BackgroundIn rural America, cigarette smoking is prevalent and health care providers lack the time and resources to help smokers quit. Telephone quitlines are important avenues for cessation services in rural areas, but they are poorly integrated with local health care resources.ObjectiveThe intent of the study was to assess the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of two models for delivering expert tobacco treatment at a distance: telemedicine counseling that was integrated into smokers’ primary care clinics (Integrated Telemedicine—ITM) versus telephone counseling, similar to telephone quitline counseling, delivered to smokers in their homes (Phone).MethodsSmokers (n=566) were recruited offline from 20 primary care and safety net clinics across Kansas. They were randomly assigned to receive 4 sessions of ITM or 4 sessions of Phone counseling. Patients in ITM received real-time video counseling, similar to Skype, delivered by computer/webcams in clinic exam rooms. Three full-time equivalent trained counselors delivered the counseling. The counseling duration and content was the same in both groups and was available in Spanish or English. Both groups also received identical materials and assistance in selecting and obtaining cessation medications. The primary outcome was verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at month 12, using an intent-to-treat analysis.ResultsThere were no significant baseline differences between groups, and the trial achieved 88% follow-up at 12 months. Verified abstinence at 12 months did not significantly differ between ITM or Phone (9.8%, 27/280 vs 12%, 34/286; P=.406). Phone participants completed somewhat more counseling sessions than ITM (mean 2.6, SD 1.5 vs mean 2.4, SD 1.5; P=.0837); however, participants in ITM were significantly more likely to use cessation medications than participants in Phone (55.9%, 128/280 vs 46.1%, 107/286; P=.03). Compared to Phone participants, ITM participants were significantly more likely to recommend the program to a family member or friend (P=.0075). From the combined provider plus participant (societal) perspective, Phone was significantly less costly than ITM. Participants in ITM had to incur time and mileage costs to travel to clinics for ITM sessions. From the provider perspective, counseling costs were similar between ITM (US $45.46, SD 31.50) and Phone (US $49.58, SD 33.35); however, total provider costs varied widely depending on how the clinic space for delivering ITM was valued.ConclusionsFindings did not support the superiority of ITM over telephone counseling for helping rural patients quit smoking. ITM increased utilization of cessation pharmacotherapy and produced higher participant satisfaction, but Phone counseling was significantly less expensive. Future interventions could combine elements of both approaches to optimize pharmacotherapy utilization, counseling adherence, and satisfaction. Such an approach could commence with a telemedicine-delivered clinic office visit for pharmacotherapy guidance, and continue w...

The purpose of this study was to obtain descriptions of tobacco treatment services across different substance abuse treatment settings. We conducted mixed-method assessments in 8 facilities among 8 directors, 25 staff, 29 clients, and 82 client charts. Measures included systems assessment, chart reviews, and semi-structured interviews. Although many programs reported they offer key components of evidence-based treatment, few actually provided any treatment and none did so systematically. Many addressed tobacco as part of drug education or part of a health promotion session. Chart reviews suggested that provision of tobacco treatment is rare. By many reports, clients had to specifically request treatment and few staff reported encouraging unmotivated smokers to quit. Systems to facilitate consistent, evidence-based tobacco treatment and to implement quality improvement were nonexistent. The findings imply that drug treatment facilities may need to build capacity in several domains in order to deliver care that is consistent with national guidelines.

Background Most clients in drug treatment smoke cigarettes, but few facilities provide treatment for tobacco dependence. We identify subjective experiences and social processes that may influence facility adoption of tobacco treatment policies and practices. Methods Cross-sectional, semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff, directors and clients of 8 drug treatment facilities in the Midwestern U.S. We assembled a purposive sample stratified by ownership, methadone provision, and treatment service provision. We conducted in-person interviews with clinic directors and 54 staff and clients and employed a mixed-method analytic approach. Results Facility policies and philosophy related to tobacco differed from those regarding alcohol and other drugs. Participants suggested facilities may not treat tobacco dependence because it does not create legal and social problems that force clients into treatment. Tobacco dependence treatment falls outside of a core function of drug treatment, which is to help clients fix legal problems caused by their drug use. Moreover, proactively treating clients for tobacco dependence creates strong ambivalence among staff and directors. On the one hand, staff smoking would violate core principles of drug treatment (i.e., the importance of staff abstinence from drugs of abuse); on the other, staff who smoke feel their personal rights and jobs are threatened. This situation creates strong incentives for staff to resist adoption of tobacco dependence treatment. Unlike other studies, the fear of jeopardizing clients’ abstinence from other drugs did not emerge as a downside for treating tobacco dependence. Conclusions International and national trends will probably increase the pressure to treat tobacco dependence during drug treatment. However, the U.S. context of drug treatment, as a patchwork, under-funded industry with high employee turnover, may undermine true adoption. At present, many facility staff resolve their ambivalence by reporting they “offer” treatment, but actually providing none. To facilitate dissemination of service provision, it may be useful to identify incentives for U.S. facilities that are closely aligned with the criminal justice system, help facilities define policies and treatment roles for staff who smoke, and better define the role of facilities in preventing morbidity and mortality.

BackgroundQuitting smoking improves health and drug use outcomes among people in treatment for substance abuse. The twofold purpose of this study is to describe tobacco treatment provision across a representative sample of U.S. facilities and to use these data to develop the brief Index of Tobacco Treatment Quality (ITTQ).MethodsWe constructed survey items based on current tobacco treatment guidelines, existing surveys, expert input, and qualitative research. We administered the survey to a stratified sample of 405 facility administrators selected from all 3,800 U.S. adult outpatient facilities listed in the SAMHSA Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services. We constructed the ITTQ with a subset of 7 items that have the strongest clinical evidence for smoking cessation.ResultsMost facilities (87.7%) reported that a majority of their clients were asked if they smoke cigarettes. Nearly half of facilities (48.6%) reported that a majority of their smoking clients were advised to quit. Fewer (23.3%) reported that a majority of their smoking clients received tobacco treatment counseling and even fewer facilities (18.3%) reported a majority of their smoking clients were advised to use quit smoking medications. The median facility ITTQ score was 2.57 (on a scale of 1–5) and the ITTQ displayed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .844). Moreover, the ITTQ had substantial test-retest reliability (.856), and ordinal confirmatory factor analysis found that our one-factor model for ITTQ fit the data very well with a CFI of 0.997 and an RMSEA of 0.042.ConclusionsThe ITTQ is a brief and reliable tool for measuring tobacco treatment quality in substance abuse treatment facilities. Given the clear-cut room for improvement in tobacco treatment, the ITTQ could be an important tool for quality improvement by identifying service levels, facilitating goal setting, and measuring change.

Although most people in treatment for illicit drug use smoke cigarettes, few facilities offer any form of treatment for tobacco dependence. One reason for this may be that drug treatment staff have varying levels of commitment to treat tobacco. We developed and validated a 14-item Tobacco Treatment Commitment Scale (TTCS), using 405 participants in leadership positions in drug treatment facilities. We first conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate four a priori domains suggested by our original set of 38 items—this did not produce a good fit (CFI=0.782, RMSEA=0.067). We then conducted a series of exploratory factor analyses to produce a more precise and reliable scale. The final confirmatory factor analysis indicated a three-factor solution, produced a good fit (CFI=0.950, RMSEA=0.058), and had substantial unified reliability of 0.975. The final TTCS contained 14 items in 3 domains: Tobacco is less harmful than other drugs; It’s not our job to treat tobacco; and Tobacco treatment will harm clients. These constructs account for most of the variance in the survey items and emerged as major sentiments driving staff commitment to providing tobacco services. The TTCS can be used to understand the role of staff attitudes in the adoption of tobacco services in this important treatment setting.