Guydish Joseph, Yip Deborah, Le Thao, Gubner Noah R, Delucchi Kevin, Roman Paul
Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 3333 California St., Ste. 265, San Francisco, CA 94118, United States.
Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 3333 California St., Ste. 265, San Francisco, CA 94118, United States.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017 Oct 1;179:355-361. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.06.041. Epub 2017 Aug 1.
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.
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.
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).
Addiction treatment programs, and agencies responsible for licensing, regulating and funding these programs, should implement tobacco-free grounds policies.
本研究评估了参加成瘾治疗的两个横断面样本中与吸烟相关的结果变化，以及无烟场所政策是否与吸烟相关结果有关。
对25个项目的服务对象在2015年（N = 1176）和2016年（N = 1055）进行了调查。比较了样本在吸烟率、每日吸烟量（CPD）、考虑戒烟情况、过去一年的戒烟尝试、工作人员与服务对象一起吸烟情况、对戒烟的态度以及烟草相关服务方面的差异。其次，比较了在两个时间点都有无烟场所政策的项目（n = 6）和没有无烟场所政策的项目（n = 17）在吸烟相关结果上的差异。最后，我们研究了2015年至2016年期间采用无烟场所政策的两个项目在这些指标上的变化。
不同年份之间存在一个差异，即烟草项目服务量表的平均得分从2.37提高到2.48（p = 0.043，效应量 = 0.02）。在有无烟场所政策的项目中，与没有该政策的项目相比，每日吸烟量以及工作人员与服务对象一起吸烟的比例均显著更低。在研究期间实施无烟场所政策的两个项目中，服务对象吸烟率下降（92.5%对67.6%，p = 0.005），工作人员与服务对象一起吸烟的比例下降（35.6%对4.2%，p = 0.031），平均每日吸烟量下降（10.62对8.24，p < 0.001），服务对象接受的平均烟草相关服务增加（2.08对3.05，p < 0.001）。
成瘾治疗项目以及负责对这些项目进行许可、监管和资助的机构应实施无烟场所政策。
