Tobacco Cessation Services in Addiction Treatment: What Do Clients Say?

Reducing tobacco use in substance use treatment: The California tobacco free initiative

BACKGROUND

People in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment have a smoking prevalence that is five times higher than the national average. California funded the Tobacco Free for Recovery Initiative, designed to support programs in implementing tobacco-free grounds and increasing smoking cessation services. In the first cohort of the initiative (2018-2020) client smoking prevalence decreased from 54.2% to 26.6%. The current study examined whether similar findings would be replicated with a later cohort of programs (2020-2022).

METHOD

Cross-sectional survey data were collected from clients in 11 residential SUD treatment programs at baseline (n = 185) and at post intervention (n = 227). Multivariate logistic regression assessed change over time in smoking prevalence, tobacco use behaviors, and receipt of cessation services across the two timepoints.

RESULTS

Client smoking prevalence decreased from 60.3 % to 40.5 % (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 0.46, 95 % CI = 0.27, 0.78; p = 0.004). Current smokers and those who quit while in treatment reported an increase in nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)/pharmacotherapy from baseline to post intervention (31.9 % vs 45.6 %; AOR = 2.22, 95 % CI = 1.08, 4.58; p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Like the first cohort, the Tobacco Free for Recovery initiative was associated with decreased client smoking prevalence and an increase in NRT/pharmacotherapy. These findings strengthen the evidence that similar initiatives may be effective in reducing smoking prevalence among people in SUD treatment.

The association between dual use of electronic nicotine products and illicit drugs with adverse cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes in a longitudinal analysis using the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) survey

Background

Drug use and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are independently associated with increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes. Literature on the association between the dual use of these key substances and potential health outcomes is limited.

Methods

We examined the association between dual use of ENDs and drugs (including heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, painkillers, and misused stimulant medications) with adverse cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes in a longitudinal analysis using waves 1-5 from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health survey (2014-2018). Multivariable logistic regression with Generalized Estimating Equations was utilized.

Results

About 0.9% (n = 368) of respondents at wave 2 used both ENDS and drugs, 5.1% (n = 1,985) exclusively used ENDS, and 5.9% (n = 1,318) used drugs. Compared with people who do not use drugs, both those who used only ENDS (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) 1.11 [95% CI 0.99-1.23], P = 0.07758) and those who used only drugs (AOR 1.36 [95% CI 1.15-1.60], P = 0.00027) were more likely to experience adverse respiratory conditions. Individuals who used drugs and ENDS compared to people who did not use drugs or ENDS had the largest odds of respiratory problems among all drug use category comparisons (AOR 1.52 [95% CI 1.20-1.93], P = 0.00054). Individuals who only used drugs had elevated odds of cardiovascular ailments compared to people who did not use drugs or ENDS (AOR 1.24 [95% CI 1.08-1.42], P = 0.00214) and compared to people who only used ENDS (AOR 1.22 [95% CI 1.04-1.42], P = 0.0117).

Conclusions

Inhaling electronic nicotine delivery systems and other substances may negatively affect the users' respiratory health.

Influence of Provider and Leader Perspectives about Concurrent Tobacco-Use Care during Substance-Use Treatment on Their Tobacco Intervention Provision with Clients: A Mixed-Methods Study

People with substance-use disorders have elevated rates of tobacco use compared with the general population, yet rarely receive tobacco-dependence treatment within substance-use treatment settings (SUTS). One barrier to delivering evidence-based interventions in SUTS is providers' misconception that treating tobacco use and non-nicotine substance use concurrently jeopardizes clients' substance-use recovery, although research indicates that it enhances support for recovery and relapse prevention. A total of 86 treatment providers employed in SUTS (i.e., 9 Federally Qualified Health Centers, 16 Local Mental Health Authorities (LMHAs), 6 substance-use treatment programs in LMHAs, and 55 stand-alone substance-use treatment centers) in Texas, USA, answered survey questions about their (1) thoughts about treating tobacco during substance-use treatment, and (2) delivery of the 5A's tobacco-use intervention (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange). Twenty-six providers and leaders were interviewed about attitudes toward tobacco-free workplace policies and tobacco dependence and the relative importance of treating tobacco (vs. other substance-use disorders) at their center. Providers who did not believe tobacco use should be addressed as soon as clients begin treatment (i.e., endorsed responses of after 1 year, it depends on the client, or never) had lower odds of Asking clients about their tobacco use (OR = 0.195), Advising clients to quit smoking (OR = 0.176), and Assessing interest in quitting smoking (OR = 0.322). Qualitative results revealed barriers including beliefs that clients need to smoke to relieve the stress of substance-use recovery, are disinterested in quitting, fears that concurrent treatment would jeopardize substance use, and limited resources; additional training and education resources was the key facilitator theme. The results demonstrate a critical need to eliminate barriers to tobacco-treatment provision for clients in SUTS through education to correct misperceptions, specialized training to equip providers with knowledge and skills, and resources to build center capacity. Integrating evidence-based smoking interventions into routine care is key to support the recovery efforts of clients in SUTS.

Reducing tobacco use in substance use treatment: An intervention to promote tobacco-free grounds

BACKGROUND

People in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment experience disproportionate rates of tobacco use. California has prioritized smoking cessation among these individuals through the Tobacco-Free for Recovery Initiative, which includes an intervention aimed at supporting programs in implementing tobacco-free grounds. The current study examined changes in client smoking prevalence, tobacco use behaviors, and receipt of cessation services among the first seven programs participating in the initiative.

METHODS

Residential treatment program clients completed cross-sectional surveys at the start of the intervention (baseline: n = 249), at an interim timepoint post-baseline (interim: n = 275), and at the end of the intervention 15 months later (post-intervention: n = 219). All participants reported smoking status. Current smokers reported tobacco use behaviors, and both current smokers and those who quit in treatment reported receipt of cessation services. Univariate analyses explored differences across the three timepoints and multivariate logistic regression assessed change from baseline to interim and baseline to post-intervention.

RESULTS

Client smoking prevalence decreased from 54.2% at pre- to 26.6% at post-intervention (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.13, 0.45). Current smokers and those who quit while in treatment reported an increase in NRT/pharmacotherapy (11.9% vs. 25.2%; AOR = 3.02, CI = 1.24, 7.35). When comparing baseline to the interim timepoint (a timepoint before the COVID-19 pandemic), data analyses also demonstrated a significant decrease in smoking prevalence (54.2% vs. 41.8%; AOR = 0.62, CI = 0.42, 0.92) and increase in NRT/pharmacotherapy (11.9% vs. 24.5%; AOR = 3.68, CI = 1.11, 12.19).

CONCLUSION

An intervention to promote tobacco-free grounds implemented in residential SUD treatment programs was associated with a significant reduction in client smoking and an increase in NRT/pharmacotherapy. These associations were observed both before the COVID-19 pandemic and in the early stages of the pandemic, suggesting that they may be due to the intervention rather than to the pandemic.

Implementing tobacco-free policy in residential substance use disorders treatment: Practice changes among staff

Introduction

Implementing tobacco-free policies in substance use disorders (SUD) treatment may reduce tobacco-related, health disparities. This study examined adoption of tobacco-related policy and practices in six residential programs participating in a California-sponsored, 18-month, tobacco-free policy intervention.

Methods

Directors (N=6) completed surveys of tobacco-related policies before and after the intervention. Staff completed cross-sectional surveys assessing tobacco-related training, beliefs, practices, workplace smoking policy, tobacco cessation program services, and smoking status pre- (n=135) and post-intervention (n=144).

Results

Director surveys indicated no programs had tobacco-free grounds, one provided tobacco-related staff training, and two provided nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) pre-intervention. At post-intervention, 5 programs had implemented tobacco-free grounds, 6 provided tobacco cessation training, and 3 provided NRT. Across all programs, staff were more likely to report smoke-free workplaces (AOR = 5.76, 95% CI1.14,29.18) post- versus pre-intervention. Staff positive beliefs towards addressing tobacco use were higher post-intervention (p<0.001). Odds of clinical staff reporting tobacco-related training participation (AOR = 19.63, 95% CI14.21,27.13) and program-level provision of NRT (AOR = 4.01, 95% CI 1.54, 10.43) increased post- versus pre-intervention. Clinical staff reporting they provided tobacco cessation services were also higher post-intervention (p= 0.045). There were no changes in smoking prevalence or quit intention among smoking staff.

Conclusion

A tobacco-free policy intervention in SUD treatment was associated with implementation of tobacco-free grounds, tobacco-related training among staff, more positive staff beliefs towards and delivery of tobacco cessation services to clients. The model may be improved with greater emphasis on staff policy awareness, facilitating availability of NRT, and reducing staff smoking.

Tobacco use among substance use disorder (SUD) treatment staff is associated with tobacco-related services received by clients

BACKGROUND

Despite disproportionately high rates of smoking among people in residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, few receive tobacco cessation services. Little is known about how smoking among treatment staff may impact this disparity. We explored the relationship between staff tobacco use and client tobacco use. Additionally, we examined the relationship between staff tobacco use and tobacco-related services reported by staff and clients.

METHODS

Staff (n = 363) and clients (n = 639) in 24 California publicly-funded residential SUD treatment programs were surveyed in 2019-20. Staff self-reported current tobacco use, as well as their beliefs, self-efficacy, and practices regarding smoking cessation. Clients reported their tobacco use and they services received while in treatment. Regression analyses examined the adjusted and unadjusted associations between staff and client tobacco use and other outcomes.

RESULTS

Use of any tobacco product by staff ranged from 0% to 100% by program, with an average of 32% across programs. Adjusted analyses found that higher rates of staff tobacco use were associated with higher rates of client tobacco use, and with fewer clients receiving tobacco-related counseling. In programs that had higher rates of staff tobacco use, staff were less likely to believe that clients should quit smoking in treatment and had lower self-efficacy to address smoking.

CONCLUSION

Higher rates of tobacco use among staff are associated with higher rates of client tobacco use and fewer clients receiving cessation counseling. Efforts to reduce tobacco use among SUD clients should be supported by efforts to reduce tobacco use among staff. SUD treatment programs, and agencies that fund and regulate those programs, should aim to reduce the use of tobacco products among staff.

Tobacco use and tobacco services in California substance use treatment programs

BACKGROUND

California has one of the lowest smoking rates in the U.S. However, the California substance use disorder (SUD) treatment system collects no information on tobacco use. We explored smoking prevalence among persons enrolled in 20 residential SUD treatment programs, and whether persons who wanted help with quitting smoking received such help.

METHODS

Treatment program clients (N = 562) were surveyed about their smoking behavior and about tobacco-related services they received. Self-report smoking status was verified via expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurement. Multivariate analyses assessed whether clients who wanted help with quitting smoking received tobacco-related services (ask, advise, referral, counseling, pharmacotherapy) RESULTS: Using client self-report and expired CO, smoking prevalence in this sample was estimated at 68.9 %. Among smokers, mean cigarettes per day (CPD) was 9.7 (SD = 7.6), 58.8 % had made a quit attempt in the past year, 32.7 % were considering quitting smoking in the next 30 days, and 37.9 % wanted help with quitting. Clients who wanted help with quitting, compared to those not wanting help, were more likely to receive advice on how to quit, and tobacco-related counseling, referral, and pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSION

In this study, wanting help with quitting was associated with receiving tobacco related services. Nonetheless, fewer than half of the smokers in SUD treatment wanted help with quitting, and many who wanted help did not receive it. Given the high prevalence of smoking, and associated consequences for both general health and SUD recovery, SUD treatment systems should ensure tobacco-related assessment and intervention for all smokers.