A rationale and model for addressing tobacco dependence in substance abuse treatment

Most persons in drug treatment smoke cigarettes. Until drug treatment facilities systematically treat their patients' tobacco use, millions will flow through the drug treatment system, overcome their primary drug of abuse, but die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses. This paper reviews the literature on the health benefits of quitting smoking for drug treatment patients, whether smoking causes relapse to other drug or alcohol abuse, the treatment of tobacco dependence, and good and bad times for quitting smoking among drug treatment patients. It also presents a conceptual model and recommendations for treating tobacco in substance abuse treatment, and provides references to internet and paper-copy tools and information for treating tobacco dependence. At present, research on tobacco treatment in drug treatment is in its infancy. Although few drug treatment programs currently offer formal services, many more will likely begin to treat nicotine dependence as external forces and patient demand for these services increases. In the absence of clear guidelines and attention to quality of care, drug treatment programs may adopt smoking cessation services based on cost, convenience, or selection criteria other than efficacy. Because research in this field is relatively new, substance abuse treatment professionals should adhere to the standards of care for the general population, but be prepared to update their practices with emerging interventions that have proven to be effective for patients in drug treatment

A rationale and model for addressing tobacco dependence in substance abuse treatment

Most persons in drug treatment smoke cigarettes. Until drug treatment facilities systematically treat their patients' tobacco use, millions will flow through the drug treatment system, overcome their primary drug of abuse, but die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses. This paper reviews the literature on the health benefits of quitting smoking for drug treatment patients, whether smoking causes relapse to other drug or alcohol abuse, the treatment of tobacco dependence, and good and bad times for quitting smoking among drug treatment patients. It also presents a conceptual model and recommendations for treating tobacco in substance abuse treatment, and provides references to internet and paper-copy tools and information for treating tobacco dependence. At present, research on tobacco treatment in drug treatment is in its infancy. Although few drug treatment programs currently offer formal services, many more will likely begin to treat nicotine dependence as external forces and patient demand for these services increases. In the absence of clear guidelines and attention to quality of care, drug treatment programs may adopt smoking cessation services based on cost, convenience, or selection criteria other than efficacy. Because research in this field is relatively new, substance abuse treatment professionals should adhere to the standards of care for the general population, but be prepared to update their practices with emerging interventions that have proven to be effective for patients in drug treatment

Effects of post-discharge counseling and medication utilization on short and long-term smoking cessation among hospitalized patients

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.Numerous studies have tested the effect of multicomponent post-discharge smoking cessation interventions on post-discharge smoking cessation, and many are effective. However, little is known regarding the relative efficacy of the different intervention components on short or long-term cessation. The present study is a secondary analysis (n = 984) of a randomized controlled trial for hospitalized smokers that took place at two large hospitals in Kansas from 2011 to 2014. All study participants were offered post-discharge quitline services. Pharmacotherapy was recommended during bedside tobacco treatment. The study outcomes were self-reported cessation at 1-month and biochemically verified cessation at 6-months post-randomization. During the post-discharge period, 69% of participants completed at least one quitline call and 28% of participants reported using cessation pharmacotherapy. After controlling for known predictors of cessation among hospitalized smokers, both the number of total quitline calls completed post-discharge and use of cessation pharmacotherapy post-discharge were predictive of cessation at 1-month. After accounting for predictors of cessation and quitting at 1-month, total post-discharge quitline calls was associated with cessation at 6-months (OR [95% CI] = 1.23 [1.12, 1.35], p < 0.001) while post-discharge cessation pharmacotherapy use was not. The results suggest that both engagement in quitline services and use pharmacotherapy independently facilitate cessation beyond the influence of known clinical characteristics associated with cessation. Over the longer term, the effect of engaging in quitline services persists while the effect of pharmacotherapy diminishes. To optimize outcomes, future research should investigate methods to increase utilization of medications and promote sustained counseling engagement in order to sustain the effects of treatment during the post-discharge period.NIH National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01 HL105232

Adapting screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment to tobacco: a hospital trial of warm handoffs for smoking cessation

Peer Reviewe

Better Together: Engaging Stakeholders in Learning and Leadership to Guide Foundation Resources Toward Adaptive Systems Change

In 2014, the Kansas Health Foundation brought together a group of knowledgeable stakeholders from a multitude of specialties to focus on reducing tobacco use specifically among Kansans with mental illness. Over 15 months, the group and the foundation worked to learn deeply about the issue and inform action that could be taken on individual, organizational, and systemic levels. The wealth of knowledge and experience brought by each participant to the discussion and learning about this complex issue, together from a range of perspectives, resulted in a more productive dialogue. The model proved very effective, as evidenced by the group’s success in achieving a number of policy, system, and environmental changes — including expanding cessation benefits available under Medicaid in Kansas — and could be replicated by any foundation. The foundation continues to work collaboratively on this issue and discover more about what is effective in reducing tobacco use. What it learned alongside its community partners has powerfully informed the foundation’s approach to this work and has resulted in meaningful change, at multiple levels, in the behavioral health system

Perceptions of neighborhood social environment and drug dependence among incarcerated women and men: a cross-sectional analysis

Abstract Background Perception of neighborhood social environment can influence an individual&#8217;s susceptibility to drug dependence. However, this has never been examined with a jailed sample, where frequent transitions between local jails and disadvantaged neighborhoods are common. Understanding these associations could aid in the design of targeted programs to decrease drug dependence and recidivism among the incarcerated. Methods For this study, 596 women and men from three Kansas City jails were surveyed over the course of six months in 2010. Drug dependence was assessed with DSM-IV criteria. Independent variables included fear of one&#8217;s neighborhood, perceived level of neighborhood violence, and social capital. All data were self-reported and were analyzed using logistic regression. Results Controlling for gender and age, fear of neighborhood violence was associated with increased odds of having drug dependence (OR&#8201;=&#8201;1.27, CI 1.02, 1.58) and a higher level of social capital prior to incarceration was associated with lower odds of drug dependence (OR&#8201;=&#8201;0.65, CI 0.44, 0.96). Mental health problem diagnosis and past year intimate partner violence were significant mediating factors. Gender and race/ethnicity were significant moderating factors between neighborhood disadvantage and drug dependence. Conclusions Our study suggests that drug dependence programs for women and men who cycle between jails and communities require both individual- and community-level interventions. To be most effective, programs at the community-level should focus on helping specific groups navigate their communities, as well as address individual health needs associated with drug dependence.Peer Reviewe

Motivational Interviewing for encouraging quit attempts among unmotivated smokers: study protocol of a randomized, controlled, efficacy trial

Abstract Background Although the current Clinical Practice Guideline recommend Motivational Interviewing for use with smokers not ready to quit, the strength of evidence for its use is rated as not optimal. The purpose of the present study is to address key methodological limitations of previous studies by ensuring fidelity in the delivery of the Motivational Interviewing intervention, using an attention-matched control condition, and focusing on unmotivated smokers whom meta-analyses have indicated may benefit most from Motivational Interviewing. It is hypothesized that MI will be more effective at inducing quit attempts and smoking cessation at 6-month follow-up than brief advice to quit and an intensity-matched health education condition. Methods/Design A sample of adult community resident smokers (N = 255) who report low motivation and readiness to quit are being randomized using a 2:2:1 treatment allocation to Motivational Interviewing, Health Education, or Brief Advice. Over 6 months, participants in Motivational Interviewing and Health Education receive 4 individual counseling sessions and participants in Brief Advice receive one brief in-person individual session at baseline. Rigorous monitoring and independent verification of fidelity will assure the counseling approaches are distinct and delivered as planned. Participants complete surveys at baseline, week 12 and 6-month follow-up to assess demographics, smoking characteristics, and smoking outcomes. Participants who decide to quit are provided with a self-help guide to quitting, help with a quit plan, and free pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome is self-report of one or more quit attempts lasting at least 24 hours between randomization and 6-month follow-up. The secondary outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence cessation at 6-month follow-up. Hypothesized mediators of the presumed treatment effect on quit attempts are greater perceived autonomy support and autonomous motivation. Use of pharmacotherapy is a hypothesized mediator of Motivational Interviewing’s effect on cessation. Discussion This trial will provide the most rigorous evaluation to date of Motivational Interviewing’s efficacy for encouraging unmotivated smokers to make a quit attempt. It will also provide effect-size estimates of MI’s impact on smoking cessation to inform future clinical trials and inform the Clinical Practice Guideline. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01188018http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112923/1/12889_2012_Article_4312.pd

Motivational Interviewing for encouraging quit attempts among unmotivated smokers: Study protocol of a randomized, controlled, efficacy trial.

Abstract Background Although the current Clinical Practice Guideline recommend Motivational Interviewing for use with smokers not ready to quit, the strength of evidence for its use is rated as not optimal. The purpose of the present study is to address key methodological limitations of previous studies by ensuring fidelity in the delivery of the Motivational Interviewing intervention, using an attention-matched control condition, and focusing on unmotivated smokers whom meta-analyses have indicated may benefit most from Motivational Interviewing. It is hypothesized that MI will be more effective at inducing quit attempts and smoking cessation at 6-month follow-up than brief advice to quit and an intensity-matched health education condition. Methods/Design A sample of adult community resident smokers (N&#8201;=&#8201;255) who report low motivation and readiness to quit are being randomized using a 2:2:1 treatment allocation to Motivational Interviewing, Health Education, or Brief Advice. Over 6&#8201;months, participants in Motivational Interviewing and Health Education receive 4 individual counseling sessions and participants in Brief Advice receive one brief in-person individual session at baseline. Rigorous monitoring and independent verification of fidelity will assure the counseling approaches are distinct and delivered as planned. Participants complete surveys at baseline, week 12 and 6-month follow-up to assess demographics, smoking characteristics, and smoking outcomes. Participants who decide to quit are provided with a self-help guide to quitting, help with a quit plan, and free pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome is self-report of one or more quit attempts lasting at least 24 hours between randomization and 6-month follow-up. The secondary outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence cessation at 6-month follow-up. Hypothesized mediators of the presumed treatment effect on quit attempts are greater perceived autonomy support and autonomous motivation. Use of pharmacotherapy is a hypothesized mediator of Motivational Interviewing&#8217;s effect on cessation. Discussion This trial will provide the most rigorous evaluation to date of Motivational Interviewing&#8217;s efficacy for encouraging unmotivated smokers to make a quit attempt. It will also provide effect-size estimates of MI&#8217;s impact on smoking cessation to inform future clinical trials and inform the Clinical Practice Guideline. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01188018Peer Reviewe