Joseph Guydish1, Deborah Yip2, Thao Le2, Noah R Gubner2, Kevin Delucchi3, Paul Roman4. 1. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 3333 California St., Ste. 265, San Francisco, CA 94118, United States. Electronic address: joseph.guydish@ucsf.edu. 2. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 3333 California St., Ste. 265, San Francisco, CA 94118, United States. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Francisco, 401 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA 94143, United States. 4. Center for Research on Behavioral Health and Human Service Delivery, Owens Institute for Behavioral Research, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed changes in smoking-related outcomes in two cross-sectional samples of clients enrolled in addiction treatment and whether tobacco-free grounds policies were associated with smoking-related outcomes. METHOD: Clients in 25 programs were surveyed in 2015 (N=1176) and 2016 (N=1055). The samples were compared on smoking prevalence, cigarettes per day (CPD), thinking of quitting, past year quit attempts, staff and clients smoking together, attitudes towards quitting, and tobacco-related services. Second, programs with (n=6) and without (n=17) tobacco-free grounds at both time points were compared on smoking-related outcomes. Last, we examined changes in these measures for two programs that adopted tobacco-free grounds between 2015 and 2016. RESULTS: There was one difference across years, such that the mean score for the tobacco Program Service scale increased from 2.37 to 2.48 (p=0.043, effect size=0.02). In programs with tobacco-free grounds policies, compared to those without, both CPD and the rate of staff and clients smoking together were significantly lower. In the two programs where tobacco-free grounds were implemented during study years, client smoking prevalence decreased (92.5% v. 67.6%, p=0.005), the rate of staff and clients smoking together decreased (35.6% v. 4.2%, p=0.031), mean CPD decreased (10.62v. 8.24, p<0.001) and mean tobacco services received by clients increased (2.08v. 3.05, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Addiction treatment programs, and agencies responsible for licensing, regulating and funding these programs, should implement tobacco-free grounds policies.
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed changes in smoking-related outcomes in two cross-sectional samples of clients enrolled in addiction treatment and whether tobacco-free grounds policies were associated with smoking-related outcomes. METHOD: Clients in 25 programs were surveyed in 2015 (N=1176) and 2016 (N=1055). The samples were compared on smoking prevalence, cigarettes per day (CPD), thinking of quitting, past year quit attempts, staff and clients smoking together, attitudes towards quitting, and tobacco-related services. Second, programs with (n=6) and without (n=17) tobacco-free grounds at both time points were compared on smoking-related outcomes. Last, we examined changes in these measures for two programs that adopted tobacco-free grounds between 2015 and 2016. RESULTS: There was one difference across years, such that the mean score for the tobacco Program Service scale increased from 2.37 to 2.48 (p=0.043, effect size=0.02). In programs with tobacco-free grounds policies, compared to those without, both CPD and the rate of staff and clients smoking together were significantly lower. In the two programs where tobacco-free grounds were implemented during study years, client smoking prevalence decreased (92.5% v. 67.6%, p=0.005), the rate of staff and clients smoking together decreased (35.6% v. 4.2%, p=0.031), mean CPD decreased (10.62v. 8.24, p<0.001) and mean tobacco services received by clients increased (2.08v. 3.05, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Addiction treatment programs, and agencies responsible for licensing, regulating and funding these programs, should implement tobacco-free grounds policies.