↓ Skip to main content

Complete smokefree policies in mental health inpatient settings: results from a mixed-methods evaluation before and after implementing national guidance

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Complete smokefree policies in mental health inpatient settings: results from a mixed-methods evaluation before and after implementing national guidance
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3320-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Huddlestone, Harpreet Sohal, Claire Paul, Elena Ratschen

Abstract

Tobacco smoking is extremely prevalent in people with severe mental illness (SMI) and has been recognised as the main contributor to widening health inequalities in this population. Historically, smoking has been deeply entrenched in the culture of mental health settings in the UK, and until recently, smokefree policies tended to be only partially implemented. However, recent national guidance and the government's tobacco control plan now call for the implementation of complete smokefree policies. Many mental health Trusts across the UK are currently in the process of implementing the new guidance, but little is known about the impact of and experience with policy implementation. This paper reports findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of policy implementation across 12 wards in a large mental health Trust in England. Quantitative data were collected and compared before and after implementation of NICE guidance PH48 and referred to 1) identification and treatment of tobacco dependence, 2) smoking-related incident reporting, and 3) prescribing of psychotropic medication. A qualitative exploration of the experience of inpatients was also carried out. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed, and the feasibility of collecting relevant and complete data for each quantitative component was assessed. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Following implementation of the complete smokefree policy, increases in the numbers of patients offered smoking cessation advice (72% compared to 38%) were identified. While incident reports demonstrated a decrease in challenging behaviour during the post-PH48 period (6% compared to 23%), incidents relating to the concealment of smoking materials increased (10% compared to 2%). Patients reported encouraging changes in smoking behaviour and motivation to maintain change after discharge. However, implementation issues challenging full policy implementation, including covert facilitation of smoking by staff, were reported, and difficulties in collecting relevant and complete data for comprehensive evaluation purposes identified. Overall, the implementation of complete smokefree policies in mental health settings may currently be undermined by partial support. Strategies to enhance support and the establishment of suitable data collection pathways to monitor progress are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 19%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Psychology 7 12%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 21 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,900,491
of 19,459,575 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,877
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,850
of 290,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,459,575 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them