Supporting and enabling health research in a local authority (SERLA): an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: The use of research evidence to underpin public health practice and policy decisions in local government is strongly promoted but its implementation has not been straightforward. This study aimed to explore the factors, relationships and processes that contribute towards accessing, using, and generating research evidence that is relevant to local authority public health and social care and shapes its practice. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews with elected councillors, officers directly involved with public health and social care and with community members from one urban unitary authority in South England were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fourteen participants took part in the semi-structured interviews. Local knowledge and evidence are prioritised, and anecdotal evidence is valued. The Director of Public Health was the principal source of information and support. Academics were rarely mentioned as information sources, and their involvement was ad hoc. The use of research evidence varied between individuals and departments, with wider engagement among public health specialists. Key barriers to the use of research evidence included access (not reported among public health professionals), research timeliness, local applicability, competence in finding and interpreting evidence and the role of research evidence within a political context. Public health and adult social care teams are not currently research active or research ready. Major barriers exist due to financial constraints and the socio-political context of local authorities. COVID-19 disrupted siloed ways of working, strengthening and opening potential collaborations within the local authority. This changed perspectives about the value of research but is likely time-limited unless underpinned by sustainable funding. CONCLUSION: Creating strategic level roles within local government to work with the Director of Public Health to champion the research agenda and embedding researchers within and across teams would build capacity for local authorities to sustainably co-create, undertake, and use evidence to better inform future actions.

No Ifs, No Butts: Compliance with Smoking Cessation in Secondary Care Guidance (NICE PH48) by Providers of Cancer Therapies (Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy) in the UK.

Background: Legislation preventing smoking in public places was introduced in England in July 2007. Since then, smoke-free policies have been extended to the majority of hospitals including those providing cancer therapies. Whilst studies have been conducted on the impact and effectiveness of hospital smoke-free policy in the UK and other countries, there have not been any studies with a focus on cancer care providers. Cancer patients are a priority group for smoking cessation and support and this study aimed to examine implementation of the National Institute Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance (PH48) in acute cancer care trusts in the UK. Methods: Participants were recruited from UK radiotherapy and chemotherapy departments (total 80 sites, 65 organisations) and asked to complete a 15 min online questionnaire exploring the implementation of NICE guidance at their hospital site. Results: Considerable variability in implementation of the NICE guidance was observed. A total of 79.1% trusts were smoke-free in theory; however, only 18.6% were described as smoke-free in practice. Areas of improvement were identified in information and support for patients and staff including in Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) provision, staff training and clarity on e-cigarette policies. Conclusions: While some trusts have effective smoke-free policies and provide valuable cessation support services for patients, improvements are required to ensure that all sites fully adopt the NICE guidance.

Effect of a sport-for-health intervention (SmokeFree Sports) on smoking-related intentions and cognitions among 9-10 year old primary school children: a controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preventing children from smoking is a public health priority. This study evaluated the effects of a sport-for-health smoking prevention programme (SmokeFree Sports) on smoking-related intentions and cognitions among primary school children from deprived communities. METHODS: A non-randomised-controlled trial targeted 9-10 year old children from Merseyside, North-West England. 32 primary schools received a programme of sport-for-health activities over 7 months; 11 comparison schools followed usual routines. Data were collected pre-intervention (T0), and at 8 months (T1) and one year post-intervention (T2). Smoking-related intentions and cognitions were assessed using an online questionnaire. Intervention effects were analysed using multi-level modelling (school, student), adjusted for baseline values and potential confounders. Mixed-sex focus groups (n = 18) were conducted at T1. RESULTS: 961 children completed all assessments and were included in the final analyses. There were no significant differences between the two study groups for non-smoking intentions (T1: ß = 0.02, 95 % CI = -0.08-0.12; T2: ß = 0.08, 95 % CI = -0.02-0.17) or for cigarette refusal self-efficacy (T1: ß = 0.28, 95 % CI = -0.11-0.67; T2: ß = 0.23, 95 % CI = -0.07-0.52). At T1 there was a positive intervention effect for cigarette refusal self-efficacy in girls (ß = 0.72, 95 % CI = 0.21-1.23). Intervention participants were more likely to 'definitely' believe that: 'it is not safe to smoke for a year or two as long as you quit after that' (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI = 1.07-1.33), 'it is difficult to quit smoking once started' (RR = 1.56, 95 % CI = 1.38-1.76), 'smoke from other peoples' cigarettes is harmful' (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI = 1.20-2.08), 'smoking affects sports performance' (RR = 1.73, 95 % CI = 1.59-1.88) and 'smoking makes 'no difference' to weight' (RR = 2.13, 95 % CI = 1.86-2.44). At T2, significant between-group differences remained just for 'smoking affects sports performance' (RR = 1.57, 95 % CI = 1.43-1.72). Focus groups showed that SFS made children determined to remain smoke free and that the interactive activities aided children's understanding of smoking harms. CONCLUSION: SFS demonstrated short-term positive effects on smoking attitudes among children, and cigarette refusal self-efficacy among girls. Although no effects were observed for non-smoking intentions, children said that SFS made them more determined not to smoke. Most children had strong intentions not to smoke; therefore, smoking prevention programmes should perhaps target early adolescents, who are closer to the age of smoking onset.

Influence of family and friend smoking on intentions to smoke and smoking-related attitudes and refusal self-efficacy among 9-10 year old children from deprived neighbourhoods: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Smoking often starts in early adolescence and addiction can occur rapidly. For effective smoking prevention there is a need to identify at risk groups of preadolescent children and whether gender-specific intervention components are necessary. This study aimed to examine associations between mother, father, sibling and friend smoking and cognitive vulnerability to smoking among preadolescent children living in deprived neighbourhoods. METHODS: Cross-sectional data was collected from 9-10 year old children (n =1143; 50.7% girls; 85.6% White British) from 43 primary schools in Merseyside, England. Children completed a questionnaire that assessed their smoking-related behaviour, intentions, attitudes, and refusal self-efficacy, as well as parent, sibling and friend smoking. Data for boys and girls were analysed separately using multilevel linear and logistic regression models, adjusting for individual cognitions and school and deprivation level. RESULTS: Compared to girls, boys had lower non-smoking intentions (P = 0.02), refusal self-efficacy (P = 0.04) and were less likely to agree that smoking is 'definitely' bad for health (P < 0.01). Friend smoking was negatively associated with non-smoking intentions in girls (P < 0.01) and boys (P < 0.01), and with refusal self-efficacy in girls (P < 0.01). Sibling smoking was negatively associated with non-smoking intentions in girls (P < 0.01) but a positive association was found in boys (P = 0.02). Boys who had a smoking friend were less likely to 'definitely' believe that the smoke from other people's cigarettes is harmful (OR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.91, P = 0.02). Further, boys with a smoking friend (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.69, P < 0.01) or a smoking sibling (OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.98) were less likely to 'definitely' believe that smoking is bad for health. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that sibling and friend smoking may represent important influences on 9-10 year old children's cognitive vulnerability toward smoking. Whilst some differential findings by gender were observed, these may not be sufficient to warrant separate prevention interventions. However, further research is needed.

Process evaluation of a sport-for-health intervention to prevent smoking amongst primary school children: SmokeFree Sports.

BACKGROUND: SmokeFree Sports (SFS) was a multi-component sport-for-health intervention aiming at preventing smoking among nine to ten year old primary school children from North West England. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the process and implementation of SFS, examining intervention reach, dose, fidelity, acceptability and sustainability, in order to understand the feasibility and challenges of delivering such interventions and inform interpretations of intervention effectiveness. METHODS: Process measures included: booking logs, 18 focus groups with children (n = 95), semi-structured interviews with teachers (n = 20) and SFS coaches (n = 7), intervention evaluation questionnaires (completed by children, n = 1097; teachers, n = 50), as well direct observations (by researchers, n = 50 observations) and self-evaluations (completed by teachers, n = 125) of intervention delivery (e.g. length of sessions, implementation of activities as intended, children's engagement and barriers). Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were applied to quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, SFS reached 30.8% of eligible schools, with 1073 children participating in the intervention (across 32 schools). Thirty-one schools completed the intervention in full. Thirty-three teachers (55% female) and 11 SFS coaches (82% male) attended a bespoke SFS training workshop. Disparities in intervention duration (range = 126 to 201 days), uptake (only 25% of classes received optional intervention components in full), and the extent to which core (mean fidelity score of coaching sessions = 58%) and optional components (no adaptions made = 51% of sessions) were delivered as intended, were apparent. Barriers to intervention delivery included the school setting and children's behaviour and knowledge. SFS was viewed positively (85% and 82% of children and teachers, respectively, rated SFS five out of five) and recommendations to increase school engagement were provided. CONCLUSION: SFS was considered acceptable to children, teachers and coaches. Nevertheless, efforts to enhance intervention reach (at the school level), teachers' engagement and sustainability must be considered. Variations in dose and fidelity likely reflect challenges associated with complex intervention delivery within school settings and thus a flexible design may be necessary. This study adds to the limited scientific evidence base surrounding sport-for-health interventions and their implementation, and suggests that such interventions offer a promising tool for engaging children in activities which promote their health.