Usual care in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy: qualitative findings from a mixed-methods process evaluation

被引:2
|
作者
McKell, Jennifer [1 ]
Harris, Fiona M. [2 ]
Sinclair, Lesley [3 ]
Bauld, Linda [4 ,5 ]
Tappin, David Michael [6 ]
Hoddinott, Pat [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Stirling, Inst Social Mkt & Hlth, Stirling, Scotland
[2] Univ West Scotland, Sch Hlth & Life Sci, Paisley, Scotland
[3] Univ York, Dept Hlth Sci, York, England
[4] Univ Edinburgh, Usher Inst Populat Hlth Sci & Informat, Edinburgh, Scotland
[5] Univ Edinburgh, SPECTRUM Res Consortium, Edinburgh, Scotland
[6] Univ Glasgow, Sch Med Dent & Nursing, Glasgow, Scotland
[7] Univ Stirling, Nursing Midwifery & Allied Hlth Profess Res Unit, Stirling, Scotland
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2022年 / 12卷 / 12期
关键词
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; PUBLIC HEALTH; Maternal medicine; INTERVENTION;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066494
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
ObjectivesFinancial incentives are recommended by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to aid smoking cessation in pregnancy. However, little is known about how implementation contexts might impact on their effectiveness. Variations in smoking cessation support (usual care) for pregnant women who smoke were examined qualitatively as part of a prospective process evaluation of the Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT III).DesignLongitudinal case studies of five CPIT III trial sites informed by realist evaluation.SettingA stop smoking service (SSS) serving a maternity hospital constituted each case study, located in three UK countries.ParticipantsData collection included semistructured interviews with trial participants (n=22), maternity (n=12) and SSS staff (n=17); and site observations and perspectives recorded in fieldnotes (n=85).ResultsCessation support (usual care) for pregnant women varied in amount, location, staff capacity, flexibility and content across sites. SSS staff capacity was important to avoid gaps in support. Colocation and good working relationships between maternity and SSS professionals enabled prioritisation and reinforced the importance of smoking cessation. Sites with limited use of carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring reduced opportunities to identify smokers while inconsistency around automatic referral processes prevented the offer of cessation support. SSS professionals colocated within antenatal clinics were available to women they could not otherwise reach. Flexibility around location, timing and tailoring of approaches for support, facilitated initial and sustained engagement and reduced the burden on women.ConclusionsTrial sites faced varied barriers and facilitators to delivering cessation support, reflecting heterogeneity in usual care. If financial incentives are more effective with concurrent smoking cessation support, sites with fewer barriers and more facilitators regarding this support would be expected to have more promising trial outcomes. Future reporting of trial outcomes will assist in understanding incentives' generalisability across a wide range of usual care settings.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] The smoking cessation in pregnancy incentives trial (CPIT): study protocol for a phase III randomised controlled trial
    Sinclair, Lesley
    McFadden, Margaret
    Tilbrook, Helen
    Mitchell, Alex
    Keding, Ada
    Watson, Judith
    Bauld, Linda
    Kee, Frank
    Torgerson, David
    Hewitt, Catherine
    McKell, Jennifer
    Hoddinott, Pat
    Harris, Fiona M.
    Uny, Isabelle
    Boyd, Kathleen
    McMeekin, Nicola
    Ussher, Michael
    Tappin, David M.
    TRIALS, 2020, 21 (01)
  • [2] The smoking cessation in pregnancy incentives trial (CPIT): study protocol for a phase III randomised controlled trial
    Lesley Sinclair
    Margaret McFadden
    Helen Tilbrook
    Alex Mitchell
    Ada Keding
    Judith Watson
    Linda Bauld
    Frank Kee
    David Torgerson
    Catherine Hewitt
    Jennifer McKell
    Pat Hoddinott
    Fiona M. Harris
    Isabelle Uny
    Kathleen Boyd
    Nicola McMeekin
    Michael Ussher
    David M. Tappin
    Trials, 21
  • [3] The use of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnant women: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial protocol
    Hammersley, Megan L.
    Dekker, Gustaaf A.
    Gurrin, Lyle C.
    Hoon, Elizabeth A.
    Schurer, Stefanie
    Lynch, John W.
    Aldred, Marnie
    Dalton, Julia
    Fletcher, Cherise J.
    Smithers, Lisa G.
    ADDICTION, 2025,
  • [4] Impact evaluation of the Care Tipping Point Initiative in Nepal: study protocol for a mixed-methods cluster randomised controlled trial
    Yount, Kathryn M.
    Clark, Cari Jo
    Bergenfeld, Irina
    Khan, Zara
    Cheong, Yuk Fai
    Kalra, Sadhvi
    Sharma, Sudhindra
    Ghimire, Shuvechha
    Naved, Ruchira T.
    Parvin, Kausar
    Al Mamun, Mahfuz
    Talukder, Aloka
    Laterra, Anne
    Sprinkel, Anne
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (07):
  • [5] IntEgrating Smoking Cessation treatment As part of usual Psychological care for dEpression and anxiety (ESCAPE): protocol for a randomised and controlled, multicentre, acceptability, feasibility and implementation trial
    Taylor, Gemma
    Aveyard, Paul
    Bartlem, Kate
    Shaw, Alison
    Player, Jeremy
    Metcalfe, Chris
    Kessler, David
    Munafo, Marcus
    PILOT AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES, 2019, 5 (01)
  • [6] Process and effect evaluation of a referral aid for smoking cessation counselling in primary care: Findings of a randomized controlled trial
    Zijlstra, Danielle N.
    Bolman, Catherine A.
    Muris, Jean W.
    de Vries, Hein
    TOBACCO PREVENTION & CESSATION, 2024, 10
  • [7] Patient navigation and financial incentives to promote smoking cessation in an underserved primary care population: A randomized controlled trial protocol
    Quintiliani, Lisa M.
    Russinova, Zlatka L.
    Bloch, Philippe P.
    Ve Truong
    Xuan, Ziming
    Pbert, Lori
    Lasser, Karen E.
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2015, 45 : 449 - 457
  • [8] Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B trial): protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial
    Aitken, Leanne M.
    Emerson, Lydia M.
    Kydonaki, Kalliopi
    Blackwood, Bronagh
    Creagh-Brown, Benedict
    Lone, Nazir, I
    McKenzie, Cathrine A.
    Reade, Michael C.
    Weir, Christopher J.
    Wise, Matt P.
    Walsh, Timothy S.
    BMJ OPEN, 2024, 14 (04):
  • [9] Protocol for the mixed-methods process and context evaluation of the TB & Tobacco randomised controlled trial in Bangladesh and Pakistan: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study
    Boeckmann, Melanie
    Nohavova, Iveta
    Dogar, Omara
    Kralikova, Eva
    Pankova, Alexandra
    Zvolska, Kamila
    Huque, Rumana
    Fatima, Razia
    Noor, Maryam
    Elsey, Helen
    Sheikh, Aziz
    Siddiqi, Kamran
    Kotz, Daniel
    BMJ OPEN, 2018, 8 (03):
  • [10] Home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: mixed methods process evaluation of the REACH-HF multicentre randomised controlled trial
    Frost, Julia
    Wingham, Jennifer
    Britten, Nicky
    Greaves, Colin
    Abraham, Charles
    Warren, Fiona C.
    Jolly, Kate
    Doherty, Patrick Joseph
    Miles, Jackie
    Singh, Sally J.
    Paul, Kevin
    Taylor, Rod
    Dalal, Hasnain
    BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (08):