Empowering patients with diabetes: a qualitative primary care study focusing on South Asians in Leicester, UK.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore the experience and attitudes of primary care patients with diabetes living in a UK community with a high proportion of South Asian patients of Indian origin, with particular reference to patient empowerment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients with diabetes attending two general practices in Leicester, UK. Patients were interviewed in English, Gujarati or Punjabi and interviews were transcribed with translation into English where necessary. Broad themes were identified and Framework charting was used to organise data for analysis. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 15 South Asian and 5 white patients. We identified both similar and culturally specific elements within the experience, attitudes and barriers in the two ethnic groups. High regard for education, particularly in South Asians, was associated with a positive attitude to empowerment through knowledge, but also sometimes led to low motivation to become partners in diabetes management. High prevalence of diabetes and strong family networks meant that families were an important source of knowledge for South Asians and that these patients generally had good emotional support. Practical considerations such as the need for a convenient venue for educational initiatives were common to both ethnic groups, but some cultural preferences were also identified, for example for appropriate language provision and separate gender sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Educational initiatives aimed at promoting self-management in chronic diseases such as diabetes need to be designed with an awareness of the complexity of social and cultural experiences and attitudes in target communities.

Implementing a national treatment service for dependent smokers: initial challenges and solutions.

BACKGROUND: Before 1999, few treatment services for nicotine-addicted smokers existed in England. When national treatment services were introduced, those responsible for setting them up liaised closely with primary care health services. Setting up an entirely new national service, treating a new category of patient (smokers motivated to stop) was an ambitious aim and this paper documents the problems encountered in the early stages of this process. OBJECTIVES: To describe the principal challenges encountered and solutions employed by those setting up the services during the initial period of smoking cessation service implementation. METHODS: Qualitative, semistructured interviews with 50 smoking cessation staff in two former English health regions conducted in autumn 2001. FINDINGS: Two principal factors which slowed the initial development of smoking cessation services were: (i) the lack of a work-force with experience in smoking cessation methods and (ii) the fact that services were set up outside existing primary and secondary care health services in England. As few training courses in smoking cessation were available, many services provided their own in-house training for staff appointed as smoking cessation advisers. Consequently, senior service staff devoted a lot of effort to training new staff which meant that they had less time to spend on other important tasks which were necessary for service implementation. Smoking cessation services needed to develop relationships with primary care health services in order to generate referrals and find venues for the delivery of smoking cessation interventions. Liaising with primary care physicians was time-consuming, however, and some primary care physicians were opposed to the ideas that service staff had for the interface between primary care and smoking cessation services. As new smoking cessation services were not set up within existing primary or secondary health care services, service staff had to spend large amounts of time on this process of negotiation and overcoming scepticism from some primary health care physicians. CONCLUSIONS: If smoking cessation services are set up in other countries, rapid implementation would be facilitated by ensuring that adequate numbers of health professionals trained in smoking cessation methods are available to staff services. Additionally, locating new smoking cessation services within existing health providers' services may speed up service implementation, but this option may not suit all health systems.

Delivering the English smoking treatment services.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes how smoking treatment services in England were delivered beyond the initial set-up phase and explores key factors affecting their development. Services were expected to treat smokers in line with the evidence-base and were issued with government guidance regarding the type of interventions that should be offered. One factor complicating this was the issue of service funding. Funding was initially issued for a 3-year period and although this was extended on two occasions, these extensions were both announced close to the end of funding periods. OBJECTIVES: To critically assess key elements in the delivery of the English cessation services, including the nature of treatments offered and the impact of short-term funding on staffing. METHODS: A national postal survey of smoking cessation coordinators in April 2002. Semi-structured interviews with 50 smoking cessation staff in two health regions in autumn 2001, followed by further interviews with 28 staff in the same areas in the autumn of 2002. RESULTS: Treatment was delivered in a wide range of venues, ranging from primary care to local authority-owned premises such as town halls and libraries. Most services offered both one-to-one and group support, although interviewees reported an increase in demand for one-to-one support from clients. Pharmacotherapies were used widely; by 2002, 99% of coordinators reported that their advisers recommended nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to clients, and 95% bupropion. However, prior to April 2001 bupropion was available on prescription, but NRT was not and this variable access to pharmacotherapies posed problems for services. Coordinators reported that the short-term nature of funding made recruiting and retaining staff difficult and interviews revealed that they believed a longer period of protected funding was required for services to demonstrate their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: As English smoking treatment services developed, lessons were learned that could inform the development of services in other health systems. First, early guidance from government can encourage services to adhere to evidence-based treatment. Secondly, treatment needs to be accessible to smokers and thus there must be a flexible approach to implementation at local level. Thirdly, the availability of nicotine addiction and behavioural therapies should be coordinated to minimize barriers and maximize uptake. Finally, fixed-term funding can exacerbate staff recruitment and retention difficulties and countries establishing treatment services need to consider carefully the initial funding period that is required for stable services to become established within their health systems.

The cost-effectiveness of the English smoking treatment services: evidence from practice.

AIMS: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of English specialist smoking cessation services. DESIGN: Combination of observational cost and outcome data from English smoking cessation services to calculate cost-effectiveness ratios. Multivariate analysis of factors influencing variation in services' cost-effectiveness. SETTING: Fifty-eight of the 92 specialist smoking cessation services in England in 2000/01. METHODS: Services' costs were estimated using survey data which described services' configurations, staffing, interventions delivered and development. Information on services' throughput and outcomes (as biochemically validated 4-week smoking cessation rates) were obtained from routine sources. With reference to relevant literature and assumptions about relapse and background cessation rates, 4-week cessation rates were converted first to 1-year rates. One-year cessation rates were adjusted to reflect the likely permanent smoking cessation rate attributable to service intervention and finally attributable life-years gained were calculated. A wide variety of sensitivity analyses was performed to test the robustness of the average cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated by combining the cost and life-year gained estimates, for all services. With additional data on deprivation levels in services' areas, ordinary least-squares regression techniques were used to investigate variations in individual services' costs per client and cost-effectiveness ratios. FINDINGS: Using an up-to-date estimate for health gain accrued by stopping smoking, the average cost per life gained was pound 684 (95% CI 557811), falling to pound 438 when savings in future health-care costs were counted. With the worst case assumptions, the estimate of cost-effectiveness rose to pound 2693 per life-year saved (pound 2293 including future health-care costs) and fell to pound 227 (pound 102) under the most favourable assumptions. Findings are comparable to previous published studies. The regression results suggest that different factors influence cost per client and the net cost per life-year saved, indicating that decision makers should be careful in setting performance targets for these services. CONCLUSIONS: In 2000/01, English smoking cessation services provided cost-effective services operating well below the benchmark of pound 20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year saved (QALY) that is used by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom.

Targeting smokers in priority groups: the influence of government targets and policy statements.

BACKGROUND: Cessation services were instructed to make special attempts to attract smokers from three 'priority groups': those who were young, pregnant and economically disadvantaged. Progress with attracting priority groups was not assessed formally, but services were set monitored targets to encourage throughput of smokers. Initial research suggests that services have been successful in attracting smokers who live in disadvantaged areas. This paper investigates how smoking cessation services responded to targets and instructions to attract priority groups and discusses the relative impact these on service development. OBJECTIVES: To describe how monitored throughput targets influenced the development of smoking cessation services, including attracting priority groups. To describe the range of priority groups that smoking cessation services targeted, methods used and reported progress with this. METHODS: Postal surveys of English smoking cessation coordinators conducted in April 2001 and April 2002. Seventy-eight qualitative, semistructured interviews with cessation service staff in two former English health regions conducted in autumn 2001 and 1 year later. FINDINGS: A total of 69.3% of coordinators responded to the first survey (79% to the second survey). In the first survey 91% reported targeting priority groups (100% in the second survey). The proportions (second survey in brackets) who reported targeting the different priority groups were: pregnant women 86% (99%), economically disadvantaged 79% (100%) and young smokers 20% (75%). Interviews showed that coordinators gave the greatest priority to reaching monitored targets as they came under pressure to achieve these. Service staff were generally unclear about how to attract priority groups and developing strategies for this was hindered by the need to meet throughput targets. Locating services in poor areas was thought to attract economically disadvantaged smokers and specialist staff were being appointed to work with pregnant smokers, but otherwise there was little evidence of active strategies for attracting priority groups being applied in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Monitored targets for smoker throughput ensured that services quickly began to treat smokers, but this rapid implementation diverted service staff from devising methods for attracting priority group smokers. Coordinators found reaching priority groups challenging and, particularly in the case of young smokers, would have appreciated clear instructions for this aspect of service implementation. Those implementing services in other countries should consider whether similar targets would be helpful to stimulate service development within their health systems.