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.

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.

Factors associated with dual and polytobacco use among people in residential substance use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Little is known about whether people in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment are at risk for multiple-tobacco use. We examined the factors associated with dual- and polytobacco use among clients in SUD treatment. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2019 among 562 clients (Mage = 39, 74% male) in 20 residential SUD treatment programs in California, USA. The outcomes included single-, dual- (use of two products), and polytobacco use (use of three of more products). Independent variables were nicotine dependence, quitting-related factors, blunt/spliff use, and health-related factors. A multinomial model examined associations between the independent variables and the outcome, controlling for demographics, and time in treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 32.6%, 18.9%, and 14.0% of the sample were single-, dual-, and polytobacco users, respectively. Factors associated with increased odds of polytobacco use included greater nicotine dependence (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.19, 2.16), ever using e-cigarettes for quitting (AOR = 4.56; 95% CI = 2.23, 9.34), and past 30-day use of blunt/spliff (AOR = 2.96; 95% CI = 1.48, 5.89). Factors associated with increased odds of dual use were ever using e-cigarettes for quitting (AOR = 3.19; 95% CI = 1.79, 5.66) and reporting more mentally unhealthy days (AOR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.07). CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study extends the literature on tobacco use among people in SUD treatment by revealing the high prevalence of dual- and polytobacco use and the unique characteristics of users. The findings have implications for interventions reducing all types of tobacco use in this understudied population.

Impacts of COVID-19 on residential treatment programs for substance use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic may present special challenges for residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities, which may lack infrastructure and support to implement infection control protocols while maintaining on-site treatment services. However, little is known about how residential SUD treatment programs are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The research team conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 directors of 20 residential SUD treatment programs across California during the state's shelter-in-place order. The researchers then analyzed qualitative interview data thematically and coded them using ATLAS.ti software. FINDINGS: Thematic analyses identified six major themes: program-level impacts, staff impacts, client impacts, use of telehealth, program needs, and positive effects. "Program-level impacts" were decreased revenue from diminished client censuses and insufficient resources to implement infection control measures. "Staff impacts" included layoffs, furloughs, and increased physical and emotional fatigue. "Client impacts" were delayed treatment initiation; receipt of fewer services while in treatment; lower retention; and economic and psychosocial barriers to community re-entry. "Use of telehealth" included technical and interpersonal challenges associated with telehealth visits. "Program needs" were personal protective equipment (PPE), stimulus funding, hazard pay, and consistent public health guidance. "Positive effects" of the pandemic response included increased attention to hygiene and health, telehealth expansion, operational improvements, and official recognition of SUD treatment as an essential health care service. CONCLUSION: Study findings highlight COVID-related threats to the survival of residential SUD treatment programs; retention of the SUD treatment workforce; and clients' SUD treatment outcomes. These findings also identify opportunities to improve SUD service delivery and suggest avenues of support for residential SUD treatment facilities during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Correlates of lifetime blunt/spliff use among cigarette smokers in substance use disorders treatment.

BACKGROUND: Co-use of tobacco and cannabis has been associated with greater dependence on and lower quit rates for both substances. Tobacco/cannabis co-use among individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs), a population with high rates of cigarette smoking, may hinder the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions. We examined rates of lifetime (i.e., ever vs. never) cannabis use among current cigarette smokers in SUD treatment, and we identified the subgroup who had used tobacco and cannabis together in the form of blunts and/or spliffs. We then examined variables associated with lifetime use of blunts and/or spliffs. METHODS: We surveyed 562 clients in 20 residential SUD treatment programs in California, USA, in 2019. Measures included demographics, lifetime use of any cannabis product, lifetime use of blunt/spliffs, patterns of tobacco use, and smoking cessation-related questions. We asked current cigarette smokers who also reported lifetime cannabis use whether they had ever used blunts and/or spliffs. We then assessed relationships of demographic, tobacco use, use of cannabis/tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in e-cigarettes/vape pens, and smoking cessation-related variables with ever use versus never use of blunts/spliffs. RESULTS: Among 340 current cigarette smokers, 93.2% (n = 317) reported lifetime use of any cannabis product. Among current cigarette smokers with lifetime cannabis use, 64.4% reported lifetime blunt/spliff use. Compared to those who had never used blunts/spliffs, lifetime blunt/spliff users were more likely to be younger (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.95), more likely to report lifetime use of cigars/cigarillos (OR = 2.95, CI 1.37-6.32), and to have ever used cannabis/THC in e-cigarettes/vape pens (OR = 4.26, CI 1.54-11.80). They were less often ready to quit smoking within 30 days (OR = 0.37, CI 0.23-0.60), but more likely to want help with smoking cessation (OR = 2.39, CI 1.52-3.77). CONCLUSION: Current cigarette smokers in SUD treatment reported a high prevalence of lifetime cannabis use. Smokers with a history of blunt/spliff use were more likely to report lifetime use of e-cigarettes/vape pens for cannabis/THC delivery. They wanted help to quit smoking, but felt less prepared to quit in the next 30 days. Cannabis co-use may warrant clinicians' attention when providing smoking cessation interventions during SUD treatment.

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.