Supporting Parents Living in Disadvantaged Areas of Edinburgh to Create a Smoke-Free Home Using Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT): A Two-Phase Qualitative Study

Exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) in the home is largely associated with socio-economic disadvantage. Disadvantaged parents face specific challenges creating a smoke-free home, often caring for children in accommodation without access to outdoor garden space. Existing smoke-free home interventions largely fail to accommodate these constraints. Innovative approaches are required to address this inequality. In this two-phase study, we engaged with parents living in disadvantaged areas of Edinburgh, Scotland, to explore tailored approaches to creating a smoke-free home and develop and pilot-test an intervention based on their views and preferences. In Phase 1, qualitative interviews with 17 parents recruited from Early Years Centres explored alternative approaches to smoke-free home interventions. In Phase 2, an intervention based on parents’ views and preferences was pilot-tested with parents recruited through Early Years and Family Nurse Partnership centres. Seventeen parents took part in an interview to share their views/experiences of the intervention. Data from both study phases were thematically analysed. Phase 1 findings suggested that parents associated nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) with quit attempts but supported the idea of NRT use for temporary abstinence to create a smoke-free home, viewing this as a safer option than using e-cigarettes indoors. In Phase 2, 54 parents expressed an interest in accessing NRT to create a smoke-free home, 32 discussed NRT product choice during a home visit from a smoking adviser, and 20 collected their free NRT prescription from the pharmacy. NRT was used for up to 12 weeks in the home, with ongoing advice available from pharmacy staff. During qualitative interviews (n = 17), parents self-reported successfully creating a smoke-free home, quitting smoking, and reduced cigarette consumption, often exceeding their expectations regarding changes made. The intervention was acceptable to parents, but the multi-step process used to access NRT was cumbersome. Some participants were lost to this process. Parents living in disadvantaged circumstances may benefit from access to NRT for temporary abstinence in the home to assist them to protect their children from SHS exposure. Further research using a more streamlined approach to NRT access is required to determine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this approach

Use of nicotine replacement therapy to reduce children’s exposure to second-hand smoke in the home: a qualitative pilot study involving local community pharmacies

Abstract Background In Scotland, and in several other countries, most second-hand smoke exposure now occurs in low-income households, where housing constraints and sole parenting often make it harder to create a smoke-free home. This pilot study provided people who smoke with a free 12-week supply of nicotine replacement therapy through local community pharmacies to reduce smoking indoors. Methods Twenty-five parents/caregivers who smoked in the home and cared for children at least weekly were recruited via Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic. Air quality (PM2.5) was monitored in participant homes for seven days before their first pharmacy visit and 12 weeks later. Qualitative interviews (N = 14) were conducted with 13 participants who completed the study and one who withdrew part-way through. The interviews explored views/experiences of using nicotine replacement therapy to help create a smoke-free home. Another participant took part in a shorter telephone discussion at their request, with detailed notes taken by the interviewer, because of their speech disorder. Results Three participants reported smoking outdoors only, one of whom subsequently quit smoking. Six participants reported reduced cigarette consumption by 50% in the home, four reported no (sustained) reduction and one reported increased smoking indoors. Self-reported outcomes were not always consistent with PM2.5 readings. Participants’ experiences of accessing nicotine replacement therapy through community pharmacies varied. Some suggested ongoing support to use nicotine replacement products could better assist behavioural change, and that access could be streamlined by posting products to the home. Several suggested that focusing on changing home smoking behaviours using nicotine replacement therapy might facilitate a future quit attempt. Conclusion Access to free nicotine replacement therapy for temporary use indoors may support some people who smoke to reduce children’s exposure to second-hand smoke. Our findings confirm the need to modify the intervention before undertaking a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of this approach. This work is now underway