ArticleBMJ public health2026
Exploring healthcare professionals' experiences and perspectives on cessation support for people who use non-cigarette tobacco: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Non-cigarette tobacco cessation support in England: current provision, confidence, and barriers identified in a cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals involved in smoking cessation support.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Healthcare services in England often support cigarette smoking cessation, yet little is known about how healthcare professionals support people to quit who use other non-cigarette tobacco products, such as cigars, cigarillos, shisha and different forms of chewing tobacco. This study explored healthcare professionals' (1) experiences of providing cessation support for non-cigarette tobacco, (2) perceived barriers and facilitators and (3) suggestions for improving service provision. Methods: Four semistructured focus groups and interviews were conducted with (N=19) specialist (tobacco dependence advisors) and non-specialist (eg, pharmacist, nurse) healthcare professionals who have experience in providing smoking cessation support across England. Data were analysed using iterative categorisation with thematic analysis. Results: Healthcare professionals vary in their experiences supporting people to stop using non-cigarette tobacco products, usually depending on the demographic composition of the local community. Professionals who regularly engage with people who use non-cigarette tobacco described a range of tailored support provided, such as behavioural support, nicotine replacement therapy and vapes. Structural barriers to providing support included screening tools that only ask about 'smoking', commissioning that restricts services to cigarette use, and limited training and resources for non-cigarette products. Professional barriers included low confidence in supporting cessation due to a lack of official guidance on these products. Recommendations to improve services included adapting screening tools to capture non-cigarette tobacco use, expanding service eligibility to all tobacco users, developing culturally tailored resources and strengthening community partnerships to improve outreach. Conclusions: In a sample of healthcare professionals in England, there was substantial variation in the provision of, and healthcare professionals' confidence in providing, support for non-cigarette tobacco cessation. Amending screening tools, developing clinical training and guidelines and expanding access to services for all types of tobacco use could improve support provision and improve treatment equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.