Background: Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) provides a framework to understand how interventions are implemented, embedded, and integrated in healthcare settings. Previous reviews of published literature have examined the application of NPT across international healthcare and reports its benefits. However, given the distinctive clinical function, organisational arrangements and the increasing management of people with a wide variety of conditions in primary care settings in the United Kingdom, it is important to understand how and why authors utilise and reflect on NPT in such settings to inform and evaluate implementation processes. Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature using NPT in primary care settings in the United Kingdom (UK) was conducted. Eight electronic databases were searched using replicable methods to identify articles published between January 2012 and April 2018. Data were analysed using a framework approach. Results: Thirty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Researchers utilised NPT to explore the implementation of interventions, targeting a wide range of health services and conditions, within primary care settings in the UK. NPT was mostly applied qualitatively; however, a small number of researchers have moved towards mixed and quantitative methods. Some variation was observed in the use of NPT constructs and sub-constructs, and whether and how researchers undertook modification to make them more relevant to the implementation process and multiple stakeholder perspectives. Conclusion: NPT provides a flexible framework for the development and evaluation of complex healthcare interventions in UK primary care settings. This review updates the literature on NPT use and indicates that its application is well suited to these environments, particularly in supporting patients with long-term conditions and co-morbidities. We recommend future research explores the receipt of interventions by multiple stakeholders and suggest that authors reflect on justifications for using NPT in their reporting.

Background and Aims: Admission to a smoke‐free setting presents a unique opportunity to encourage smokers to quit. However, risk of relapse post‐discharge is high, and little is known about effective strategies to support smoking cessation following discharge. We aimed to identify interventions that maintain abstinence following a smoke‐free stay and determine their effectiveness, as well as the probable effectiveness of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in these interventions. Methods: Systematic review and meta‐analyses of studies of adult smokers aged ≥ 18 years who were temporarily or fully abstinent from smoking to comply with institutional smoke‐free policies. Institutions included prison, inpatient mental health, substance misuse or acute hospital settings. A Mantel–Haenszel random‐effects meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using biochemically verified abstinence (7‐day point prevalence or continuous abstinence). BCTs were defined as ‘promising’ in terms of probable effectiveness (if BCT was present in two or more long‐term effective interventions) and feasibility (if BCT was also delivered in ≥ 25% of all interventions). Results: Thirty‐seven studies (intervention n = 9041, control n = 6195) were included: 23 RCTs (intervention n = 6593, control n = 5801); three non‐randomized trials (intervention n = 845, control n = 394) and 11 cohort studies ( n = 1603). Meta‐analysis of biochemically verified abstinence at longest follow‐up (4 weeks–18 months) found an overall effect in favour of intervention [risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08–1.49, I ² = 42%]. Nine BCTs (including ‘pharmacological support’, ‘goal‐setting (behaviour)’ and ‘social support’) were characterized as ‘promising’ in terms of probable effectiveness and feasibility. Conclusions: A systematic review and meta‐analyses indicate that behavioural and pharmacological support is effective in maintaining smoking abstinence following a stay in a smoke‐free institution. Several behaviour change techniques may help to maintain smoking abstinence up to 18 months post‐discharge.

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.

Introduction: Despite high smoking prevalence and excessive smoking-related morbidity and mortality among people with mental disorder compared to the general population, smoking treatment is often neglected in mental health settings. The UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recently issued public health guidance stipulating completely smoke-free mental health settings. This project evaluated existing smoking-related practices in preparation for guidance implementation. The objectives were to: audit the recording of smoking-related information and treatment provision; explore current arrangements relating to the facilitation of patient smoking; measure staff time spent and identify costs of facilitating smoking; and explore the role of smoking in smoking-related incidents. Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted across four acute adult mental health wards, accommodating 16 patients each, over six months. It included a case-note audit, on-site observations, and a qualitative content analysis of incident reports. Results: Smoking status was recorded for less than half of the 290 patients admitted (138, 48%). Of those, 98 (71%) were recorded as current smokers, of whom 72 (74%) had received brief smoking cessation advice. Staff spent 6028 h facilitating smoking, representing an annual cost of £131,040 across four wards. Incident reports demonstrated that smoking facilitation was often central to the cause of incidences, triggered frustration in patients, and strained staff resources. Conclusion: The findings highlight the importance and potential of implementing completely smoke-free policies using comprehensive pathways.

The benefits of smoking cessation among older people are well documented. Despite this, evidence suggests that older smokers are rarely engaged in smoking cessation efforts, and that existing tobacco dependence treatments require further tailoring to the specific needs of older smokers. This study assesses the knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practice of primary care clinicians in relation to addressing tobacco dependence among older people. A cross-sectional survey of 427 NHS primary care clinicians in a large English city was conducted using modified version of a previously validated questionnaire. One hundred and seventy one clinicians (40 % response rate) completed the survey. While the majority (90.0 %) of respondents reported enquiring regularly about older patients’ smoking status, just over half (59.1 %) reported providing older patients with smoking cessation support. A lack of awareness in relation to the prevalence and impact of smoking in later life were apparent: e.g. only 47 % of respondents were aware of that approximately 10 life years are lost due to smoking related disease, and only 59 % knew that smoking can reduce the effectiveness of medication prescribed for conditions common in later life. Self-reported attendance at smoking-related training was significantly associated with proactive clinical practice. There is a need to improve clinicians’ knowledge, in relation to smoking and smoking cessation in older patients and to build clinician confidence in seizing teachable moments.

Background: Approximately 425 million people globally have diabetes, with ~ 90% of these having Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). This is a condition that leads to a poor quality of life and increased risk of serious health complications. Structured self-management education (SSME) has been shown to be effective in improving glycaemic control and patient related outcome measures and to be cost-effective. However, despite the demonstrated benefits, attendance at SSME remains low. An intervention has been developed to embed SSME called the ‘Embedding Package’. The intervention aims to address barriers and enhance enablers to uptake of SSME at patient, healthcare professional and organisational levels. It comprises a marketing strategy, user friendly and effective referral pathways, new roles to champion SSME and a toolkit of resources. Methods: A mixed methods study incorporating a wait-list cluster randomised trial and ethnographic study, including 66 UK general practices, will be conducted with two intervention start times (at 0 and 9 months), each followed by an active delivery phase. At 18 months, the intervention will cease to be actively delivered and a 12 month observational follow-up phase will begin. The intervention, the Embedding Package, aims to increase SSME uptake and subsequent improvements in health outcomes, through a clear marketing strategy, user friendly and effective referral pathways, a local clinical champion and an ‘Embedder’ and a toolkit of resources for patients, healthcare professionals and other key stakeholders. The primary aim is, through increasing uptake to and attendance at SSME, to reduce HbA1c in people with T2DM compared with usual care. Secondary objectives include: assessing whether there is an increase in referral to and uptake of SSME and improvements in biomedical and psychosocial outcomes; an assessment of the sustainability of the Embedding Package; contextualising the process of implementation, sustainability of change and the ‘fit’ of the Embedding Package; and an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the Embedding Package. Discussion: This study will assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and sustainability of the Embedding Package, an intervention which aims to improve biomedical and psychosocial outcomes of people with T2DM, through increased referral to and uptake of SSME. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN23474120. Assigned 05/04/2018. The study was prospectively registered. On submission of this manuscript practice recruitment is complete, participant recruitment is ongoing and expected to be completed by the end of 2019.