Cited by 96Smoking Behavior and CessationHealth Services Management and PolicySchool Health and Nursing Education

A survey of staff attitudes to smoking-related policy and intervention in psychiatric and general health care settings

McNally, Lisa, Oyefeso, Adenekan, Annan, Jan, Perryman, Katherine, Bloor, Roger, Freeman, Steve, Wain, Barbara, Andrews, Hilary +4 more·2006·Journal of Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the move to smoke-free hospital settings is generally a popular initiative, it may be a more challenging and controversial issue in mental health care. A survey was carried out to investigate differences in attitudes between clinical staff in psychiatric and general medical settings to smoke-free policy and intervention. METHOD: The sample comprised 2574 NHS staff working in two Acute Hospital Trusts and one Mental Health Trust in England. Attitudes were examined on two factors: health care settings as smoke-free environments and the role of staff in stop smoking intervention. RESULTS: The findings indicated that attitudes on the two factors were only moderately correlated. Psychiatric staff expressed significantly less favourable attitudes than general staff to smoke-free health care settings and also to the role of staff in stop smoking intervention. The largest difference between the settings concerned the implementation of smoking bans. While approximately 1 in 10 staff in the general setting disagreed with a smoking ban in their wards or clinics, nearly one in three psychiatric staff was against such a ban in their setting. CONCLUSIONS: Staff attitudes need to be carefully considered, particularly in psychiatric settings, in attempts to implement smoke-free policies in health care settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/pubmed/fdl029

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Health professionals might be reluctant to intervene with some smokers because they believe that this might be detrimental to their mental health.

    “health professionals might be reluctant to intervene with some smokers because they believe that this might be detrimental to their mental health.”

    From Change in mental health after smoking cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results (‘Good practice orientation’) find that psychiatric staff had less favourable attitudes toward stop-smoking intervention, and ‘What this study adds’ says routine intervention may encounter more resistance in psychiatric settings. The paper does not establish that staff are reluctant because they believe intervention would harm smokers’ mental health; the Introduction and Limitations discuss other possible reasons for resistance. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is a widely held belief among healthcare professionals that smoking cessation should only be attempted after mental health has improved.

    “there is a widely held belief among healthcare professionals that smoking cessation should only be attempted after mental health has improved. 7 , 8”

    From Service‐user experiences of an integrated psychological intervention for depression or anxiety and tobacco smoking in improving access to psychological therapies services: A qualitative investigation into mechanisms of change in quitting smoking. (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

    The ‘Good practice orientation’ results report that staff in psychiatric settings had less favourable attitudes to stop-smoking intervention than staff in general settings. The paper does not establish a widely held belief that cessation should be attempted only after mental health improves; its reported comparison does not address that timing condition. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Smokers might be less likely to stop if they believe their mental health will suffer.

    “Smokers might be less likely to stop if they believe their mental health will suffer”

    From Change in mental health after smoking cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction discusses the role of smoking in psychiatric care, and the study examines staff attitudes to smoking restrictions and cessation support. Neither those passages nor the additional searches for beliefs about worsening mental health address whether smokers who hold that belief are less likely to stop. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 10 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Brown C. Tobacco and Mental Health: A Literature Review. Action on Smoking and Health, 2004 http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/ files/tobacco%20and%20mental%20health.pdf (9 June 2006, date last accessed).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McNally, L., Oyefeso, A., Annan, J., Perryman, K., Bloor, R., Freeman, S., Wain, B., Andrews, H., Grimmer, M., Crisp, A., Oyebode, D., & Ghodse, A. H.
Affiliations
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • Harplands Hospital (GB)
  • Ipswich Hospital (GB)
  • South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
McNally, Lisa
Venue
Journal of Public Health
Published
2006-06-29
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
192-196
ISSN
  • 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3850
  • 1741-3842
OpenAlex
W2107673032
Cited by
96
References
10
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
Keywords
employee attitudes, smoking bans, smoke-free hospitals, mental health services, psychiatric staff, healthcare settings, policy implementation, NHS staff
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Analysis of Variance, Attitude of Health Personnel, Hospitals, General, Hospitals, Psychiatric, Humans, Personnel, Hospital, Surveys and Questionnaires, Organizational Policy, Smoking Cessation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review