigarettes smoked leading to complete abstinence, known as ‘Cut Down To Stop’ (CDTS). The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of stop smoking practitioners and service users who participated in a pilot study of a CDTS service. METHODS: The CDTS intervention was pilot tested in a Stop Smoking Service in London, England. As part of the CDTS intervention clients who were still smoking 2 weeks after their quit date were offered tailored advice, medication and support to reduce their current smoking by half, with the aim to stop smoking altogether within a six-month period. A qualitative evaluation was conducted involving a focus group discussion with nine practitioners involved in the delivery of the CDTS intervention and telephone interviews with 18 CDTS service users. Thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Service users and practitioners were very positive about their experience with the CDTS intervention. The intervention was found to be an effective way of keeping clients engaged with the service and was felt to increase the likelihood they might quit and/or re-engage in service for future quit attempts. Elements that contributed to the attractiveness of the CDTS intervention included: 1) the trust and empathetic relationship developed between service users, practitioners and their referring primary care provider; 2) time and flexibility for service users to engage in the quitting process at their own pace; 3) setting progressive goals and building service user confidence; 4) the opportunity to experiment with quit smoking medications; and, 5) the on-going contact with the practitioner/service. CONCLUSIONS: Service users who are not successful with quitting abruptly may benefit from a CDTS intervention. This study highlights the important role of ‘relationships’, time and ‘flexible’ service delivery models in engaging service users who are not initially successful with quitting. The findings of this study have the potential to inform decision-making regarding the value of the CDTS approach for the English Stop Smoking Service and cessation services worldwide. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6466646 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64666462019-04-22 A ‘Cut-Down-To-Stop’ intervention for smokers who find it hard to quit: a qualitative evaluation Robinson, J. McEwen, A. Heah, R. Papadakis, S. BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: English Stop Smoking Services primarily deliver behavioural interventions to support abrupt quit attempts. Recent evidence suggests an alternative approach could be offered to clients involving a more gradual reduction of cigarettes smoked leading to complete abstinence, known as ‘Cut Down To Stop’ (CDTS). The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of stop smoking practitioners and service users who participated in a pilot study of a CDTS service. METHODS: The CDTS intervention was pilot tested in a Stop Smoking Service in London, England. As part of the CDTS intervention clients who were still smoking 2 weeks after their quit date were offered tailored advice, medication and support to reduce their current smoking by half, with the aim to stop smoking altogether within a six-month period. A qualitative evaluation was conducted involving a focus group discussion with nine practitioners involved in the delivery of the CDTS intervention and telephone interviews with 18 CDTS service users. Thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Service users and practitioners were very positive about their experience with the CDTS intervention. The intervention was found to be an effective way of keeping clients engaged with the service and was felt to increase the likelihood they might quit and/or re-engage in service for future quit attempts. Elements that contributed to the attractiveness of the CDTS intervention included: 1) the trust and empathetic relationship developed between service users, practitioners and their referring primary care provider; 2) time and flexibility for service users to engage in the quitting process at their own pace; 3) setting progressive goals and building service user confidence; 4) the opportunity to experiment with quit smoking medications; and, 5) the on-going contact with the practitioner/service. CONCLUSIONS: Service users who are not successful with quitting abruptly may benefit from a CDTS intervention. This study highlights the important role of ‘relationships’, time and ‘flexible’ service delivery models in engaging service users who are not initially successful with quitting. The findings of this study have the potential to inform decision-making regarding the value of the CDTS approach for the English Stop Smoking Service and cessation services worldwide. BioMed Central 2019-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6466646/ /pubmed/30987623 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6738-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Robinson, J. McEwen, A. Heah, R. Papadakis, S. A ‘Cut-Down-To-Stop’ intervention for smokers who find it hard to quit: a qualitative evaluation |
title | A ‘Cut-Down-To-Stop’ intervention for smokers who find it hard to quit: a qualitative evaluation |
title_full | A ‘Cut-Down-To-Stop’ intervention for smokers who find it hard to quit: a qualitative evaluation |
title_fullStr | A ‘Cut-Down-To-Stop’ intervention for smokers who find it hard to quit: a qualitative evaluation |
title_full_unstemmed | A ‘Cut-Down-To-Stop’ intervention for smokers who find it hard to quit: a qualitative evaluation |
title_short | A ‘Cut-Down-To-Stop’ intervention for smokers who find it hard to quit: a qualitative evaluation |
title_sort | ‘cut-down-to-stop’ intervention for smokers who find it hard to quit: a qualitative evaluation |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466646/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30987623 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6738-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT robinsonj acutdowntostopinterventionforsmokerswhofindithardtoquitaqualitativeevaluation AT mcewena acutdowntostopinterventionforsmokerswhofindithardtoquitaqualitativeevaluation AT heahr acutdowntostopinterventionforsmokerswhofindithardtoquitaqualitativeevaluation AT papadakiss acutdowntostopinterventionforsmokerswhofindithardtoquitaqualitativeevaluation AT robinsonj cutdowntostopinterventionforsmokerswhofindithardtoquitaqualitativeevaluation AT mcewena cutdowntostopinterventionforsmokerswhofindithardtoquitaqualitativeevaluation AT heahr cutdowntostopinterventionforsmokerswhofindithardtoquitaqualitativeevaluation AT papadakiss cutdowntostopinterventionforsmokerswhofindithardtoquitaqualitativeevaluation |