No abstract

No abstract

In smoking cessation studies with restrictive criteria (e.g., single-smoker couples), thousands of potential participants might need to be screened to obtain a reasonable sample size. Consideration of recruitment methodology is critical because recruitment methods influence both the success and cost effectiveness of recruitment. Although traditional recruitment methods are often used to recruit participants into smoking cessation research, newer technologies, such as paid Facebook advertising, might offer more cost-effective alternatives for recruitment. The current analysis compares two versions of paid Facebook advertising and a specialized mass mailing method used to recruit single-smoker couples into an intensive three-week study of unaided smoking cessation. The three methods are compared in terms of demographic characteristics, eligibility, and cost-effectiveness. Although Facebook’s “Promote Your Page” mechanism achieved the fastest recruitment rate (2.75 couples per month; 498 USD per couple), Facebook’s “Send People to Your Website” mechanism was the least expensive and provided the most demographically diverse sample (1.64 couples per month; 181 USD per couple). The specialized mailing method was not productive or cost-effective (0.80 couples per month; 454 USD per couple). Paid Facebook advertising fared better as a recruitment method than a specialized mailing method often used in survey research. Studies that have less restrictive eligibility criteria, that draw from a larger local population, or that recruit for a less intense study might find paid Facebook advertising to be quite feasible.

Tobacco use is exceedingly high among individuals receiving care for opioid addiction, but not commonly addressed by clinicians in treatment settings. Taking Texas Tobacco Free (TTTF) is a comprehensive tobacco-free workplace (TFW) program that builds treatment centers’ capacity to address tobacco use with evidence-based tobacco cessation policies and practices. Here, we examine the process and outcomes of TTTF’s implementation within 7 opioid addiction centers. Program goals were structured according to the RE-AIM framework. Pre- and post-implementation data were collected from client facing and non-client facing employees to assess changes in education, training receipt, knowledge, and intervention behaviors, relative to program goals. Centers reported tobacco screenings conducted and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) delivered through 6 months post-implementation. Overall, 64.56% of employees participated in TTTF-delivered tobacco education, with a 54.9% gain in tobacco control and treatment knowledge (p < 0.0001), and significant increases in exposure to education about tobacco use and harms among individuals with opioid use disorder (p = 0.0401). There were significant gains in clinicians’ receipt of training in 9/9 tobacco education areas (ps ≤ 0.0118). From pre- to post-implementation, there were mean increases in the use of the 5A’s (ask, advise, assess, assist, and arrange) and other evidence-based interventions for tobacco cessation, with statistically significant gains seen in NRT provision/referral (p < 0.0001). Several program goals were achieved or exceeded; however, 100% center participation in specialized clinical trainings was among notable exceptions. One program withdrew due to competing pandemic concerns; all others implemented comprehensive TFW policies. Overall, TTTF may have improved participating opioid treatment centers’ capacity to address tobacco use, although study limitations, including lower post-implementation evaluation response rates, suggest that results require replication in other opioid addiction treatment settings.

Despite prior successful implementation of Taking Texas Tobacco Free (TTTF), an evidence-based tobacco-free workplace program, in local mental health authorities (LMHAs), post-implementation employee attrition necessitated continuing education on tobacco-free policies and tobacco treatment practices. Here, we report on the outcomes of a train-the-trainer program which trained “champions” to deliver tobacco cessation education at their LMHAs. Three LMHAs participated in program implementation via 10 champions, iteratively trained and coached by TTTF. Measures administered evaluated four goals: (1) increase champions’ self-efficacy in delivering trainings, (2) achieve program fidelity via TTTF staff evaluation of trainer effectiveness and knowledge increases among attending employees, (3) achieve stakeholder program acceptability, and (4) achieve program adoption via an increase in follow-up trainings. Champions’ self-efficacy increased throughout TTTF training. TTTF staff ratings of champion-led trainings met the targeted range for trainer effectiveness; employees had a 28.71% knowledge increase over baseline post-training (p < 0.001). Employees rated champions’ training delivery “very good” to “excellent”, on average; both champions and employees were, on average, “satisfied” to “extremely satisfied” with the curriculum and training received. There was an increase over baseline in trainings delivered during follow-up, and trainings increased in length and topic coverage. Ultimately, the train-the-trainer program achieved the intended goals, although not all changes were statistically significant, likely at least partially attributable to small sample sizes. Overall, these results suggest that TTTF’s train-the-trainer program was successful in its delivery and intention to build capacity for the provision of in-house tobacco education trainings to behavioral health employees/providers. However, further evaluation in additional settings, with more champions, et cetera, is necessary to validate these findings, ensure their replicability, link program implementation with reduced patient tobacco use rates, and assess long-term sustainability.