Quitting smoking is hard for anyone, but people experiencing homelessness face compounding barriers: high smoking prevalence in this population, stress and instability, limited access to healthcare, and cessation services that are rarely designed around their circumstances. A scoping review published in Tobacco Prevention & Cessation (indexed on PubMed in 2026, DOI: 10.18332/tpc/236153) addresses exactly this question, mapping strategies aimed at increasing smoking-cessation rates among people experiencing homelessness and assessing their feasibility and acceptability. Importantly, the record supplied to our editors contains only the title, journal, year and index metadata, not the full abstract. That means this article explains the scope of the research and how to interpret it, while flagging that the full findings must be reviewed before any firm claims are drawn.
What this source is — and what it is not
The source is a scoping review, a study type designed to map what research exists on a topic rather than to pool results statistically. Scoping reviews are useful for identifying which strategies have been tried, how they were delivered, and what researchers report about feasibility (could the approach be carried out in real settings?) and acceptability (did participants and providers find it workable and welcome?).
Because the record we hold is metadata only, we cannot report the number of studies included, the interventions compared, or any specific findings. Readers should treat this article as orientation to the research question, not as a summary of results. The full abstract and paper should be reviewed before drawing practical conclusions.
Why smoking and homelessness are tightly linked
Research consistently shows that smoking prevalence among people experiencing homelessness is far higher than in the general population, and smoking-related disease contributes substantially to health inequities in this group. Quitting can bring meaningful health and financial benefits, but standard cessation supports may assume stable housing, phone access, scheduled appointments and money for medications — assumptions that often do not hold.
This context is what makes a dedicated scoping review valuable: instead of generalizing from cessation research in housed populations, it focuses specifically on what has been attempted for people experiencing homelessness.
How to read 'feasibility and acceptability' findings
Feasibility and acceptability are early-stage outcomes. They tell you whether an intervention can be delivered and whether people will engage with it — not necessarily whether it doubles quit rates. A program that is highly acceptable but untested for long-term abstinence should be understood as promising, not proven.
When reviewing the full paper, useful questions include: Which strategies were mapped (for example, adapted counseling, nicotine replacement offered through shelters or outreach services, integrated care models, or peer-delivered support)? What populations and settings were covered? How did authors define feasibility and acceptability? And what gaps did they identify in the evidence base?
Practical takeaways for readers — with limits
Even before the full findings are reviewed, some cautious, source-informed framing is possible. A scoping review on this topic signals that researchers recognize that conventional cessation pathways often under-serve people experiencing homelessness, and that tailored approaches are being actively studied.
If you smoke and your housing situation is unstable, or you support someone who is, practical questions worth raising with any local service include: Are cessation supports available where I already go (shelters, outreach clinics, community services)? Are nicotine replacement options accessible without upfront cost? Can support be flexible about missed appointments?
- Ask whether a local service adapts scheduling or follow-up to unstable housing or phone access.
- Ask whether stop-smoking medicines can be provided or subsidized locally — a qualified professional can discuss options appropriate to the individual.
- If you work for a service provider, this review's identified evidence gaps may help justify tailored, low-barrier program design.
Limitations and why editorial review matters
The key limitation here is transparency about what we hold: this record provides the title, journal (Tobacco Prevention & Cessation), year (2026), DOI and PubMed URL, but no authors, abstract or findings. We therefore cannot state which interventions were reviewed, how many studies were included, or what the authors concluded. Any specific claims about effectiveness would be invention, and we decline to make them.
Additionally, scoping reviews typically do not assess treatment effects the way meta-analyses do, and findings drawn from feasibility studies often involve small, heterogeneous samples in specific countries and settings — which limits how directly they transfer elsewhere.
Editorial status and next steps
This draft is educational information only. It is not a diagnosis, prescription or quit plan, and it does not promise any success rate. Anyone wanting individualized advice about quitting — especially alongside health conditions, pregnancy, mental health concerns or medicines they already take — should speak with a qualified health professional or cessation service available in their area.
Editorial note: the full abstract and article at the PubMed record (PMID 42824731) must be reviewed and this draft updated with source-specific findings, including authors, included study counts and stated limitations, before publication.
Frequently asked questions
What does this scoping review actually cover?
It maps strategies aimed at raising smoking-cessation rates among people experiencing homelessness, assessing feasibility (whether approaches can be delivered in real settings) and acceptability (whether participants and providers find them workable and welcome). The source record behind this article contains only the title, journal, year and indexing details — not the abstract — so specific findings cannot be reported here.
What can "feasibility and acceptability" findings actually tell me?
These are early-stage outcomes showing whether an intervention can be delivered and whether people will engage with it — not proof that it improves long-term quit rates. A program seen as highly acceptable but untested for long-term abstinence should be understood as promising, not proven. Scoping reviews also map what research exists rather than pooling results statistically.
Why do people experiencing homelessness face extra barriers to quitting?
Research consistently shows smoking prevalence in this population is far higher than in the general population, and smoking-related disease contributes to health inequities. Standard cessation supports often assume stable housing, phone access, scheduled appointments and money for medications — assumptions that frequently do not hold in these circumstances.
What practical questions can I raise with a local cessation service?
Ask whether supports are offered where people already go, such as shelters, outreach clinics or community services; whether stop-smoking medicines can be provided or subsidized without upfront cost; and whether scheduling or follow-up can flex around unstable housing or phone access. A qualified professional can discuss options appropriate to the individual's situation.
What are the limits of this evidence?
Feasibility studies often involve small, heterogeneous samples in specific countries and settings, so findings may not transfer directly elsewhere. Scoping reviews typically do not assess treatment effects the way meta-analyses do. Because this article's record lacks the full abstract, the number of studies included and the authors' conclusions are not known here.
Is this article medical advice or a quit plan?
No — it is educational information only and does not promise any success rate. Anyone wanting individualized advice about quitting, especially alongside health conditions, pregnancy, mental-health concerns or medicines they already take, should speak with a qualified health professional or a cessation service available in their area.