A randomized trial of a brief smoking cessation intervention in a light and intermittent Hispanic sample.

This study assessed the efficacy of a brief smoking cessation intervention in a light and intermittent smoking Hispanic sample. Two hundred fifty light (≤10 cigarettes per day) and intermittent smokers (nondaily smokers) (LITS) were recruited from a family health clinic and a border-region university; data from Hispanic participants (n = 214; 52.8% female) were analyzed for the purposes of the present study. Participants completed baseline measures assessing demographics, tobacco use/history, stage of change (SOC), perceived competence to quit smoking, and expired carbon monoxide (CO). Participants were randomly assigned to an immediate (II) or delayed (DI) brief cessation intervention. Psychology graduate students provided the intervention, which primarily addressed motivation, self-efficacy, and trigger management; blinding to condition was not feasible at follow-up. At the 3-month follow-up, smoking status, SOC, and perceived competence score (PCS) were assessed and analyzed via logistic and linear regression models by intervention assignment. Results indicated that intervention assignment was not associated with past 30-day smoking cessation (5.6% immediate condition vs. 4.7% delayed condition) or PCS. Nevertheless, participants in the II were more likely to increase readiness to quit smoking relative to those in the DI. Future efforts should focus on capitalizing on motivation change to promote smoking cessation.

Do defense attorney referrals for competence to stand trial evaluations depend on whether the client speaks English or Spanish?

Criminal defense attorneys (N = 142) responded to a survey asking them to read a vignette describing a Hispanic defendant charged with assault and rate the severity of the defendant's mental illness and likelihood of referring him for an evaluation of competence to stand trial (CST). The vignettes varied in terms of whether the defendant spoke English or Spanish, and whether his mental illness symptoms were obvious or ambiguous. Overall, attorneys rated the Spanish-speaking defendant as less mentally ill than the English-speaking defendant, and were less likely to refer the Spanish-speaking defendant for a CST evaluation. Attorneys who perceived more logistical barriers to seeking a CST evaluation in their local communities were less likely to refer the defendant for a CST evaluation, but only when the defendant spoke Spanish. These findings suggest attorney decisions were influenced by language, although further research is needed to identify the mechanism of this influence.