Current models of smoking and dependence assume a need to smoke at regular intervals to maintain nicotine levels, yet about 25% of adult smokers do not smoke daily. This subset of intermittent smokers (ITS) has gone largely unexamined. In this study, we describe the demographics, smoking history, and smoking behavior of ITS (n=282; 50.2% male) in comparison to daily smokers (DS; n=233; 60.7% male). Within ITS, we also compare “converted” ITS (CITS), who had previously smoked daily, with “native” ITS (NITS). On average, ITS were 34.66 years of age, and had smoked 42,850 cigarettes in the course of an average of 18 years of smoking. They smoked an average of 4.38 days per week, consuming 4.39 cigarettes a day on smoking days, and demonstrated considerable day-to-day variability in cigarette consumption. Almost half of ITS had Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence scores of 0, indicating no dependence. Compared to DS, ITS were more likely to cite alcohol drinking, socializing and being with other smokers as common contexts for smoking, and they also more often cited being angry or stressed. Data suggested that ITS’ behavior was not explained by use of other nicotine products or by economic constraints on smoking, nor by differences in psychological adjustment. Within ITS, CITS were heavier, more frequent, and more dependent smokers. In many respects, CITS were intermediate between NITS and DS. ITS show distinct patterns of smoking behavior that are not well explained by current models of nicotine dependence.

OBJECTIVE Research on peer specialists (individuals with serious mental illness supporting others with serious mental illness in clinical and other settings), has not yet included the measurement of fidelity. Without measuring fidelity, it’s unclear if the absence of impact in some studies is attributable to ineffective peer specialist services or because the services were not true to the intended role. This paper describes the initial development of a peer specialist fidelity measure for two content areas: services provided by peer specialists and factors that either support or hamper the performance of those services. METHODS A literature search identified 40 domains; an expert panel narrowed the number of domains and helped generate and then review survey items to operationalize those domains. Twelve peer specialists, individuals with whom they work, and their supervisors participated in a pilot test and cognitive interviews regarding item content. RESULTS Peer specialists tended to rate themselves as having engaged in various peer service activities more than supervisors and individuals with whom they work. A subset of items tapping peer specialist services “core” to the role regardless of setting had higher ratings. Participants stated the measure was clear, appropriate, and could be useful in performance improvement. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Although preliminary, findings were consistent with organizational research on performance ratings of supervisors and employees made in the workplace. Several changes in survey content and administration were identified. With continued work, the measure could crystalize the role of peer specialists and aid in research and clinical administration.

Objectives: This study tested the impacts of peer specialists on housing stability, substance abuse, and mental health status for previously homeless Veterans with cooccurring mental health issues and substance abuse. Methods: Veterans living in the US Housing and Urban Development—Veterans Administration Supported Housing (HUD-VASH) program were randomized to peer specialist services that worked independently from HUD-VASH case managers (ie, not part of a case manager/peer specialist dyad) and to treatment as usual that included case management services. Peer specialist services were community-based, using a structured curriculum for recovery with up to 40 weekly sessions. Standardized self-report measures were collected at 3 timepoints. The intent-to-treat analysis tested treatment effects using a generalized additive mixed-effects model that allows for different nonlinear relationships between outcomes and time for treatment and control groups. A secondary analysis was conducted for Veterans who received services from peer specialists that were adherent to the intervention protocol. Results: Treated Veterans did not spend more days in housing compared with control Veterans during any part of the study at the 95% level of confidence. Veterans assigned to protocol adherent peer specialists showed greater housing stability between about 400 and 800 days postbaseline. Neither analysis detected significant effects for the behavioral health measures. Conclusions: Some impact of peer specialist services was found for housing stability but not for behavioral health problems. Future studies may need more sensitive measures for early steps in recovery and may need longer time frames to effectively impact this highly challenged population.

No abstract