Reintroducing face-to-face support alongside remote support to form a hybrid stop smoking service in England: a formative mixed methods evaluation
Abstract Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, United Kingdom (UK) stop smoking services had to shift to remote delivery models due to social distancing regulations, later reintroducing face-to-face provision. The “Living Well Smokefree” service in North Yorkshire County Council adopted a hybrid...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | BMC Public Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18235-0 |
| _version_ | 1797266551343153152 |
|---|---|
| author | Nicholas Woodrow Duncan Gillespie Liz Kitchin Mark O’Brien Scott Chapman Nai Rui Chng Andrew Passey Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino Zoe Clarke Elizabeth Goyder |
| author_facet | Nicholas Woodrow Duncan Gillespie Liz Kitchin Mark O’Brien Scott Chapman Nai Rui Chng Andrew Passey Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino Zoe Clarke Elizabeth Goyder |
| author_sort | Nicholas Woodrow |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, United Kingdom (UK) stop smoking services had to shift to remote delivery models due to social distancing regulations, later reintroducing face-to-face provision. The “Living Well Smokefree” service in North Yorkshire County Council adopted a hybrid model offering face-to-face, remote, or a mix of both. This evaluation aimed to assess the hybrid approach’s strengths and weaknesses and explore potential improvements. Methods Conducted from September 2022 to February 2023, the evaluation consisted of three components. First, qualitative interviews involved 11 staff and 16 service users, analysed thematically. Second, quantitative data from the QuitManager system that monitored the numbers and proportions of individuals selecting and successfully completing a 4-week quit via each service option. Third, face-to-face service expenses data was used to estimate the value for money of additional face-to-face provision. The qualitative findings were used to give context to the quantitative data via an “expansion” approach and complementary analysis. Results Overall, a hybrid model was seen to provide convenience and flexible options for support. In the evaluation, 733 individuals accessed the service, with 91.3% selecting remote support, 6.1% face-to-face, and 2.6% mixed provision. Remote support was valued by service users and staff for promoting openness, privacy, and reducing stigma, and was noted as removing access barriers and improving service availability. However, the absence of carbon monoxide monitoring in remote support raised accountability concerns. The trade-off in “quantity vs. quality” of quits was debated, as remote support reached more users but produced fewer carbon monoxide-validated quits. Primarily offering remote support could lead to substantial workloads, as staff often extend their roles to include social/mental health support, which was sometimes emotionally challenging. Offering service users a choice of support options was considered more important than the “cost-per-quit”. Improved dissemination of information to support service users in understanding their options for support was suggested. Conclusions The hybrid approach allows smoking cessation services to evaluate which groups benefit from remote, face-to-face, or mixed options and allocate resources accordingly. Providing choice, flexible provision, non-judgmental support, and clear information about available options could improve engagement and match support to individual needs, enhancing outcomes. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-25T01:02:29Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-26d805c20ec9439aa186625db05f9d8d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2458 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-25T01:02:29Z |
| publishDate | 2024-03-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Public Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-26d805c20ec9439aa186625db05f9d8d2024-03-10T12:23:36ZengBMCBMC Public Health1471-24582024-03-0124111110.1186/s12889-024-18235-0Reintroducing face-to-face support alongside remote support to form a hybrid stop smoking service in England: a formative mixed methods evaluationNicholas Woodrow0Duncan Gillespie1Liz Kitchin2Mark O’Brien3Scott Chapman4Nai Rui Chng5Andrew Passey6Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino7Zoe Clarke8Elizabeth Goyder9Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of SheffieldSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of SheffieldSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of SheffieldLiving Well Smokefree Service, North Yorkshire CouncilLiving Well Smokefree Service, North Yorkshire CouncilMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of GlasgowSchool of Health, Leeds Beckett UniversityPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle UniversitySheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of SheffieldSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of SheffieldAbstract Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, United Kingdom (UK) stop smoking services had to shift to remote delivery models due to social distancing regulations, later reintroducing face-to-face provision. The “Living Well Smokefree” service in North Yorkshire County Council adopted a hybrid model offering face-to-face, remote, or a mix of both. This evaluation aimed to assess the hybrid approach’s strengths and weaknesses and explore potential improvements. Methods Conducted from September 2022 to February 2023, the evaluation consisted of three components. First, qualitative interviews involved 11 staff and 16 service users, analysed thematically. Second, quantitative data from the QuitManager system that monitored the numbers and proportions of individuals selecting and successfully completing a 4-week quit via each service option. Third, face-to-face service expenses data was used to estimate the value for money of additional face-to-face provision. The qualitative findings were used to give context to the quantitative data via an “expansion” approach and complementary analysis. Results Overall, a hybrid model was seen to provide convenience and flexible options for support. In the evaluation, 733 individuals accessed the service, with 91.3% selecting remote support, 6.1% face-to-face, and 2.6% mixed provision. Remote support was valued by service users and staff for promoting openness, privacy, and reducing stigma, and was noted as removing access barriers and improving service availability. However, the absence of carbon monoxide monitoring in remote support raised accountability concerns. The trade-off in “quantity vs. quality” of quits was debated, as remote support reached more users but produced fewer carbon monoxide-validated quits. Primarily offering remote support could lead to substantial workloads, as staff often extend their roles to include social/mental health support, which was sometimes emotionally challenging. Offering service users a choice of support options was considered more important than the “cost-per-quit”. Improved dissemination of information to support service users in understanding their options for support was suggested. Conclusions The hybrid approach allows smoking cessation services to evaluate which groups benefit from remote, face-to-face, or mixed options and allocate resources accordingly. Providing choice, flexible provision, non-judgmental support, and clear information about available options could improve engagement and match support to individual needs, enhancing outcomes.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18235-0Smoking cessationHybridRemoteEquityService reorganisation |
| spellingShingle | Nicholas Woodrow Duncan Gillespie Liz Kitchin Mark O’Brien Scott Chapman Nai Rui Chng Andrew Passey Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino Zoe Clarke Elizabeth Goyder Reintroducing face-to-face support alongside remote support to form a hybrid stop smoking service in England: a formative mixed methods evaluation BMC Public Health Smoking cessation Hybrid Remote Equity Service reorganisation |
| title | Reintroducing face-to-face support alongside remote support to form a hybrid stop smoking service in England: a formative mixed methods evaluation |
| title_full | Reintroducing face-to-face support alongside remote support to form a hybrid stop smoking service in England: a formative mixed methods evaluation |
| title_fullStr | Reintroducing face-to-face support alongside remote support to form a hybrid stop smoking service in England: a formative mixed methods evaluation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reintroducing face-to-face support alongside remote support to form a hybrid stop smoking service in England: a formative mixed methods evaluation |
| title_short | Reintroducing face-to-face support alongside remote support to form a hybrid stop smoking service in England: a formative mixed methods evaluation |
| title_sort | reintroducing face to face support alongside remote support to form a hybrid stop smoking service in england a formative mixed methods evaluation |
| topic | Smoking cessation Hybrid Remote Equity Service reorganisation |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18235-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nicholaswoodrow reintroducingfacetofacesupportalongsideremotesupporttoformahybridstopsmokingserviceinenglandaformativemixedmethodsevaluation AT duncangillespie reintroducingfacetofacesupportalongsideremotesupporttoformahybridstopsmokingserviceinenglandaformativemixedmethodsevaluation AT lizkitchin reintroducingfacetofacesupportalongsideremotesupporttoformahybridstopsmokingserviceinenglandaformativemixedmethodsevaluation AT markobrien reintroducingfacetofacesupportalongsideremotesupporttoformahybridstopsmokingserviceinenglandaformativemixedmethodsevaluation AT scottchapman reintroducingfacetofacesupportalongsideremotesupporttoformahybridstopsmokingserviceinenglandaformativemixedmethodsevaluation AT nairuichng reintroducingfacetofacesupportalongsideremotesupporttoformahybridstopsmokingserviceinenglandaformativemixedmethodsevaluation AT andrewpassey reintroducingfacetofacesupportalongsideremotesupporttoformahybridstopsmokingserviceinenglandaformativemixedmethodsevaluation AT mariaraisajessicaaquino reintroducingfacetofacesupportalongsideremotesupporttoformahybridstopsmokingserviceinenglandaformativemixedmethodsevaluation AT zoeclarke reintroducingfacetofacesupportalongsideremotesupporttoformahybridstopsmokingserviceinenglandaformativemixedmethodsevaluation AT elizabethgoyder reintroducingfacetofacesupportalongsideremotesupporttoformahybridstopsmokingserviceinenglandaformativemixedmethodsevaluation |