IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v61y2015i7p700-710.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Type of unit and population served matters when implementing a smoke-free policy in mental health settings: Perceptions of unit managers across England

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Zabeen
  • George Tsourtos
  • Jonathan Campion
  • Sharon Lawn

Abstract

Background: Globally, smoking remains a significant issue for mental health populations. Many mental health trusts in England are facing challenges of implementing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance according to which all mental health settings, no matter the type, should be entirely smoke-free and provide comprehensive smoking cessation support. Aim: The aim of this paper was to determine if unit type and unit manager smoking status influence mental health smoke-free policy implementation. Method: This paper reports on the secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey of 147 mental health inpatient settings in England, in 2010. The original study’s main aim was to understand unit managers’ perceived reasons for success or failure of smoke-free policy. Results: Unit managers ( n  = 131) held a positive stance towards supporting smoke-free policy and most perceived that the policy was successful. Non-smoker unit managers were more likely to adopt complete bans than smoker unit managers, whereas smoker unit managers were more likely than non-smoker unit managers to think that stopping smoking aggravated patients’ mental illness. Smoking rates for staff and patients remain high, as perceived by unit managers, regardless of unit type. Proportion of units offering nicotine replacement therapy and peer support to patients was significantly higher in locked units compared to semi-locked or residential rehabilitation. Applied strategies significantly vary by type of unit, whereas unit managers’ knowledge, attitude and practices vary by their smoking status. Discussion: There are nuanced differences in how smoke-free policy is enacted which vary by unit type. These variations recognise the differing contexts of care provision in different types of units serving different patient groups. Addressing staff smoking rates, promoting consistency of staff response to patients’ smoking and providing staff education and support continue to be key strategies to successful smoke-free policy. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the importance of taking into account the type of unit and acuity of patients when enacting smoke-free policy and addressing staff smoking.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Zabeen & George Tsourtos & Jonathan Campion & Sharon Lawn, 2015. "Type of unit and population served matters when implementing a smoke-free policy in mental health settings: Perceptions of unit managers across England," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 61(7), pages 700-710, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:61:y:2015:i:7:p:700-710
    DOI: 10.1177/0020764015575799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020764015575799
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0020764015575799?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sharon J. Lawn, 2004. "Systemic Barriers to Quitting Smoking among Institutionalised Public Mental Health Service Populations: A Comparison of Two Australian Sites," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 50(3), pages 204-215, September.
    2. repec:cdl:ctcres:qt5t06910t is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sharon Lawn & Jonathan Campion, 2013. "Achieving Smoke-Free Mental Health Services: Lessons from the Past Decade of Implementation Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Sharon Lawn & Yi Feng & George Tsourtos & Jonathan Campion, 2015. "Mental health professionals’ perspectives on the implementation of smoke-free policies in psychiatric units across England," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 61(5), pages 465-474, August.
    3. Harpreet Sohal & Lisa Huddlestone & Elena Ratschen, 2016. "Preparing for Completely Smoke-Free Mental Health Settings: Findings on Patient Smoking, Resources Spent Facilitating Smoking Breaks, and the Role of Smoking in Reported Incidents from a Large Mental ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Elena Ratschen & John Britton & Gillian Doody & Ann Mcneill, 2010. "Smoking Attitudes, Behaviour and Nicotine Dependence Among Mental Health Acute Inpatients: an Exploratory Study," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 56(2), pages 107-118, March.
    5. Sharon Lawn & Joseph Van Agteren & Sara Zabeen & Sue Bertossa & Christopher Barton & James Stewart, 2018. "Adapting, Pilot Testing and Evaluating the Kick.it App to Support Smoking Cessation for Smokers with Severe Mental Illness: A Study Protocol," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-14, February.
    6. Ineke Keizer & Virginie Descloux & Ariel Eytan, 2009. "Variations in Smoking After Admission To Psychiatric Inpatient Units and Impact of a Partial Smoking Ban On Smoking and On Smoking-Related Perceptions," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 55(2), pages 109-123, March.
    7. Sharon Lawn & Teri Lucas, 2016. "Addressing Smoking in Supported Residential Facilities for People with Severe Mental Illness: Has Any Progress Been Achieved?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:61:y:2015:i:7:p:700-710. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.