Attitudes And Exposure To Illicit Tobacco In England, 2022.

INTRODUCTION: The UK has achieved reductions in illicit tobacco (IT) market size and share. However, there remains a 17.7% tobacco duty gap, contributing to health inequalities. In January 2024, the UK government announced a new strategy to control IT, along with provision of new funding. METHODS: A representative cross-sectional survey of adults in England ran in April 2022 to evaluate attitudes and exposure to IT. Tobacco smokers were asked questions about encounters with IT, while all participants answered questions on knowledge and perspectives on IT. RESULTS: Of 262 tobacco smokers, 18.3% (95% CI 13.8% - 23.6%) had come across IT in the past year. Men had four times the odds of encountering IT recently than women. Among 1,767 adults responding to questions on IT, two-thirds agreed IT harmed children, and more than half agreed IT was linked to organised crime. Younger adults, smokers and those in lower socio-economic groups were less likely to agree IT was harmful. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to IT, especially among younger males, remains a concern. While most of the public acknowledge its harm, this is not universal, and some population groups are less likely to do so. IMPLICATIONS: The study highlights persistent exposure to illicit tobacco in England, especially among younger males, and varying perceptions of illicit tobacco harm across socio-economic groups. Tackling illicit tobacco requires collaboration between health and enforcement agencies, independent of the tobacco industry's influence. Strategies should include components that shift demand for illicit tobacco and denormalise its presence in communities, particularly in lower socio-economic areas with higher smoking prevalence.

A Qualitative Study of the Implementation and Continued Delivery of Complete and Partial Smoke-Free Policies Across England's Prison Estate.

INTRODUCTION: In the United Kingdom, smoking among prisoners is up to five times more prevalent than the national average. Between 2015 and 2018, HMPPS introduced a complete smoke-free policy in all closed prisons, and a partial policy permitting smoking only in smoking shelters in open prisons. AIMS AND METHODS: This study aimed to explore the views of stakeholders regarding the implementation and continuation of smoke-free policies, including the management of nicotine addiction during imprisonment and after release. Individuals with key strategic and/or operational roles in delivering smoke-free prison policies across England were purposively sampled to complete a semi-structured interview. Twenty-eight interviews were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: The smoke-free implementation across the closed prison estate was viewed as a success, though there were reports of reduced availability of smoking cessation support since the roll out. Participants thought the majority of tobacco smokers living in closed prison environments were now using an electronic cigarette, typically as a temporary means to manage nicotine addiction until release. In open prisons the partial policy has been less successful; high rates of smoking resumption on moving from closed to open conditions were reported, with many participants arguing that the open estate should also go completely smoke free. It was envisaged that most prisoners would resume smoking on community release. CONCLUSIONS: The smoke-free policies provide a unique opportunity to promote lifelong cessation in this highly disadvantaged group. However more could be done to adopt a consistent smoke-free policy across all prisons, and to support prisoners in quitting smoking and nicotine use during and after imprisonment. IMPLICATIONS: Our results identify the urgent need for more work to explore rates and reasons for relapse to smoking on transfer to the open estate and after release. With the majority of smokers in the closed prison estate now using e-cigarettes to manage their nicotine addiction, one way to support long-term tobacco abstinence could be to place greater emphasis on this switching behavior as a way of reducing tobacco-related harm within this population.

Management of Fracture Risk in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Building a UK Consensus Through Healthcare Professional and Patient Engagement.

Introduction: Osteoporosis and bone fractures are common in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality. Current national guidance on COPD management recommends addressing bone health in patients, however, does not detail how. This consensus outlines key elements of a structured approach to managing bone health and fracture risk in patients with COPD. Methods: A systematic approach incorporating multifaceted methodologies included detailed patient and healthcare professional (HCP) surveys followed by a roundtable meeting to reach a consensus on what a pathway would look like. Results: The surveys revealed that fracture risk was not always assessed despite being recognised as an important aspect of COPD management by HCPs. The majority of the patients also stated they would be receptive to discussing treatment options if found to be at risk of osteoporotic fractures. Limited time and resource allocation were identified as barriers to addressing bone health during consultations. The consensus from the roundtable meeting was that a proactive systematic approach to assessing bone health should be adopted. This should involve using fracture risk assessment tools to identify individuals at risk, investigating secondary causes of osteoporosis if a diagnosis is made and reinforcing non-pharmacological and preventative measures such as smoking cessation, keeping active and pharmacological management of osteoporosis and medicines management of corticosteroid use. Practically, prioritising patients with important additional risk factors, such as previous fragility fractures, older age and long-term oral corticosteroid use for an assessment, was felt required. Conclusion: There is a need for integrating fracture risk assessment into the COPD pathway. Developing a systematic and holistic approach to addressing bone health is key to achieving this. In tandem, opportunities to disseminate the information and educational resources are also required.

Smoke-free prisons in England: indoor air quality before and after implementation of a comprehensive smoke-free policy.

OBJECTIVES: High levels of particulate pollution due to secondhand smoke (SHS) have previously been recorded in English prisons. As part of an evaluation to ascertain whether a new comprehensive smoke-free policy introduced in the first four prisons in England was successfully implemented, this study compares indoor air quality on prison wing landing locations three months before and three months after going smoke-free. DESIGN: An indoor air quality monitoring study, comparing SHS levels before and after a comprehensive smoke-free prison policy. SETTING: The first four prisons in England to implement a comprehensive smoke-free policy. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MEASURES: We compared concentrations of airborne particulate matter <2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), as a marker for SHS, on wing landing locations three months before and three months after the smoke-free policy was implemented. Static battery operated aerosol monitors were used to sample concentrations of PM2.5 on wing landings. RESULTS: After discarding data from monitors that had been tampered with we were able to analyse paired data across four prisons from 74 locations, across 29 wing landing locations, for an average sampling time of five hours and eight minutes. When comparing samples taken three months before with the paired samples taken three months after policy implementation (paired for prison, day of the week, time of day, wing location and position of monitor), there was a 66% reduction in mean PM2.5 concentrations across the four prisons sampled, from 39 to 13 µg/m³ (difference 26 µg/m³, 95% CI 25 to 26 µg/m³). CONCLUSION: Prison smoke-free policies achieve significant improvements in indoor air quality. A national smoke-free policy would therefore be an effective means of protecting prisoners and staff from harm due to SHS exposure in the prison environment.

SmokeHaz: Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of the Effects of Smoking on Respiratory Health.

BACKGROUND: Smoking tobacco increases the risk of respiratory disease in adults and children, but communicating the magnitude of these effects in a scientific manner that is accessible and usable by the public and policymakers presents a challenge. We have therefore summarized scientific data on the impact of smoking on respiratory diseases to provide the content for a unique resource, SmokeHaz. METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses of longitudinal studies (published to 2013) identified from electronic databases, gray literature, and experts. Random effect meta-analyses were used to pool the findings. RESULTS: We included 216 articles. Among adult smokers, we confirmed substantially increased risks of lung cancer (risk ratio (RR), 10.92; 95% CI, 8.28-14.40; 34 studies), COPD (RR, 4.01; 95% CI, 3.18-5.05; 22 studies), and asthma (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.07-2.42; eight studies). Exposure to passive smoke significantly increased the risk of lung cancer in adult nonsmokers and increased the risks of asthma, wheeze, lower respiratory infections, and reduced lung function in children. Smoking significantly increased the risk of sleep apnea and asthma exacerbations in adult and pregnant populations, and active and passive smoking increased the risk of tuberculosis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have been translated into easily digestible content and published on the SmokeHaz website.

Second-hand smoke in four English prisons: an air quality monitoring study.

BACKGROUND: To measure levels of indoor pollution in relation to smoking in four English prisons. METHODS: TSI SidePak AM510 Personal Aerosol Monitors were used to measure concentrations of particulate matter less than 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5) for periods of up to 9 h in selected smoking and non-smoking areas, and personal exposure monitoring of prison staff during a work shift, in four prisons. RESULTS: PM2.5 data were collected for average periods of 6.5 h from 48 locations on 25 wing landings where smoking was permitted in cells, on 5 non-smoking wings, 13 prisoner cells, and personal monitoring of 22 staff members. Arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations were significantly higher on smoking than non-smoking wing landings (43.9 µg/m(3) and 5.9 µg/m(3) respectively, p < 0.001) and in smoking than non-smoking cells (226.2 µg/m(3) and 17.0 µg/m(3) respectively, p < 0.001). Staff members wore monitors for an average of 4.18 h, during which they were exposed to arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentration of 23.5 µg/m(3). CONCLUSIONS: The concentration of PM2.5 pollution in smoking areas of prisons are extremely high. Smoking in prisons therefore represents a significant health hazard to prisoners and staff members.

Patients' and healthcare professionals' views on a specialist smoking cessation service delivered in a United Kingdom hospital: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Hospital admission provides a powerful opportunity to promote smoking cessation. We explored patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCP) views of a specialist smoking cessation service comprising systematic smoking ascertainment, default provision of pharmacotherapy and behavioural counselling at the bedside, and post-discharge follow-up, in a clinical trial in a United Kingdom teaching hospital. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 30 patients who were offered the intervention, and 27 HCPs working on intervention wards, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The shock of being admitted, and awareness that smoking may have contributed to the need for hospital admission, caused many patients to reassess their quit intentions. Most patients felt the service was too good an opportunity to pass up, because having long-term support and progress monitored was more likely to result in abstinence than trying alone. Had they not been approached, many patients reported that they would have attempted to quit alone, though some would have been discouraged from doing so by pharmacotherapy costs. Service delivery by a specialist advisor was favoured by patients and HCPs, largely because HCPs lacked time and expertise to intervene. HCPs reported that in usual practice, discussions about smoking were usually limited to ascertainment of smoking status. Timing of service delivery and improved co-ordination between service staff and inpatient ward staff were matters to address. CONCLUSIONS: A hospital-based specialist smoking cessation service designed to identify smokers and initiate cessation support at the bedside was deemed appropriate by patients and HCPs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: ISRCTN25441641.