Smoking Cessation Services and Smoke-Free Policies at Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities: National Survey Results
Abstract
Objective:
The high prevalence of cigarette smoking among substance-abusing patients has raised concern. This study assessed the prevalence of and factors related to smoking cessation services and smoke-free policies in substance abuse treatment facilities in the United States.
Methods:
Facility-level data were obtained from the 2012 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N=13,094). Multivariate logistic regressions were used to examine institutional- and state-level factors associated with use of smoking cessation services and smoking bans.
Results:
Of all facilities, 46.8% offered behavioral counseling or pharmacotherapy services for smoking cessation, and 35.2% banned smoking on the property. Programs were more likely to offer smoking cessation services and to ban smoking if they had the following characteristics: they offered inpatient services, accepted government insurance, were licensed by state mental health departments, or were located in metropolitan areas, states with comprehensive smoke-free laws, or states where >30% of substance abuse treatment facilities were smoke free. Public programs were more likely than private for-profit organizations to offer smoking cessation services and to ban smoking. Providing a greater number of services was positively associated with delivery of smoking cessation services but negatively associated with smoking bans. Larger programs were more likely to provide smoking cessation services but less likely to ban smoking.
Conclusions:
Institutional characteristics and state environments influenced provision of smoking cessation services and smoke-free policies at substance abuse treatment facilities. These factors could be used to design comprehensive programs for dissemination of smoking cessation treatment and promotion of smoking bans at these facilities.
Although smoking prevalence in the United States has been declining in the general population, prevalence among the population with substance abuse problems has remained high and has generated considerable public health concern (1). It is estimated that the smoking rate among those seeking substance abuse treatment is over 65% (2), roughly three times the rate in the general population. In 2012, around 1.25 million people received treatment in substance abuse treatment facilities on an average day (3). Therefore, these facilities are logical settings to provide smoking cessation treatment for smokers with substance use disorders.
Studies suggest that providing smoking cessation treatment during substance abuse treatment can improve smoking cessation rates (4–10) without negatively affecting the treatment of substance abuse problems (4,11–14). There is a growing consensus that integration of smoking cessation services into substance abuse treatment is essential for reducing smoking prevalence among smokers with substance abuse problems (4,15–18). However, the rate of adoption of smoking cessation services by substance abuse facilities has been low. It is estimated that only 43% of substance abuse inpatient treatment programs for adolescents and 41% of outpatient substance abuse treatment facilities provide smoking cessation counseling or pharmacotherapy (19,20). Similarly, although smoking bans are effective in promoting smoking cessation in the general population (21,22) and implementation of such bans in substance abuse treatment facilities is feasible (23–26), smoking bans have not been widely adopted in those settings. Concerns about implementing smoking bans include effects on smoking among staff, inadequate training to implement a ban, and the need to prioritize substance abuse treatment over smoking cessation (27–29).
Two studies have examined institutional factors associated with providing smoking cessation services in substance abuse treatment facilities (19,30). They found that the source of funding, breadth of service offerings, hospital affiliation, program size, and medical staffing were related to provision of smoking cessation services (19,30). However, these studies relied on small samples of facilities or facilities of a particular type (for example, outpatient or methadone treatment), limiting their generalizability. In addition, there has been no investigation of state-level factors that could have an impact on provision of smoking cessation services or implementation of smoke-free campuses at substance abuse treatment facilities.
The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics associated with smoking policies at substance abuse treatment facilities in the United States. Specifically, we analyzed data from a large facility-level survey to provide estimates of the delivery of smoking cessation services and the adoption of smoke-free policies. We also assessed facility-level and state-level factors associated with the provision of services and the adoption of smoking bans. Findings from this study could inform efforts to disseminate smoking cessation treatment and promote smoking bans at substance abuse treatment facilities.
Methods
Data Source
We obtained facility-level data from the 2012 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS). Administered annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the N-SSATS surveys all public and private substance abuse treatment facilities in the United States. The 2012 N-SSATS was provided to 16,114 eligible facilities and was completed by 14,995 facilities, a response rate of 93%. We excluded halfway houses, solo practitioners, facilities that provided treatment only for incarcerated persons, and facilities that did not provide substance abuse treatment services that year. The final sample included 13,094 substance abuse treatment institutions.
State-level characteristics related to smoke-free environments were linked to the 2012 N-SSATS by using state identifiers. State-level data were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the American Lung Association or were created by aggregating facility-level data from the 2012 N-SSATS.
Smoking Cessation Services and Smoke-Free Policies
Two binary outcome variables were analyzed: whether the facility provided any smoking cessation services and whether the facility banned smoking on the property. Facilities were coded as providing smoking cessation services if they offered nicotine replacement pharmacotherapies, non-nicotine smoking or tobacco cessation medications, or smoking cessation counseling. Facilities were coded as banning smoking if smoking was not permitted on the property or within any building.
Characteristics of Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities
Potential explanatory variables relevant to the outcomes were selected a priori and were grouped into four broad categories: service characteristics, financial characteristics, client characteristics, and general characteristics. Service characteristics included the primary focus of the facility, facility ownership, range of services, and type of services; financial characteristics included provision of free services to the poor and acceptance of government health insurance plans; client characteristics included type of treatment that clients were seeking and number of substance abuse admissions in the past 12 months; and general characteristics included facility location and licensing.
Tobacco Control Environment at the State Level
Characteristics of state-level tobacco control included whether the state had comprehensive smoke-free laws (31), whether state spending on tobacco prevention and control exceeded 50% of the level recommended by the CDC (32), and whether the proportion of smoke-free substance abuse treatment facilities in the state was greater than the national median of 30%. According to the CDC, a smoke-free law is considered comprehensive if it bans smoking in all indoor workplaces, restaurants, and bars, with no exceptions (31).
Statistical Analysis
The institutional characteristics of facilities that provided smoking cessation services and those that did not were compared. Likewise, institutional characteristics of smoke-free facilities and facilities without smoke-free policies were compared. The correlation between providing smoking cessation services and having a smoke-free campus was analyzed by using a Pearson correlation. Separate multivariate logistic regressions examined the relation between institutional- and state-level factors and the facilities’ provision of smoking cessation services and use of smoke-free policies. No sampling weights were applied in this study because the N-SSATS samples all eligible facilities in the United States. Stata 12 was used to perform the statistical analysis. Results with p values <.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
Of 13,094 substance abuse treatment facilities in the United States, 46.8% offered behavioral counseling, pharmacotherapy, or both services for smoking cessation in 2012. More facilities provided behavioral counseling (N=5,214, 40.8%) than pharmacotherapy (N=3,402, 26.0%). Approximately one-third of facilities (35.2% of 12,949 respondents) banned smoking on facility property. There was a significant correlation between the provision of smoking cessation services and banning smoking (r=.2, p<.001). In 2012, 26 states had comprehensive smoke-free laws; 13 states spent at least 50% of the CDC-recommended level on tobacco prevention and control; and 25 states ranked above the median (30%) in the proportion of substance abuse treatment facilities with complete smoking bans. Table 1 contains descriptive information on institutional-level variables.
| Characteristic | Total (N=13,094) | Smoking cessation services | Smoke-free facilityb | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (N=6,131) | No (N=6,963) | Yes (N=4,557) | No (N=8,392) | |||||||
| % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | |
| Service | ||||||||||
| Substance abuse treatment is primary focus | 55.2 | 53.4–56.0 | 51.6 | 50.6–53.1 | 58.1 | 56.9–59.3 | 54.1 | 52.7–55.6 | 55.9 | 54.8–56.9 |
| Ownership | ||||||||||
| Private for-profit | 28.8 | 28.1–29.6 | 23.7 | 22.6–24.8 | 33.4 | 32.3–34.5 | 18.7 | 17.5–19.8 | 34.3 | 33.3–35.4 |
| Private nonprofit | 57.7 | 56.9–58.6 | 59.9 | 58.7–61.1 | 55.8 | 54.7–57.0 | 66.9 | 65.5–68.3 | 52.8 | 51.7–53.9 |
| Public | 13.4 | 12.8–14.0 | 16.4 | 15.4–17.3 | 10.8 | 10.1–11.5 | 14.4 | 13.4–15.5 | 12.8 | 12.1–13.6 |
| Mean number of ancillary services, excluding smoking cessation counseling | 8.5 | 8.4–8.6 | 10.0 | 9.9–10.1 | 7.2 | 7.1–7.3 | 8.5 | 8.4–8.6 | 8.5 | 8.4–8.6 |
| Offers hospital inpatient substance abuse services | 5.2 | 4.8–5.6 | 10.0 | 9.2–10.7 | 1.0 | .7–1.2 | 7.2 | 6.5–8.0 | 4.0 | 3.6–4.4 |
| Offers residential substance abuse services | 25.1 | 24.4–25.9 | 31.6 | 30.5–32.8 | 19.4 | 18.5–20.3 | 21.1 | 20.0–22.3 | 27.3 | 26.3–28.2 |
| Offers outpatient substance abuse services | 82.2 | 81.5–82.9 | 77.1 | 76.1–78.2 | 86.7 | 85.9–87.5 | 81.7 | 80.6–82.8 | 82.4 | 81.6–83.3 |
| Financial | ||||||||||
| Offers free treatment to clients who cannot afford payment | 50.3 | 49.5–51.2 | 55.0 | 53.8–56.2 | 46.2 | 45.0–47.4 | 53.7 | 52.3–55.2 | 48.4 | 47.4–49.5 |
| Accepts government health insurance plans, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or state insurance | 70.3 | 69.6–71.1 | 75.8 | 74.8–76.9 | 65.5 | 64.4–66.6 | 80.5 | 79.3–81.7 | 64.9 | 63.9–65.9 |
| Client | ||||||||||
| >50% of clients in treatment for abuse of alcohol only | 12.2 | 11.7–12.8 | 10.4 | 9.6–11.1 | 13.9 | 13.1–14.7 | 9.9 | 9.1–10.8 | 13.5 | 12.8–14.2 |
| Substance abuse treatment admissions in the past 12 months | ||||||||||
| ≤100 | 37.2 | 36.4–38.1 | 33.6 | 32.4–34.8 | 40.4 | 39.2–41.6 | 38.4 | 37.0–39.8 | 36.8 | 35.7–37.8 |
| 101–500 | 42.6 | 41.7–43.4 | 42.0 | 40.7–43.3 | 43.0 | 41.8–44.1 | 40.5 | 39.0–41.9 | 43.8 | 42.8–44.9 |
| ≥501 | 12.6 | 12.0–13.2 | 16.5 | 15.6–17.5 | 9.1 | 8.4–9.8 | 13.1 | 12.1–14.1 | 12.3 | 11.6–13.1 |
| General | ||||||||||
| Located in metropolitan statistical area | 75.7 | 75.0–76.5 | 77.4 | 76.3–78.4 | 74.4 | 73.3–75.4 | 76.1 | 74.9–77.3 | 75.5 | 74.6–76.5 |
| Licensed by state substance abuse agency | 81.8 | 81.1–82.5 | 80.0 | 79.0–81.0 | 82.9 | 82.0–83.8 | 83.8 | 82.7–84.9 | 80.5 | 79.7–81.4 |
| Licensed by state mental health department | 38.6 | 37.7–39.4 | 39.5 | 38.2–40.7 | 38.0 | 36.9–39.1 | 39.0 | 37.6–40.41 | 38.6 | 37.6–39.7 |
a
Source: 2012 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (3)
b
Data on smoke-free facility policies were available for 12,949 facilities.
Table 2 presents results of the logistic regression for the availability of smoking cessation services and the adoption of complete smoking bans by institutional- and state-level characteristic. Facilities that focused primarily on substance abuse treatment (odds ratio [OR]=.8) and facilities that were licensed by a state substance abuse agency (OR=.8) or a state mental health agency (OR=.9) were less likely than facilities without these characteristics to provide smoking cessation services. Private nonprofit institutions (OR=.9) were less likely than private for-profit organizations to provide smoking cessation services. Public institutions (OR=1.3) were more likely than private for-profit institutions to offer smoking cessation treatment. Facilities that accepted government health insurance plans (OR=1.2), were located in a metropolitan area (OR=1.1), provided a greater number of ancillary services excluding smoking cessation counseling (OR=1.2), or offered inpatient or residential services (OR=11.3 and OR=1.4, respectively) were more likely than facilities without these characteristics to offer smoking cessation treatment.
| Characteristic | Smoking cessation services | Smoke-free facility | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | p | OR | 95% CI | p | |
| Service | ||||||
| Substance abuse treatment is primary focus | .8 | .7–.8 | <.001 | 1.0 | .9–1.1 | .61 |
| Ownership (reference: private for-profit) | ||||||
| Private nonprofit | .9 | .8–.1.0 | .036 | 2.3 | 2.0–2.5 | <.001 |
| Public | 1.3 | 1.1–1.5 | .001 | 2.2 | 1.9–2.5 | <.001 |
| Number of ancillary services, excluding smoking cessation counseling | 1.2 | 1.2–1.2 | <.001 | 1.0 | 1.0–1.0 | .001 |
| Offers hospital inpatient substance abuse services | 11.3 | 8.4–15.3 | <.001 | 1.9 | 1.6–2.3 | <.001 |
| Offers residential substance abuse services | 1.4 | 1.2–1.6 | <.001 | .5 | .4–.6 | <.001 |
| Offers outpatient substance abuse services | 1.0 | .8–1.2 | .95 | .7 | .6–.8 | <.001 |
| Financial | ||||||
| Offers free treatment to clients who cannot afford payment | 1.0 | .9–1.1 | .64 | 1.0 | .9–1.1 | .67 |
| Accepts government health insurance plans, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or state insurance | 1.2 | 1.1–1.4 | <.001 | 1.8 | 1.6–2.0 | <.001 |
| Client | ||||||
| >50% of clients in treatment for alcohol only | 1.0 | .9–1.2 | .70 | .7 | .6–.8 | <.001 |
| Number of substance abuse treatment admissions in the past 12 months (reference: ≤100) | ||||||
| 101–500 | 1.1 | 1.0–1.2 | .017 | .8 | .7–.9 | <.001 |
| ≥501 | 1.5 | 1.3–1.7 | <.001 | .8 | .7–.9 | <.001 |
| General | ||||||
| Located in metropolitan statistical area | 1.1 | 1.0–1.3 | .008 | 1.3 | 1.2–1.4 | <.001 |
| Licensed by state substance abuse agency | .8 | .7–.9 | <.001 | 1.2 | 1.1–1.4 | <.001 |
| Licensed by state mental health department | .9 | .8–1.0 | .027 | .9 | .8–.9 | .001 |
| State level | ||||||
| Comprehensive smoke-free laws | 1.2 | 1.1–1.4 | <.001 | 1.2 | 1.1–1.3 | <.001 |
| Tobacco prevention and control spending ≥50% of CDC-recommended level | 1.1 | 1.0–1.4 | .048 | .9 | .8–1.1 | .50 |
| ≥30% of substance abuse treatment facilities are smoke free | 2.3 | 2.1–2.5 | <.001 | 2.7 | 2.5–3.0 | <.001 |
a
Unless indicated otherwise, the reference group was the absence of the characteristic.
Facilities with 101 to 500 admissions (OR=1.1) or more than 500 admissions (OR=1.5) in the past 12 months were more likely than facilities with fewer admissions to offer smoking cessation treatment. Facilities located in states that have comprehensive smoke-free laws (OR=1.2), spend at least half of the amount recommended by the CDC for tobacco prevention and control (OR=1.1), and are ranked above the median in the proportion of smoke-free substance abuse treatment facilities (OR=2.3) were significantly more likely to offer smoking cessation services than their counterparts. Offering outpatient substance abuse services and free treatment to the poor was not correlated with provision of smoking cessation service.
Facilities that provided a greater number of ancillary services besides smoking cessation counseling (OR=1.0), offered residential (OR=.5) or outpatient services (OR=.7), reported that more than half of clients with a substance use disorder sought alcohol abuse treatment only (OR=.7), or obtained a license from a state mental health department (OR=.9) were less likely than facilities without these characteristics to have banned smoking on their properties. Facilities with 101 to 500 or more than 500 admissions for substance abuse treatment in the past 12 months (OR=.8) were less likely to have banned smoking compared with facilities with fewer such admissions.
Private nonprofit (OR=2.3) and public institutions (OR=2.2) were associated with higher rates of banning smoking compared with private for-profit organizations. Facilities that offered inpatient services (OR=1.9), accepted government health insurance plans (OR=1.8), were located in a metropolitan area (OR=1.3), or obtained a license from a state substance abuse agency (OR=1.2) were more likely to have smoke-free policies compared with facilities without these characteristics. In addition, facilities in states with comprehensive smoke-free laws (OR=1.2) or in states that ranked above the median in the proportion of substance abuse treatment facilities with complete smoking bans (OR=2.7) were associated with higher rates of banning smoking. Primary focus of the facility, offering free treatment to the poor, and state spending on tobacco prevention and control did not predict the adoption of smoking bans.
Discussion
Using a large national facility-level survey, this study found that fewer than half of the substance abuse treatment facilities in the United States offered any smoking cessation services and approximately two-thirds of the facilities permitted smoking on the property in 2012. Although the rate of providing smoking cessation services has increased somewhat over the past decade (20,30), it is still low, according to these results. The proportion of facilities with a smoke-free campus was even lower, despite greater adoption of smoke-free campus policies in other health care settings, such as hospitals (33). Currently, no federal regulations address smoking in substance abuse treatment facilities, although some state and local regulations do so (23,34). With increasing evidence suggesting that tobacco control in substance abuse treatment facilities is feasible and effective (4–10), factors that lead to greater availability of smoking cessation services and to smoke-free policies bear examination.
Perhaps most striking about the pattern of smoking cessation treatment at facilities that treat substance abuse is that those that focused primarily on treatment of substance abuse were significantly less likely than other facilities to provide smoking cessation services, despite the evidence that incorporating smoking cessation into substance abuse treatment improves smoking cessation while maintaining positive effects on substance abuse problems. Prior research identified that a major obstacle to offering smoking cessation services to the substance-abusing population is the concern that doing so would have negative effects on substance abuse treatment (35). Studies that have assessed the true impact of such services during substance abuse treatment have found the opposite. Smokers who receive smoking cessation treatment are more likely to quit (4–10), but more important, they are more likely to have positive substance abuse outcomes (4,11–14). Yet this information has not led to the adoption of a new service model among facilities dedicated to substance abuse treatment.
Facilities appeared to be influenced by the tobacco control norms in their area, both at the state level and the facility level. Although greater tobacco control spending in a state does not directly lead to increased funding for the facility, it suggests that smoking cessation is a state priority. Likewise, comprehensive smoke-free laws in the state and higher densities of smoke-free substance abuse treatment facilities reflect tobacco control norms and were positively associated with provision of smoking cessation services and smoke-free campus policies.
Perhaps not surprisingly, financial considerations appear to play a role in whether facilities offer smoking cessation services and whether they implement a complete smoking ban. Larger facilities and facilities that offered a greater range of services were more likely to offer smoking cessation programs. Perhaps, as has been suggested by others, large facilities have greater and more diversified resources, allowing them to absorb the risks associated with offering new services (19). However, at the same time, such facilities were less likely to ban smoking on facility property. The reason for this is unclear, but it is possible that larger facilities had greater difficulty in implementing and enforcing a smoke-free environment. Consistent with previous research, private for-profit institutions and facilities that were less reliant on government health insurance plans were less likely to institute campuswide smoking bans (18). An important consideration for such institutions is to generate a profit. Although there is no evidence that instituting these programs affects profitability, especially in states with comprehensive smoke-free laws, there might be a concern among these institutions that potential clients will choose facilities that allow smoking. With the expected increase in access to health insurance and the expanded coverage of smoking cessation treatment as a result of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (36), we anticipate that more facilities will start providing smoking cessation services and adopt smoking bans.
This study had several limitations. First, the analyses were based on a cross-sectional data set, which precludes interpretation of causal relationships and examination of the adoption and diffusion process. Second, the model was limited to the data available. State-level tobacco control data were merged with facility-level information, but other factors that might influence provision of services and policy adoption, such as detailed profiles of clients or facility staff, were unavailable. Third, we did not account for recent regulations, for example, in New York and New Jersey, that require smoking cessation services and smoking bans in substance abuse treatment facilities (23,34).
Despite its limitations, this study has policy implications regarding the integration of tobacco control and substance abuse treatment. Many characteristics at the service, financial, client, and state levels and general characteristics were positively associated with both use of smoking cessation services and smoke-free policies. As a result, some interventions may provide smoking cessation programs and ban smoking simultaneously and perhaps even have a synergistic effect on smoking cessation outcomes. For example, an intervention designed to frame the importance of integrating smoking cessation into substance abuse treatment at public facilities is likely to have favorable outcomes on both use of smoking cessation services and smoking ban policies. Likewise, providing greater support or incentives for private institutions to adopt smoking cessation services and smoking ban policies may have a positive effect on facilities in areas with weak tobacco control policies.
The fact that there was a positive relationship between offering smoking cessation services and implementing smoking bans suggests that some substance abuse programs have already taken a comprehensive approach to smoking in their facilities. New interventions should promote this comprehensive approach rather than targeting either cessation treatment or smoking bans alone. An intervention encouraging substance abuse programs to consolidate into larger programs with broader services and greater numbers of admissions, for example, might result in more programs offering smoking cessation treatment, given that larger programs were more likely to offer such programs. However, it could make the implementation of a smoking ban more problematic, given that larger programs were less likely to have such bans. It would be important to consider the differential impact of any intervention on these two outcomes to avoid solving one problem by exacerbating the other.
Conclusions
With increasing evidence suggesting that providing tobacco control services to the substance-abusing population is feasible and effective (4–10), the integration of smoking cessation efforts and substance abuse treatment in substance abuse treatment facilities is potentially an effective strategy to reduce the high smoking prevalence among substance-abusing patients. As of 2012, fewer than half of substance abuse treatment facilities in the United States provided smoking cessation services and two-thirds still permitted smoking on facility property. Institutional-level characteristics and state-level tobacco control environments were related to cessation service provision and smoke-free policies. These factors could be used to design comprehensive dissemination programs for smoking cessation treatment and promotion of smoking bans in substance abuse treatment facilities.
References
1.
Schroeder SA, Morris CD: Confronting a neglected epidemic: tobacco cessation for persons with mental illnesses and substance abuse problems. Annual Review of Public Health 31:297–314, 2010
2.
Guydish J, Passalacqua E, Tajima B, et al: Smoking prevalence in addiction treatment: a review. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 13:401–411, 2011
3.
National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS): 2012. Data on Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities. BHSIS Series S-66, HHS pub no (SMA) 14-4809. Rockville, Md, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013
4.
Baca CT, Yahne CE: Smoking cessation during substance abuse treatment: what you need to know. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 36:205–219, 2009
5.
Prochaska JJ, Delucchi K, Hall SM: A meta-analysis of smoking cessation interventions with individuals in substance abuse treatment or recovery. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72:1144–1156, 2004
6.
Shoptaw S, Rotheram-Fuller E, Yang X, et al: Smoking cessation in methadone maintenance. Addiction 97:1317–1328, 2002
7.
Stein MD, Weinstock MC, Herman DS, et al: A smoking cessation intervention for the methadone-maintained. Addiction 101:599–607, 2006
8.
Richter KP, McCool RM, Catley D, et al: Dual pharmacotherapy and motivational interviewing for tobacco dependence among drug treatment patients. Journal of Addictive Diseases 24:79–90, 2005
9.
Burling TA, Burling AS, Latini D: A controlled smoking cessation trial for substance-dependent inpatients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 69:295–304, 2001
10.
Joseph AM, Willenbring ML, Nelson D, et al: Timing of alcohol and smoking cessation study. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 26:1945–1946, 2002
11.
Reid MS, Fallon B, Sonne S, et al: Smoking cessation treatment in community-based substance abuse rehabilitation programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 35:68–77, 2008
12.
Okoli CT, Khara M, Procyshyn RM, et al: Smoking cessation interventions among individuals in methadone maintenance: a brief review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 38:191–199, 2010
13.
Lemon SC, Friedmann PD, Stein MD: The impact of smoking cessation on drug abuse treatment outcome. Addictive Behaviors 28:1323–1331, 2003
14.
Bobo JK, McIlvain HE, Lando HA, et al: Effect of smoking cessation counseling on recovery from alcoholism: findings from a randomized community intervention trial. Addiction (Abingdon, England) 93:877–887, 1998
15.
Reid MS, Fallon B, Sonne S, et al: Implementation of a smoking cessation treatment study at substance abuse rehabilitation programs: smoking behavior and treatment feasibility across varied community-based outpatient programs. Journal of Addiction Medicine 1:154–160, 2007
16.
Hall SM, Prochaska JJ: Treatment of smokers with co-occurring disorders: emphasis on integration in mental health and addiction treatment settings. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 5:409–431, 2009
17.
Prochaska JJ: Failure to treat tobacco use in mental health and addiction treatment settings: a form of harm reduction? Drug and Alcohol Dependence 110:177–182, 2010
18.
Richter KP, Arnsten JH: A rationale and model for addressing tobacco dependence in substance abuse treatment. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 1:23, 2006
19.
Friedmann PD, Jiang L, Richter KP: Cigarette smoking cessation services in outpatient substance abuse treatment programs in the United States. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 34:165–172, 2008
20.
Knudsen HK: Smoking cessation services in adolescent substance abuse treatment: opportunities missed? Journal of Drug Issues 39:257–276, 2009
21.
Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA: Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed) 325:188, 2002
22.
Levy DT, Chaloupka F, Gitchell J: The effects of tobacco control policies on smoking rates: a tobacco control scorecard. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 10:338–353, 2004
23.
Brown E, Nonnemaker J, Federman EB, et al: Implementation of a tobacco-free regulation in substance use disorder treatment facilities. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 42:319–327, 2012
24.
Callaghan RC, Brewster JM, Johnson J, et al: Do total smoking bans affect the recruitment and retention of adolescents in inpatient substance abuse treatment programs? A 5-year medical chart review, 2001–2005. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 33:279–285, 2007
25.
El-Guebaly N, Cathcart J, Currie S, et al: Public health and therapeutic aspects of smoking bans in mental health and addiction settings. Psychiatric Services 53:1617–1622, 2002
26.
Williams JM, Foulds J, Dwyer M, et al: The integration of tobacco dependence treatment and tobacco-free standards into residential addictions treatment in New Jersey. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 28:331–340, 2005
27.
Guydish J, Passalacqua E, Tajima B, et al: Staff smoking and other barriers to nicotine dependence intervention in addiction treatment settings: a review. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 39:423–433, 2007
28.
McCool RM, Richter KP, Choi WS: Benefits of and barriers to providing smoking treatment in methadone clinics: findings from a national study. American Journal on Addictions 14:358–366, 2005
29.
Ziedonis DM, Guydish J, Williams J, et al: Barriers and solutions to addressing tobacco dependence in addiction treatment programs. Alcohol Research and Health 29:228–235, 2006
30.
Richter KP, Choi WS, McCool RM, et al: Smoking cessation services in US methadone maintenance facilities. Psychiatric Services 55:1258–1264, 2004
31.
State smoke-free laws for worksites, restaurants, and bars—United States, 2000–2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 60:472–475, 2011
32.
Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending. Chicago, American Lung Association, 2015. Available at www.stateoftobaccocontrol.org/state-grades/state-rankings/tobacco-prevention-control-spending.html. Accessed Feb 22, 2014
33.
Williams SC, Hafner JM, Morton DJ, et al: The adoption of smoke-free hospital campuses in the United States. Tobacco Control 18:451–458, 2009
34.
Foulds J, Williams JM, Order-Connors B, et al: Integrating tobacco dependence treatment and tobacco-free standards into addiction treatment: New Jersey's experience. Alcohol Research and Health 29:236–240, 2006
35.
Walsh RA, Bowman JA, Tzelepis F, et al: Smoking cessation interventions in Australian drug treatment agencies: a national survey of attitudes and practices. Drug and Alcohol Review 24:235–244, 2005
36.
Koh HK, Sebelius KG: Promoting prevention through the Affordable Care Act. New England Journal of Medicine 363:1296–1299, 2010
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: Afternoon, Nassau, by Gifford Reynolds Beal, 1925. Watercolor on paper, 33.97 × 49.53 cm. Collection, Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, New York. Gift of Mrs. Howell H. Howard to Room of Contemporary Art, 1963. Albright-Knox Art Gallery/Art Resource, New York City.
History
Received: 23 July 2014
Revision received: 18 September 2014
Accepted: 27 October 2014
Published online: 17 February 2015
Published in print: June 01, 2015
Authors
Funding Information
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).