Service-user experiences of an integrated psychological intervention for depression or anxiety and tobacco smoking in IAPT: A qualitative investigation into mechanisms of change in quitting smoking

Design

Our study was pre-registered (https://osf.io/nfgu4/) and was part of an on-going RCT (ESCAPE, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN99531779). The anonymised data are available to researchers via application to the University of Bath (https://www.bath.ac.uk/guides/research-data-service/). We followed COREQ reporting guidelines in writing this manuscript (21). The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration. All procedures were approved by an NHS Research Ethics Committee (19/03/2018, IRAS ID: 239339). We used qualitative in-depth interviews to explore participants perceptions of change (22).

Participants

We approached 19 patients and conducted interviews with 15 who took part in the ESCAPE trial intervention arm who had attended 3 or more intervention sessions. Participants in the intervention arm received a CBT-based smoking cessation intervention that was integrated into routine IAPT care for depression/anxiety (9, 20) (Supplement A). Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) is a primary care service in the UK National Health Service providing evidence-based psychological therapies for depression/anxiety. Trial inclusion criteria were self-reported daily smokers of at least one year, aged ≥ 18 years; diagnosis of depression and/or anxiety (clinician administered PHQ-9 score ≥□10, and/or GAD-7 ≥□8 score) and were about to start IAPT treatment. Individuals were excluded if they did not have capacity to give informed consent, or if they were pregnant or breastfeeding at trial entry.

Procedure & recruitment

Recruitment procedures for the ESCAPE trial can be found in the trial protocol(https://osf.io/nfgu4/). Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants for follow-up interviews about the intervention. During 3- and 6-month telephone ESCAPE trial follow-ups, participants were asked if they would like to be interviewed about their experiences in the study and attempting to quit. We recruited participants until information power was reached (23). Information power is more suitable for pragmatic applied health research than data saturation. ‘Data saturation’ was originally developed for grounded theory analysis (23, 24). Participants gave oral consent prior to the interview, and again as an audio recorded consent statement.

Interviews

The interview schedule (Supplement B) aimed to explore participants’ experiences of mechanisms of change. Interviews lasted 30-45 minutes and were embedded within a longer interview schedule, lasting no more than 60 minutes, that also investigated the acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures (the additional findings will be presented elsewhere). Interviews were conducted by KM and KS.

Service-User Consultation

Persons with lived experience of depression, anxiety and tobacco addiction contributed towards design of the interview schedule, participant information sheets, and the debriefing process.

Analysis

Data were transcribed using a University approved service. Fifty percent of the audio data were checked against the transcripts to ensure fidelity. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis following the steps outlined by Braun and Clarke (25, 26). Reflexive thematic analysis was used as it is not tied to theoretical or epistemological approaches and can be used both inductively and deductively. A critical realist approach was taken; meaning was viewed as both socially constructed and relating to individuals’ experiential reality (27). Braun and Clarke’s (25) guidance for the six phases of thematic analysis were followed: 1) familiarisation with the data, 2) coding, 3) generating themes, 4) reviewing themes, 5) defining and naming themes 6) writing up. A combined inductive and deductive approach to coding was taken, whereby codes and themes were developed both from existing theory and the data. The framework of deductive codes was constructed based on the COM-B model (Supplement C, Table S1) which has shown good reliability for categorising components of behaviour change interventions (28). Coding was conducted manually. Participant IDs were used throughout, and any potentially identifying information was removed.

Once the data were coded, all relevant coded data extracts were collated and organised into potential themes and subthemes. A series of tables were developed to explore possible relationships between codes, themes and subthemes. Potential themes and subthemes were then reviewed, refined, and assessed according to the criteria of internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity (29). Analysis was viewed as an iterative process; the researcher at times returned to previous stages rather than following a rigidly linear process. A self-reflexive stance was used throughout data collection and analysis to increase awareness of and limit the impact of the researcher’s potential biases and assumptions.

1. Increased Awareness of Smoking Patterns

Participants described an increased awareness of smoking patterns as a key step in facilitating quitting smoking. They described a shift in their awareness, from smoking being automatic where they would “smoke and not necessarily know I was smoking” (Participant 2), to being more “analytical” about their smoking patterns (Participant 4). This “understanding why you smoke” (Participant 3) seemed to facilitate participants’ sense of psychological capability to not smoke (Table 3, Quote 1).

One aspect of increased awareness was an improved awareness of smoking triggers (Table 3, Quote 2). One of the most common triggers for smoking was strong negative emotions. Participants expressed through the intervention, they gained increased awareness of the link between strong negative emotions and smoking: “when I talk about it, I do smoke because I’m unhappy and because it’s a distraction” (Participant 11). Some expressed the realisation that smoking was often an attempt to cope with negative emotions: “before, I felt that if I was stressed, I could step away and have a fag and that would help” (Participant 5). This response reflects the misattribution hypothesis (18). The increased awareness of this misattribution seemed to result in a change in thinking about the relationship between smoking and stress, as well as providing alternative options for managing stress: “I recognised that and that’s more just stepping out of the situation and just chilling for a bit” (Participant 5). Therefore, increased awareness of the need for alternatives to smoking for managing emotions appears to be a mechanism of change in reducing smoking.

Participants also described greater awareness of how smoking contributed to the maintenance of a “vicious cycle” (Participant 13) of smoking and stress (Table 3, Quote 3). Several participants identified an increased awareness of the specific role of nicotine withdrawal in maintaining unpleasant feelings (Table 3, Quote 4).

This increased awareness of how smoking was contributing to difficulties in their mental health appeared to increase motivation to change. One participant described smoking to control her appetite; increased awareness of the unhelpful nature of her beliefs about her weight helped to facilitate stopping smoking (Table 3, Quote 5). This suggests that there are a range of beliefs which drive smoking, and an increased awareness of these allows them to be challenged. Moreover, increased awareness that smoking appears to help with strong negative emotions in the short-term, but maintains them in the long-term, seemed to increase motivation to quit smoking, and understanding of the need to develop other ways to cope with emotions.

2. Developing Individualised Strategies: “What’s in Your Toolkit?”

All participants described developing a personalised set of strategies that they found helpful in reducing smoking, described as acquiring “a couple of tricks up your sleeve” (Participant 10). These strategies included goal setting, setting a quit date, problem-solving, removing access to cigarettes, communicating with others about quitting, positive self-talk, distraction, breathing and mindfulness techniques, and using smoking cessation resources such as apps. It seemed particularly important to develop “substitutes” (Participant 12) which fulfilled the function of smoking (Table 3, Quote 6).

Practical strategies provided by the intervention appeared to make the quit attempt feel more manageable and enhance participants’ sense of psychological capability (Table 3, Quote 7). Similarly, Participant 13 specifically referred to “exercises for breathing and mindfulness and distraction techniques” that helped her to feel capable: “No, I don’t have to have a cigarette (…) I’m stronger, I can deal with that”. Several strategies also enhanced motivation; namely, goal setting, setting a quit date, and using a pros and cons list which helped to “cement” motivation for change (Participant 4). Once participants noticed concrete signs of improvement resulting from these strategies, this reinforced their motivation to continue to implement them, as well as enhancing their sense of psychological capability (Table 3, Quote 8 & 9).

Although smoking cessation medication was not viewed as helpful by everyone, some participants found it to be an important tool (Table 3, Quote 10). It seemed particularly helpful for managing the physiological nicotine cravings, which enhanced some participants’ sense of their physical capability to quit (Table 3, Quote 11).

The strategy of communicating with others about quitting was viewed as important by several participants. They described being with others who were smoking as a trigger (Table 3, Quote 12). However, telling others about the quit attempt also helped (Table 3, Quote 13). This suggests that changing the social environment can facilitate behaviour change in smoking, consistent with social learning theory principles (30).

3. Practitioner Style as “Supportive but not Like Lecture-y”

Participants expressed how important the therapeutic alliance was in making changes to their smoking behaviour, particularly their sense of having the space to talk through their feelings and difficulties, with these being heard and not judged but met with compassion, curiosity, and support. This contrasted with descriptions of other people in their lives who tended to take a more judgemental and directive approach towards their smoking and was often experienced by participants as unhelpful: “lecture doesn’t have any impact” (Participant 6). The IAPT practitioners’ understanding, and empathy seemed to enable participants’ disclosure of when they had struggled with their quit attempt one week, as well as participants’ openness and receptiveness to suggestions (Table 3, Quote 14).

Additionally, participants expressed a sense that IAPT practitioners’ understanding of their mental health struggles helped them to feel more able to talk about smoking (Table 3, Quote 15). One participant expressed that the practitioner’s non-judgemental approach to setbacks was particularly important given the participants’ tendency to be self-critical (Table 3, Quote 16).

This non-judgemental IAPT practitioner stance enabled participants to learn from setbacks that may otherwise have served as a trigger to give up on smoking cessation. Given that levels of self-criticism are often high in depression (31), and that setbacks could be experienced as “an added failure” (Participant 15), this therapeutic stance is likely to be particularly important in this population. Alongside viewing setbacks as an opportunity for learning, IAPT practitioners’ encouragement enhanced participants’ motivation to continue with their attempt to quit (Table 3, Quote 17).

Several participants found it helpful that the IAPT practitioner helped them to confront their avoidance of talking about smoking or attempting to quit (Table 3, Quote 18).

Participants also noted the IAPT practitioner use of guided discovery to empower them to think through decisions themselves (Table 3, Quote 19). Sometimes practitioner empowerment of participant decision-making took more explicit forms, such as giving options around the use of smoking cessation medication.

One participant expressed that an unhelpful experience was that he felt rushed at times, rather than the IAPT practitioner responding to him in a flexible and person-centred way (Table 3, Quote 20).

4. “Having Someone that’s Checking on You”: Regularity of Sessions

Most participants expressed the importance of the regularity of sessions, which supported the development and maintenance of the therapeutic alliance. One helpful aspect of regular sessions was having the space to solve problems as they arose (Table 3, Quote 21). Regular check-ins seemed to enhance participants’ sense of psychological capability compared to when they had tried to quit on their own, due to the extra support and sense of accountability (Table 3, Quote 22 & 23).

Feeling “answerable” (Participant 4), or “responsible” (Participant 11) to the IAPT practitioner each week appeared to enhance participants’ motivation or even made them feel “obliged” (Participant 13) to quit (Table 3, Quote 24). This sense of anticipatory guilt seemed to drive reduced smoking for some participants. This sense of accountability was not limited to the IAPT practitioner; one participant recruited friends and family to have “more people to check in on how I was doing” (Participant 13).

5. Having the Opportunity at the “Right Time”

Several participants talked about the combination of feeling that it was “the right time” to change, and the integrated mental health intervention providing an opportunity, or the “push” (Participant 5) they “needed” (Participant 4). For these participants, mental health problems did not prevent it from being the right time: “although I was in a very bad place at that time, it was the right time” (Participant 4). In fact, beginning therapy for their mental health in some cases appeared to signal their readiness to change (Table 3, Quote 25). However, a couple of participants expressed that although they valued the opportunity, stressful life events made quitting seem too much (Table 3, Quote 26). For another participant, it appeared that the intervention helped her to approach “the right time”, even though she was not there yet. This suggests that the intervention helped her shift from attempting to quit to planning to quit, a shift consistent with the SNAP model of smoking cessation (17) (Table 3, Quote 27). Thus, having the opportunity for support with smoking cessation enhanced her motivation “because it was offered (…) I probably was more motivated to do it, have a go” (Participant 6).

Summary of findings

In this qualitative study, we investigated participants’ subjective experiences of mechanisms underlying change in smoking behaviour. Participants reported that the integrated smoking cessation and mood intervention helped facilitate reductions in smoking through increased self-awareness of smoking patterns, and supported them to develop individualised behavioural and cognitive strategies to aid cessation. Participants viewed the regularity of support, the supportive, “non-lecture-y” therapeutic style of IAPT practitioners, and being offered the smoking intervention at the “right time” (i.e. integrated with mental health support) all contributed to participants’ sense of being able to make changes to the smoking. These findings further our understanding of the active ingredients and processes for behaviour change in this integrated intervention.

Study Strengths and Limitations

Participants were all white British; this limits the study’s transferability to people of different backgrounds. Furthermore, lack of a longer-term follow-up means that we could not show whether intervention mechanisms were maintained long-term. When interpreting qualitative results, it is important to acknowledge the researcher’s background (32); KFS is a non-smoker, whose primary orientation clinically is CBT. These factors are likely to have influenced the interviews and analysis, although research supervision was used reflexively throughout the process to consider the researcher’s position and reflect on alternative perspectives.

This study possesses considerable strengths. According to Malterud’s et al. (23) criteria for information power, the study had strong information power as the sample was very specific to the research question and the study had clear theoretical underpinnings. Moreover, including people with lived experience in research design, including the interview schedule, to help ensure that questions were acceptable, relevant and non-judgemental for those who did not manage to quit smoking. Past studies have shown that integrated interventions can be effective but have not explored how and why they work (10). Our qualitative approach shed light on how participants made sense of what helped them reduce their smoking, situating these perceived mechanisms within the context of the participants’ lives.

Comparison with existing literature

Research and practice implications

These findings further our understanding of the active ingredients and processes for behaviour change in integrated smoking and mental health interventions. In terms of clinical practice, we have outlined the strategies and the therapeutic stance that could be embedded and emphasised in manualised interventions to optimise therapeutic benefits. Findings indicate that practitioners should not assume that having anxiety or depression means that individuals are not ready or motivated to quit smoking. These processes are currently being implemented in the ESCAPE trial, however, a full-scale trial is required to investigate the effectiveness of these components. Future research in this area should strive to recruit people from diverse cultural backgrounds and include a longer-term follow-up.