Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Aug 10;22(1):1528.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13957-5.

A process evaluation of 'We Can Quit': a community-based smoking cessation intervention targeting women from areas of socio-disadvantage in Ireland

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A process evaluation of 'We Can Quit': a community-based smoking cessation intervention targeting women from areas of socio-disadvantage in Ireland

Catherine D Darker et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Smoking poses a serious risk of early preventable death and disease especially for women living with socio-economic disadvantage (SED). A smoking cessation programme, 'We Can Quit', was developed in Ireland tailored to SED women. This includes group-based support delivered by trained lay local community facilitators (CFs) and free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The intervention was pilot tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial, 'We Can Quit 2'. This paper reports on the WCQ2 process evaluation which assessed feasibility and acceptability of the programme and trial processes.

Methods: Embedded qualitative design using the UK Medical Research Council's process evaluation framework. Semi-structured interviews with trial participants (N = 21) and CFs (N = 8). Thematic analysis was utilised.

Results: Peer-modelling, a non-judgemental environment, CFs facilitation of group support were viewed as acceptable programme related factors. Some participants expressed concerns about NRT side effects. Provision of free NRT was welcomed and accepted by participants, although structural barriers made access challenging. Pharmacists took on a role that became larger than originally envisaged - and the majority provided additional support to women in their quit attempts between group meetings which augmented and supplemented the intervention sessions provided by the CFs. Participants reported good acceptance of repeated measures for data collection, but mixed acceptability of provision of saliva samples. Low literacy affected the feasibility of some women to fully engage with programme and trial-related materials. This was despite efforts made by intervention developers and the trial team to make materials (e.g., participant intervention booklet; consent forms and participant information leaflets) accessible while also meeting requirements under 2018 European General Data Protection Regulation legislation. Hypothetical scenarios of direct (e.g., researcher present during programme delivery) and indirect (e.g., audio recordings of programme sessions) observational fidelity assessments for a future definitive trial (DT) were acceptable.

Conclusions: Intervention and trial-related processes were generally feasible and acceptable to participants and CFs. Any future DT will need to take further steps to mitigate structural barriers to accessing free NRT; and the established problem of low literacy and low educational attainment in SED areas, while continuing to comply within the contemporary legislative research environment.

Trial registration: WCQ2 pilot trial ( ISRCTN74721694 ).

Keywords: Behavioural intervention; Deprivation; NRT; Process evaluation; Qualitative; Smoking cessation; Trials; Women.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CBH reports grants from HRB and Enterprise Ireland during the conduct of the study. CD reports grants from HRB during the conduct of the study. All the remaining authors do not have any competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Coding frame for the qualitative results, categorised into (a) ‘Programme level’ and (b) ‘Trial level’ results following the UK MRC process evaluation framework

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. World Health Organization. European Tobacco Use. Trends Report 2019 [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2019 [cited 2021 Mar 24]. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/402777/Tobacco-Tren...
    1. Gallaway MS, Henley SJ, Steele CB, Momin B, Thomas CC, Jamal A, et al. Surveillance for Cancers Associated with Tobacco Use - United States, 2010–2014. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018;67(12):1–42. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6712a1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Islami F, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global trends of lung cancer mortality and smoking prevalence. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2015;4(4):327–338. - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization. Guidelines for implementation of Article 14. Guidelines on demand reduction measures concerning tobacco dependence and cessation. [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2010 [cited 2021 Mar 24]. (WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control). Available from: https://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/adopted/article_14/en/
    1. Walsh PM, McDevitt J, Deady S, O’Brien K, Comber H. Cancer inequalities in Ireland by deprivation, urban/rural status and age: a report by the National Cancer Registry. [Internet]. Cork, Ireland: National Cancer Registry; 2016 [cited 2021 Mar 24]. Available from: https://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/pubs/cancer-inequality-report-summa...

Publication types