Introduction: Individuals in treatment for substance use disorders (SUD) use tobacco at much higher rates than the general population. Qualitative research can help identify successful implementation approaches for tobacco-free policy interventions in SUD treatment, but qualitative post-intervention evaluation studies are limited. Methods: Directors of sixteen residential SUD treatment programs participated in a multi-year tobacco-free policy intervention. Semi-structured interviews ( n = 32) were conducted at 12- and 18 months post-intervention. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically to determine implementation barriers and supports. Results: Supports for tobacco-free policies included a broader wellness context, alternatives to smoking, community partnerships, gradual change, and patient inclusion. Barriers were patient cessation challenges, staff resistance, and insufficient capacity. Conclusion: Implementation of tobacco-free policies in residential SUD treatment programs is feasible but requires significant planning and support. Single state agencies and other substance use treatment authorities should allocate more resources to support implementation of tobacco-free policies in SUD treatment.

Accessible Summary What is known on the subject? Quitlines are known to be effective in helping people quit smoking, including those with mental health conditions. It is particularly important to address smoking in this population as the prevalence of smoking ranges from 40% to 75%. However, professionals working in quitlines often face barriers due to their limited training and resources to effectively support these smokers quit, especially if they are not mental health professionals. Therefore, training programmes should be developed to enhance their knowledge and skills in providing smoking cessation support to this vulnerable population. What the paper adds to existing knowledge? The ‘061 QUIT‐MENTAL study’ evaluated the efficacy of a proactive telephone‐based intervention for smoking cessation among smokers with severe mental health disorders. Conducted through a quitline service in Catalonia, Spain, the study focused on training non‐mental health specialized nurses and other health professionals to provide evidence‐based interventions for promoting smoking cessation among individuals with mental health disorders. The objective of this study is to assess the changes in nurses' knowledge and readiness to treat smokers with mental health conditions, while also capturing their insights and perceptions regarding the facilitators and barriers to providing smoking cessation interventions. The training and insights of the nurses were integral to conducting this research and providing valuable information for the future sustainability of such interventions. This is particularly important as quitlines hold the potential to offer cessation support to these patients at the community level. What are the implications for practice? While the training programme was successful in improving non‐mental health specialized nurses' knowledge and motivation skills to help patients with mental health disorders quit smoking, they encountered obstacles in delivering this intervention over the phone. These difficulties were mainly due to challenges in reaching participants and delivering the intervention as detailed in the protocol. The study highlights the need of reducing barriers for providers in attending to these patients, particularly if they are non‐mental health specialized professionals. By minimizing the stigmatization associated with caring for mentally ill individuals and promoting coordination with specialists, innovative approaches may be introduced to alleviate the burden of tobacco‐related diseases among this population. Abstract Introduction The viewpoint of those who implement a programme for the first time is crucial for understanding its impact and ensuring its long‐term viability. The 061 QUIT‐MENTAL study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluating a proactive telephone‐based intervention addressed to mental health patients conducted by non‐psychiatric specialized nurses. Aim We assessed nurses' knowledge of smoking cessation interventions addressed to this population before and after receiving training and their insights after delivering the intervention. Method Mixed methods study: (1) Pre‐post evaluation to assess self‐reported knowledge, self‐efficacy and opinions about smoking cessation. (2) In‐depth interviews with key nurses to ascertain their perceptions regarding the impact of the training received in delivering the study intervention. Results The training enhanced nurses' knowledge of psychological and pharmacological resources to aid these patients, as well as their ability to increase their motivation to quit. However, nurses reported difficulties in delivering population‐based interventions to individuals with mental health disorders. These challenges primarily arose from participants being hard to reach, exhibiting low motivation to quit, struggling to comprehend instructions or follow recommendations, and nurses feeling unsure about their capacity to assist individuals with mental illnesses in quitting, despite the training they received. Discussion Despite the training and protocol designed to facilitate the delivery of the intervention, nurses faced difficulties in providing population‐based interventions to individuals with mental health disorders. Implications for Practice Future quitline programmes aimed at the population with mental health disorders should strive to reduce barriers for providers in attending to these patients, particularly if they are non‐mental health specialized professionals. By minimizing the stigmatization associated with caring for mentally ill individuals and promoting coordination with specialists, innovative approaches may be introduced to alleviate the burden of tobacco‐related diseases among this population.

Background The global demand for treatment of cannabis use disorder has significantly increased, prompting a need to understand effective strategies for addressing concurrent cannabis and tobacco use. This study focuses on clinicians' experiences and perceptions in delivering smoking cessation services to cannabis users. Methods Three focus groups consisting of substance use professionals in Catalonia, Spain, were analyzed using Atlas-ti software, revealing five main themes and 17 subthemes: (i) User characteristics; (ii) Professional characteristics; (iii) Models of intervention; (iv) Organizational healthcare models; and (v) Health policies. Clinicians stressed the importance of intervention models and the active role of professionals in addressing tobacco use within routine care. Results Clinicians believed that tobacco cessation could mitigate social isolation and chronic issues among cannabis users, especially those engaged in polydrug use. Recommendations included integrating smoking cessation into all services, reducing healthcare service fragmentation, improving resource accessibility, enhancing clinical documentation, and advocating for stronger population-level tobacco control policies. Conclusions Clinicians suggested adopting a personalized therapeutic approach, implementing a more comprehensive model with increased resources, and reinforcing population-level tobacco control policies to enhance intervention effectiveness.

Background Approximately 1 in 6 cannabis users develop a cannabis use disorder (CUD) and the odds increase to 1 in 2 for daily users. Objective The Dual use of Cannabis and Tobacco Monitoreing through a Gamified Web app (DuCATA_GAM-CaT) project aims to identify cannabis-tobacco patterns of use and withdrawal symptoms among individuals with CUD who are attending substance abuse programs. Methods The project uses a mixed methods approach consisting of 3 studies. First, a participatory qualitative study involves focus groups comprising individuals with CUD, clinicians, project researchers, and an expert gamification company to co-design a gamified web app. Second, a longitudinal prospective study to follow up individuals over 6 weeks with CUD attending substance abuse programs . Participants report their cannabis-tobacco usage patterns, type and frequency of tobacco use, nicotine dependence, withdrawal symptoms, psychoemotional factors, and motivation to quit both substances. Predictive analysis techniques are used to analyze clinical, demographic, psychological, and environmental data to predict the probability of achieving abstinence. Third, homogeneous focus groups to explore participants’ experiences during their CUD treatment. Results By June 2024, the project had completed the first study, defining eligible cannabis user profiles, developed the initial web app prototype, and initiated recruitment across 10 centers, with 74 participants enrolled, aiming to reach 150 participants in total. Conclusions All participants are required to provide informed consent, and their information is kept confidential and anonymized following confidentiality rules. The research team is committed to disseminating the results obtained to professional and patient groups, as well as informing public health agents, to positively influence political and social decision makers and design programmers. Additionally, we aim to prioritize the publication of the results in high-impact journals specialized in drug abuse, public health, and health care services research. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05512091; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05512091 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/58335

A pragmatic double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted in Barcelona to assess a telephone-based smoking cessation intervention’s effectiveness for individuals with mental health disorders post-discharge. Participants were divided into an intervention group (IG) and control group (CG) with a 2:1 allocation ratio. The IG received proactive motivational assistance, while the CG received brief advice. Biochemically validated past 7-day abstinence was the main outcome measure. Of 530 screened individuals, 294 were enrolled (200 IG, 94 CG). During follow-up, participants reported 97 episodes of ≥ 7-day abstinence (IG, 51; CG, 26). Overall abstinence probability was 30–35%, with no difference between groups at 1-year follow-up. However, intervention participants were more likely to report abstinence if they quit during hospitalization or were considering quitting. The intervention effectively supported smoking abstinence in motivated individuals. Combining this with clinical and community-based interventions holds promise for aiding smoking cessation in those with mental disorders. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03230955.

A California-sponsored, 18-month, tobacco-free intervention in residential substance use disorder (SUD) programs was associated with increases in tobacco-free grounds and tobacco-related client services. The current study examined whether positive results would be replicated in 11 programs participating subsequently. Program directors (N = 11) completed surveys of tobacco-related policies pre- and post-intervention. Pre- (n = 163) and post-intervention (n = 128) cross-sectional staff surveys examined tobacco-related training, beliefs, practices, smoking policy, and smoking status. Directors reported increases in tobacco-free grounds (from 3 to 8 programs), tobacco-related staff training (1 to 10 programs), tobacco cessation staff services (1 to 9 programs) and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) provision (6 to 10 programs). At post-intervention, staff were more likely to report smoke-free workplaces (p = 0.008), positive beliefs about treating tobacco use (p = 0.017) and less likely to report current smoking (p = 0.003). Clinical staff were more likely to report tobacco-related training receipt (p = 0.001), program-level NRT provision (p = 0.009) and conducting tobacco-related client services (p < 0.0001) post-intervention. Findings of increases in tobacco-free grounds and tobacco cessation client services corroborated prior results. These and the additional finding of decreases in staff smoking strengthen evidence that initiatives supporting tobacco-free policies can be successfully implemented in SUD treatment.

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.

OBJECTIVE:To explore the scope of diagnosed eating disorders among Medicaid-insured youth in California, and to describe the demographic characteristics of this population in a repeated annual cross-sectional study design. METHOD:California Medicaid claims data were extracted for youth aged 7 to 18 years between January 2014 and December 2016. Participants included all youth who received an eating disorder diagnosis at any point in the study period (N = 8,075). Additional analyses compared youth with eating disorders who were continuously enrolled across all 3 years (n = 4,500) to random subsamples of continuously enrolled youth diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder (n = 4,128), a disruptive behavior disorder (n = 4,599), or a psychotic disorder (n = 4,290). RESULTS:About one-half of youth with eating disorders were Latinx (58.5%, n = 2,634) and indicated Spanish as their preferred language (48.9%, n = 2,199). About one-half (51%, n = 2,301) of eating disorder diagnoses were unspecified. Latinx ethnicity and Spanish language were significantly more frequent among youth with eating disorders than among those with other disorders (F11.97, F362.75, p values <.0005). CONCLUSION:The first examination of publicly insured youth with eating disorders revealed a highly diverse group of individuals among whom Latinx youth were particularly prevalent. However, past-year national prevalence estimates suggest that most eating disorder cases were undiagnosed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY:Eating disorders affect approximately 10% of the US population and lead to serious mental health and medical problems. This study used California Medicaid claims data from 2014 to 2016 to characterize the population of youth aged 7 to 18 years with diagnosed with an eating disorder (N = 8,075). The authors found the prevalence of eating disorders among youth aged 13 to 18 years was about 0.20% across all 3 years of the study, which is far below the expected prevalence and suggests that most eating disorders in youth go undiagnosed. About half of eating disorder diagnoses provided to youth with Medicaid insurance are unspecified, which may hinder receipt of appropriate treatment. Of youth with an eating disorder, about half were Latinx and reported Spanish as their preferred language. The authors also found differences in the prevalences of eating disorder diagnoses when analyzing youth by age, sex, and ethnicity. These results suggest that more standardized screening and assessment is needed to improve eating disorders detection and diagnosis, particularly for minoritized youth.

Background Smoking prevalence is high among people in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and program interventions to address smoking are often complex and lengthy. This cluster-randomized trial tested whether a brief multi-component intervention impacted tobacco outcomes among staff and clients. Methods Seven SUD treatment programs were randomly assigned to the multi-component intervention or to waitlist control. The 6-month intervention included a leadership motivation assessment, program incentives, 4 staff training sessions and a leadership learning community session. Survey data were collected from staff and clients at pre- and post-intervention. Outcomes were first compared across condition (intervention vs waitlist control), and then examined pre- to post-intervention with condition collapsed. Results Staff in the intervention ( n = 48) and control conditions ( n = 26) did not differ at post-intervention on smoking prevalence, self-efficacy to help clients quit, or practices used to help clients quit smoking. Intervention clients ( n = 113) did not differ from controls ( n = 61) in smoking prevalence or receipt of tobacco services. Pre-post comparisons collapsed across condition showed a decrease in client and staff smoking prevalence, which could not be attributed to the intervention, and a decrease in client receipt of cessation medication. Conclusion The brief multi-component intervention did not support changes in smoking prevalence or in tobacco-related services received by clients. Other intervention features are needed to reduce smoking among SUD clients. Trial registration Randomization occurred at the program level and outcomes measured are program-level measures. Accordingly, the trial is not registered.

Introduction Outdoor smoke-free regulations reduce exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) and help to denormalize tobacco use. As future key agents in health promotion, nursing students’ attitudes should agree with tobacco-control policies. Our objective was to assess nursing students’ exposure to SHS in nursing schools, to explore their perception towards compliance with the existing smoke-free regulations in acute hospitals, and to describe their support for banning smoking in indoor and outdoor areas of hospital and university campuses. Material and Methods Cross-sectional multicenter study conducted in 2015-2016 in all 15 university nursing schools in Catalonia, Spain. A questionnaire gathered information about SHS exposure, awareness of the smoke-free regulation in acute hospitals, and support for smoke-free policies in hospitals and university campuses. We performed descriptive analyses and calculated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results From 4381 respondents, 99.1% had seen people smoking in outdoor areas of their university campuses, and 75.2% were exposed to SHS on the campus (6.0% indoors and 69.2% outdoors). Near 60% were aware of the smoking regulation in force in acute hospitals. Support for indoor smoke-free regulation in hospitals was widespread (98.7%), while it was lower (64.8%) for outdoor areas. About 33% supported regulating outdoor healthcare university campuses to make them smoke-free, being higher among those in the third year of training as compared to the first-year students (aPR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.24-1.62), among never smokers (41.4%; aPR: 2.84; 95% CI: 2.21-3.64) compared to smokers, and among those who were aware of the regulation (38.4%; 95% CI: 1.37-1.75). Conclusions SHS exposure on university campuses is high. Nursing students express low support for strengthening outdoor smoking bans on hospital and university campuses. Measures aiming to increase their support should be implemented.

Introduction: Interest in wellness interventions in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is growing although evidence remains limited. This study evaluated nutrition, physical activity, nutrition and physical activity counseling, and relationships of counseling with wellness behavior before and after a wellness-oriented, tobacco-free policy intervention in 17 residential SUD programs. Methods: Clients completed cross-sectional surveys reporting sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, physical activity, and receipt of nutrition and physical activity counseling before (n= 434) and after (n = 422) an 18-month intervention. Multivariable regression models assessed pre-post-intervention differences in these variables and examined associations of nutrition counseling with sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and physical activity counseling with physical activity. Results: Post-intervention clients were 83% more likely than pre-intervention clients to report nutrition counseling (p = 0.024). There were no pre-post- differences for other variables. Past week sugar-sweetened beverage consumption was 22% lower among clients reporting nutrition counseling than for those who did not (p = 0.008) and this association did not vary by time (pre/post). There was a significant interaction of physical activity counseling receipt by time on past week physical activity (p = 0.008). Pre-intervention clients reporting physical activity counseling had 22% higher physical activity than those who did not; post-intervention clients reporting physical activity counseling had 47% higher physical activity. Conclusion: A wellness policy intervention was associated with increased nutrition counseling. Nutrition counseling predicted lower sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Physical activity counseling predicted higher physical activity, an association that was greater post-intervention. Adding wellness components to tobacco-related interventions may promote health among SUD clients.

INTRODUCTION Outdoor smoke-free regulations reduce exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) and help to denormalize tobacco use.As future key agents in health promotion, nursing students' attitudes should agree with tobacco-control policies.The objectives of this study were: 1) assess nursing students' exposure to SHS in nursing schools, 2) explore their perceptions of compliance with the existing smoke-free regulations in acute-care hospitals; and 3) describe their support for indoor and outdoor smoking bans on hospital and university campuses.METHODS This was a cross-sectional multicenter study conducted in 2015-2016 in all 15 university nursing schools in Catalonia, Spain.A questionnaire gathered information on SHS exposure, awareness of the smoke-free regulation in acutecare hospitals, and support for smoke-free policies in indoor and outdoor areas of hospitals and university campuses.Participants were nursing students attending classes on the day of the survey.We performed descriptive analyses and calculated adjusted prevalence ratios (APR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).RESULTS Of 4381 respondents, 99.1% had seen people smoking in outdoor areas of their university campus, and 75.2% had been exposed to SHS on the campus (6.0% indoors and 69.2% outdoors).Nearly 60% were aware of the smoking regulation in place in acute-care hospitals.There was widespread support for smoke-free indoor hospital regulation (98.7%), but less support (64.8%) for outdoor regulations.Approximately 33% supported the regulation to make outdoor healthcare campuses smoke-free, which was higher among third-year students compared to first-year students (APR=1.41;95% CI: 1.24-1.62),among never smokers (41.4%;APR=2.84;95% CI: 2.21-3.64)compared to smokers, and among those who were aware of the regulation (38.4%; 95% CI: 1.37-1.75).CONCLUSIONS Exposure to SHS on university campuses is high.Nursing students express low support for strengthening outdoor smoking bans on hospital and university campuses.Interventions aiming to increase their support should be implemented.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Gambling is highly comorbid with disordered use of tobacco and other drugs, and may increase relapse risk among substance use disorder (SUD) patients. We investigated associations between gambling and tobacco use behaviors among SUD patients to inform clinical care. METHODS Patients (N = 651, 170 female) from 25 residential SUD treatment programs in California completed surveys about tobacco use, health, and gambling. Using multivariate regression, we examined associations between gambling, tobacco use behaviors, and mental and physical health. RESULTS Past-year gamblers were more likely than non-gamblers to be current smokers (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03, 2.01). Smokers who gambled had higher mean Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) scores (mean difference = +0.32, 95% CI = 0.04, 0.60), and more often reported smokeless tobacco use (AOR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.16, 2.58), compared to non-gambling smokers. Past-year problem gamblers were more likely than all others (non-gamblers and non-problem gamblers) to be current smokers (AOR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.08, 1.90) and to report high psychosocial stress (AOR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.34, 2.61). Smokers with problem gambling also had higher HSI scores (mean difference = +0.54, 95% CI = 0.14, 0.95) compared to smokers without problem gambling. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Gambling and problem gambling were associated with tobacco use and heavier smoking. SUD patients with gambling comorbidity may be heavier smokers and may need concurrent treatment for tobacco use and problem gambling. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE This study provides novel data regarding gambling and tobacco use behaviors among SUD patients.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.18332/tid/160974.].

Background Approximately 80% of people with a substance use disorder (SUD) are smokers. Starting SUD treatment offers the opportunity to also quit smoking. The ACT-ATAC project aims to identify the predictors associated with smoking cessation among persons treated for alcohol and/or cannabis use disorder in Barcelona. This manuscript reports its methodology and the experience of carrying it out during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Mixed methods project with three substudies. Substudy 1 (S1) comprises heterogeneous discussion groups among clinicians. S2 has two prospective cohorts composed of smokers under treatment for alcohol and/or cannabis use disorder and the clinicians in charge of these patients. Participating smokers will be followed for 12 months and interviewed about their substance use and the tobacco cessation services received using the Spanish version of the users’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Services (S-KAS) scale. The clinicians will be asked about their self-reported practices in smoking cessation using the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (S-KAP) scale. S3 comprises heterogeneous discussion groups with smokers. Data will be triangulated using qualitative and quantitative analyses. To facilitate the recruitment process, the researchers have introduced several strategies (design clear protocols, set monthly online meetings, extend the project, provide gift cards, etc.). Discussion The results of S1 were used to develop the questionnaires. S2 required some adjustments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the follow-up interviews being conducted by phone instead of face-to-face, and the recruitment rhythm was lower than expected. Recruitment will last until reaching at least 200–250 users. The fieldwork could not have been possible without the collaboration of the ACT-ATAC team and the introduction of several strategies. Trial registration The ACT-ATAC project has been successfully registered at Clinicaltrials.gov [NCT04841655].

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.

Background: Limited data are available on other substance use in e-cigarettes (OSUE). The aim of this research was to determine the prevalence and predictors of OSUE among a sample of individuals in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Methods: In 2019, we surveyed 553 individuals from 18 residential SUD treatment programs in California, USA. Individuals reporting any lifetime use of an e-cigarette containing nicotine (n = 279) were asked about ever use of drugs other than nicotine in their e-cigarette. Those who reported use of non-nicotine drugs in their e-cigarette also reported what psychoactive drugs were used. Results: Among all the participants, 25 % (n = 139) . reported ever engaging in OSUE. The most common drugs used in vaping devices were marijuana/THC/hash, (70.5 %, n = 98) and amphetamines/methamphetamine (51.1 %, n = 71). Among those who had engaged in OSUE, 44.6 % (n = 62) had vaped drugs for which they sought treatment. Older persons (OR = 0.93, CI 0.91, 0.95) and African Americans (OR = 0.48, CI 0.24, 0.94) were less likely to have ever engaged in OSUE, while persons in treatment for opioid use were more likely (OR = 1.71, CI 1.08, 2.71). Conclusion: Among a sample of clients in SUD treatment, about 25% had ever engaged in OSUE, with THC/marijuana and amphetamines most commonly reported. Further research is needed to evaluate the OSUE to understand the reasons for use and implications among persons enrolled in SUD treatment.

BACKGROUND:Across the United States, substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs vary in terms of tobacco-related policies and cessation services offered. Implementation of tobacco-related policies within this setting can face several barriers. Little is known about how program leadership anticipate such barriers at the pre-implementation phase. This study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) during the pre-implementation stage to identify factors that may influence the implementation stage of tobacco-related cessation policies and services in residential SUD programs. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with sixteen residential treatment program directors in California. The analysis was guided by a deductive approach using CFIR domains and constructs to develop codes and identify themes. ATLAS.ti software was used to facilitate thematic analysis of interview transcripts. FINDINGS:Themes that arose as anticipated facilitators for implementation included the relative advantage of the intervention vs. current practice, external policies/incentives to support tobacco-related policy, program directors' strong commitment and high self-efficacy to incorporate cessation into SUD treatment, and recognizing the importance of planning and engaging opinion leaders. Potential barriers included the SUD recovery culture, low stakeholder engagement, organizational culture, lack of workforce expertise, and lack of reimbursement for smoking cessation services. CONCLUSION:To support successful implementation of tobacco-related organizational change interventions, staff and clients of residential SUD programs require extensive education about the effectiveness of evidence-based medications and behavioral therapies for treating tobacco dependence. Publicly funded SUD treatment programs should receive support to address tobacco dependence among their clients through expanded reimbursement for tobacco cessation services.

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 pro-grams 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.

BackgroundPeople 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.MethodsResidential 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.ResultsClient 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).ConclusionAn 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.