By the time we wrapped up our final interviews, we felt a mix of pride, exhaustion, and curiosity. Pride because we’d managed to complete a complex mixed-methods evaluation across four pilot sites. Exhaustion because, well, public health research never seems to run smoothly, and we had a few recruitment bumps along the way. And curiosity because we still weren’t sure how all the pieces would fit together. This was a mixed-methods evaluation of a 20-week smoking cessation service in the North East & North Cumbria.
The context: why this service mattered
When we first got involved, the idea was simple: evaluate an enhanced stop smoking service designed specifically for people living with severe mental illness (SMI). People with SMI experience stark health inequalities. On average, they die 15-20 years earlier than the general population, largely due to chronic physical health conditions rather than psychiatric causes. Smoking is a major reason for this health gap, and it is something that can be changed. Yet many tobacco dependence services do not adequately meet their needs.
The service offered more support than the standard provided by the local council, combining behavioural support with medication-assisted treatment over 20 weeks. It followed a ‘cut down to quit’ model, and aimed to be person-centred, flexible, and responsive.
Our approach: mixed methods and lived experience
We used a mixed-methods approach, including quantitative analysis of recruitment and outcomes, surveys with service providers, qualitative interviews with both staff and service users, and a review of Smokefree Taskforce documents. We started with a well-defined plan, but the process taught us to embrace flexibility. Recruitment was slow. Referral pathways shifted. Data systems didn’t always talk to each other. And finding service users willing to be interviewed was harder than we expected.
One of the most rewarding aspects was working with our Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP). They helped shape our protocol, refine our interview questions, and interpret findings. Their input reminded us why we do this work. It’s easy to get lost in methodological frameworks, but the real insight often comes from lived experience. One LEAP member words stuck with us:
The Behaviour Change Wheel framework (figure 1) helped us make sense of what was happening on the ground. Service providers used a range of strategies, including medication, leaflets, nicotine e-cigarettes, planning, and social support. Most felt capable and motivated to deliver the service, but some found it more harder than expected. Complexity was a recurring theme, as illustrated in one advisor words:
We also saw how broader systems shaped delivery. Some sites had strong links with primary care; others struggled. Data recording was patchy. Staff wanted more training, not just in smoking cessation, but in understanding mental health complexity more broadly. And while the service was designed to be flexible, that flexibility sometimes created confusion. Who was eligible? How long should support last? What counted as a successful quit?
For service users, the benefits were clear:
Personally, we found the qualitative interviews both the most challenging and the most illuminating part of the process. Some participants were open and reflective; others were more reserved and required extra support and reassurance to feel comfortable speaking openly, particularly service users. We learned to be flexible in our approach, arranging a casual phone call with service users to build a rapport prior to the interview.
Despite the difficulties recruiting service users, once they were engaged in the interviews, all were eager and willing to share their experiences. We learned that it is important to develop a level of trust with service users, and that patience and empathy can encourage openness and in-depth understanding.
There were challenges too. We had hoped for more interviews with service users, more consistent data, and deeper engagement with those delivering the service. In particular, connecting with service deliverers proved difficult, largely due to the time lag between service implementation and the research evaluation. By the time we began our research, staff had moved on, memories had faded, and priorities had shifted, making it harder to capture a full and accurate picture of delivery. But public health research rarely hands you a neatly packaged story. What it does offer is insight into systems, into people, and into the messy, unpredictable reality of trying to improve lives.
Why it worked: partnership and collaboration
Looking back, we think the study worked because it was grounded in genuine partnership. The Smokefree NHS strategic team were incredible, collaborative, responsive, and deeply committed to making the service work.
We built relationships with service providers who shared their experiences openly, with LEAP members who challenged our assumptions, and with service users who trusted us enough to talk. Within our research team, we supported each other through the inevitable ups and downs. That collective effort, across roles, organisations, and lived experiences, is what made the project feel meaningful.
This experience has already shaped how we’re approaching future projects. Next time, we’ll go in with clearer expectations, more flexible timelines, and a deeper appreciation for the emotional labour involved, not just for us as researchers, but for the people we’re working with.
Researching smoking cessation in people living with severe mental illness isn’t just about measuring quit rates or evaluating service models. It’s about recognising the complexity of their lives, earning trust, and ensuring their voices shape the research process. More than anything, this project reminded us that we, as researchers, must be more attuned, more patient, and more willing to adapt.
The service offered more support than the standard provided by the local council, combining behavioural support with medication-assisted treatment over 20 weeks. It followed a ‘cut down to quit’ model, and aimed to be person-centred, flexible, and responsive.
Our approach: mixed methods and lived experience
We used a mixed-methods approach, including quantitative analysis of recruitment and outcomes, surveys with service providers, qualitative interviews with both staff and service users, and a review of Smokefree Taskforce documents. We started with a well-defined plan, but the process taught us to embrace flexibility. Recruitment was slow. Referral pathways shifted. Data systems didn’t always talk to each other. And finding service users willing to be interviewed was harder than we expected.
One of the most rewarding aspects was working with our Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP). They helped shape our protocol, refine our interview questions, and interpret findings. Their input reminded us why we do this work. It’s easy to get lost in methodological frameworks, but the real insight often comes from lived experience. One LEAP member words stuck with us:
“You need to understand what it’s like to be told to quit smoking when smoking is the only thing that gets you through the day.”What we found: complexity at every level
The Behaviour Change Wheel framework (figure 1) helped us make sense of what was happening on the ground. Service providers used a range of strategies, including medication, leaflets, nicotine e-cigarettes, planning, and social support. Most felt capable and motivated to deliver the service, but some found it more harder than expected. Complexity was a recurring theme, as illustrated in one advisor words:
“It’s not just about smoking, it’s about everything else going on in their lives.”
 |
| Figure 1: Visual map of key themes identified in our study |
For service users, the benefits were clear:
- better physical and mental health
- financial savings
- fewer unpleasant smells
- and fewer side effects than expected.
But staying engaged was tough. Motivation fluctuated. Life got in the way. Participants reminded us regularly that behaviour change doesn’t happen in a vacuum:
“I wanted to quit, but then my meds changed and everything fell apart.”The challenge and value of qualitative work
Personally, we found the qualitative interviews both the most challenging and the most illuminating part of the process. Some participants were open and reflective; others were more reserved and required extra support and reassurance to feel comfortable speaking openly, particularly service users. We learned to be flexible in our approach, arranging a casual phone call with service users to build a rapport prior to the interview.
Despite the difficulties recruiting service users, once they were engaged in the interviews, all were eager and willing to share their experiences. We learned that it is important to develop a level of trust with service users, and that patience and empathy can encourage openness and in-depth understanding.
There were challenges too. We had hoped for more interviews with service users, more consistent data, and deeper engagement with those delivering the service. In particular, connecting with service deliverers proved difficult, largely due to the time lag between service implementation and the research evaluation. By the time we began our research, staff had moved on, memories had faded, and priorities had shifted, making it harder to capture a full and accurate picture of delivery. But public health research rarely hands you a neatly packaged story. What it does offer is insight into systems, into people, and into the messy, unpredictable reality of trying to improve lives.
Why it worked: partnership and collaboration
Looking back, we think the study worked because it was grounded in genuine partnership. The Smokefree NHS strategic team were incredible, collaborative, responsive, and deeply committed to making the service work.
We built relationships with service providers who shared their experiences openly, with LEAP members who challenged our assumptions, and with service users who trusted us enough to talk. Within our research team, we supported each other through the inevitable ups and downs. That collective effort, across roles, organisations, and lived experiences, is what made the project feel meaningful.
This experience has already shaped how we’re approaching future projects. Next time, we’ll go in with clearer expectations, more flexible timelines, and a deeper appreciation for the emotional labour involved, not just for us as researchers, but for the people we’re working with.
Researching smoking cessation in people living with severe mental illness isn’t just about measuring quit rates or evaluating service models. It’s about recognising the complexity of their lives, earning trust, and ensuring their voices shape the research process. More than anything, this project reminded us that we, as researchers, must be more attuned, more patient, and more willing to adapt.
About the authors:
Dr Angela Rodrigues, Associate Professor, Northumbria University, and co-lead of the Fuse Behaviour Change Cluster
Dr Lauren Hoult, Associate Lecturer, Researcher in Behaviour Change & Public Health, Northumbria University
Prof Katie Haighton, Professor in Public Health and Wellbeing, Northumbria University
.jpg){kind=link}