Joseph A M, Nichol K L, Anderson H
Section of General Internal Medicine (111-0), Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN 55417.
Addict Behav. 1993 Nov-Dec;18(6):635-44. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(93)90017-4.
This study was designed to examine the effect of a policy banning smoking and a smoking-cessation intervention on alcohol and drug treatment outcomes. We compared long-term alcohol and drug treatment outcomes in two cohorts hospitalized for substance use treatment, subjected to different smoking policies and cessation interventions in two periods. The study included 314 male patients, aged 18-65. The intervention cohort was subjected to a total hospital smoking ban and concurrent drug and nicotine dependency treatment, with a requirement for nicotine abstinence during hospitalization. The control cohort was hospitalized under a policy permitting smoking in designated areas, with no specific smoking-cessation intervention. Current alcohol, drug, and tobacco use were ascertained by follow-up interview with patients 8-21 months after completion of treatment. There was a 60% response rate in the intervention group (n = 92) and a 66% response rate in the control group (n = 105). Among respondents, there were no significant differences between intervention and control groups in rates of "improvement" for alcohol, cocaine, or marijuana use, or for these drugs combined, although there was a nonsignificant trend toward less "improvement" in the intervention group. When nonrespondents were analyzed as treatment failures, the rate of "improvement" was significantly worse for cocaine users in the intervention group, but not for other drug users or for all patients combined. Ten percent of patients reported quitting smoking in the intervention group compared to 4% in the control group (difference not significant). Although patients resisted the mandatory nature of the smoking intervention, many continuing smokers requested information and referral for smoking cessation at the time of follow-up. These data suggest that concurrent intervention for nicotine dependence did not significantly harm treatment outcomes of patients using alcohol or marijuana as their drug of first choice. Due to a trend in this direction, this possibility should be investigated in randomized, controlled trials. The intervention was associated with a small increase in self-reported smoking cessation. There is considerable interest in this patient population in smoking cessation after completion of treatment.
本研究旨在探讨一项禁烟政策及戒烟干预措施对酒精和药物治疗效果的影响。我们比较了两个因物质使用障碍住院治疗的队列在两个时期内的长期酒精和药物治疗效果,这两个队列分别实施了不同的吸烟政策和戒烟干预措施。该研究纳入了314名年龄在18至65岁之间的男性患者。干预组实施了全院禁烟,并同时进行药物和尼古丁依赖治疗,要求住院期间戒烟。对照组住院时实施的政策是允许在指定区域吸烟,未进行特定的戒烟干预。通过在治疗结束后8至21个月对患者进行随访访谈,确定其当前的酒精、药物和烟草使用情况。干预组的回应率为60%(n = 92),对照组的回应率为66%(n = 105)。在受访者中,干预组和对照组在酒精、可卡因或大麻使用或这些药物综合使用的“改善”率方面没有显著差异,尽管干预组有不太显著的“改善”趋势。当将未回应者视为治疗失败者进行分析时,干预组中可卡因使用者的“改善”率显著更差,但其他药物使用者或所有患者综合情况并非如此。干预组中有10%的患者报告戒烟,而对照组为4%(差异不显著)。尽管患者抵制吸烟干预措施的强制性,但许多持续吸烟者在随访时要求提供戒烟信息并转诊。这些数据表明,同时进行尼古丁依赖干预对以酒精或大麻为首选药物的患者的治疗效果没有显著损害。鉴于有朝这个方向发展的趋势,应在随机对照试验中对此可能性进行研究。该干预措施与自我报告的戒烟率小幅上升有关。治疗结束后,该患者群体对戒烟有相当大的兴趣。