Hospitalised Smokers’ and Staff Perspectives of Inpatient Smoking Cessation Interventions and Impact on Smokers’ Quality of Life: An Integrative Review of the Qualitative Literature

Abstract

Aim. To identify, integrate, and appraise the evidence on hospitalised smokers’ and staff perspectives of inpatient smoking cessation interventions and the impact on smokers’ quality of life. Design. The integrative review method was used to present hospitalised smokers’ and staff perspectives of inpatient smoking cessation interventions. Search Method. This integrative review consisted of a comprehensive search on smoking cessation interventions that take place during an inpatient admission to hospital for adults (> age 18 years) of the following online databases: Ovid Medline, Joanna Briggs Institute, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane, Google Scholar, PEDro, and Scopus. The search strategy was inclusive of peer-reviewed studies limited to the English language or translated to English. A search of grey literature and manual searching of reference lists was also conducted to identify further studies not identified in the online database search. All studies that produced any qualitative data (i.e., qualitative, mixed methods, and surveys) on inpatient-initiated smoking cessation programs were included. Outcomes of interest are included but were not limited to education, counselling, and the use of pharmacotherapy. Studies undertaken in the psychiatric, adolescent, and paediatric settings were excluded. Results. The key findings from this integrative review included positive evaluations from both patients and staff involved in inpatient smoking cessation interventions, reporting that hospitalisation was an appropriate opportunity to address smoking cessation. A number of facilitators and barriers to inpatient smoking cessation interventions included creating a supportive patient-centred environment and consideration of the cost of nicotine replacement therapy and time to deliver inpatient smoking cessation interventions. Recommendations/preferences for future inpatient smoking cessation interventions included the use of a program champion and ongoing education to demonstrate the effectiveness of the intervention, and despite the cost of nicotine replacement therapy being identified as a potential barrier, it was identified as a preference for most patients. Although quality of life was only evaluated in two studies, statistically significant improvements were identified in both. Conclusion. This qualitative integrative review provides further insight into both clinician and patient participants’ perspectives on inpatient smoking cessation interventions. Overall, they are seen to produce positive benefits, and staff training appears to be an effective means for service delivery. However, insufficient time and lack of resources or expertise appear to be consistent barriers to the delivery of these services, so they should be considered when planning the implementation of an inpatient smoking cessation intervention.