PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Woodrow, N AU - Gillespie, D AU - Kitchin, L AU - O’Brien, M AU - Chapman, S AU - Chng, NR AU - Passey, A AU - Raisa Jessica Aquino, M AU - Clarke, Z AU - Goyder, E TI - OP33a Assessing the integration of remote and face-to-face support to develop a ‘hybrid’ stop smoking service in England: a mixed methods evaluation AID - 10.1136/jech-2024-SSMabstracts.185 DP - 2024 Aug 01 TA - Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health PG - A89--A89 VI - 78 IP - Suppl 1 4099 - http://jech.bmj.com/content/78/Suppl_1/A89.1.short 4100 - http://jech.bmj.com/content/78/Suppl_1/A89.1.full SO - J Epidemiol Community Health2024 Aug 01; 78 AB - Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions on face-to-face support resulted in Community Stop Smoking Services moving to remote delivery models. As restrictions eased, the North Yorkshire County Council Living Well Smokefree service developed a hybrid approach that includes three service delivery modalities: (1) Face-to-face – support delivered in-person, (2) Remote – support via voice or video calls; (3) Mixed – a flexible combination of both face-to-face and remote support. Our study aimed to assess the benefits and challenges of implementing a hybrid mix of support options.Methods Our mixed methods evaluation was undertaken between September 2022 to February 2023. Qualitative data were collected through interviews with 16 service users and 11 professional stakeholders. Interviews explored perspectives and experiences around offering and receiving the hybrid model, as well as the facilitators and barriers of engagement through different provision modalities. Data were analysed thematically. Routinely collected service outcome data exploring the proportions of individuals and ‘priority groups’ (i.e., pregnant people, people with mental health conditions, people with long-term physical health conditions) selecting and successfully stopping smoking via each service delivery modality, were analysed and presented.Results The hybrid model was overwhelmingly viewed as beneficial. Choice in support options was seen to provide convenience and flexibility which facilitated engagement. Remote support was primarily selected by service users (91.3% (n=669) vs. 6.1% (n=45) face-to-face, and 2.6% (n=19) mixed provision), and was described as providing improved accessibility to stop-smoking support. For service users, remote support was noted as providing an increased level of privacy which reduced potential stigmas (e.g., around smoking during pregnancy) and anxieties (e.g., having to attend clinics in person for people with mental health issues). Despite remote provision being described by service staff as providing greater efficiency in terms of increased client contacts, it provided caseload management and capacity issues. Further, there were questions about abilities to develop therapeutic relationships, and challenges around validating remote quits through carbon monoxide (CO) testing. The service outcome data showed some slight variations in quit outcomes between the different pathways for different priority groups.Conclusion A hybrid approach which offers service users choice and flexibility around support options may facilitate engagement and participation. Monitoring of hybrid approaches can offer valuable insights into how different groups engage with and benefit from remote, face-to-face and mixed pathways, and can enable services to organise resources and deliver and tailor support accordingly.