2010
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntq145
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Substance Abuse Treatment Counselors and Tobacco Use: A Comparison of Comprehensive and Indoor-Only Workplace Smoking Bans

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
11
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
4
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As noted earlier, characteristics of counselors and treatment programs in our study were comparable to characteristics of counselors and treatment programs participating in other large nationally random samples (e.g., Knudsen et al, 2010, 2013; Olmstead et al, 2005). These findings suggest limited concern over (non)response bias and reasonable confidence that our findings may generalize to other, similar SUD treatment programs.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As noted earlier, characteristics of counselors and treatment programs in our study were comparable to characteristics of counselors and treatment programs participating in other large nationally random samples (e.g., Knudsen et al, 2010, 2013; Olmstead et al, 2005). These findings suggest limited concern over (non)response bias and reasonable confidence that our findings may generalize to other, similar SUD treatment programs.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Of the 2,005 eligible counselors identified by the program administrators, 1,044 completed a survey ( N = 880 online, N = 164 mail; 52.07% response rate). Relevantly we note that SUD counselor and organizational characteristics of the current sample are in general comparable to studies conducted using large nationally representative samples (e.g., Knudsen, Boyd, & Studts, 2010; Knudsen, Muilenburg, & Eby, 2013; Olmstead, Johnson, Roman, & Sindelar, 2005) (results are available upon request from the first author). Thus, we can be cautiously but reasonably certain that non-response bias is not likely to be a major threat to validity.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 68%
“…Consequently, scanty data are available on the impact of outdoor smoking bans on SHS exposure and smoking prevalence. However, a recent US survey of 1910 counsellors and 417 administrators from substance abuse treatment organisations showed that current tobacco users were less frequent in organisations with comprehensive bans regulating outdoor areas, compared with organisations with indoor-only smoking bans 13. Non-smokers are exposed to SHS in outdoor areas also14–16 and any exposure to SHS is harmful, even in outdoor areas with small buffer zone distances (eg, bus stops, sport stadiums, hospital grounds, areas surrounding schools, universities, outdoor bars and restaurants) 17 18.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, outdoor restrictions on smoking may help make tobacco use less socially acceptable, by establishing positive smoke-free role models for youth7 11 17 19 20 and reducing (youth) opportunities to smoke, fire hazards and the pollution generated by cigarette butts (non-biodegradable litter) in public parks and beaches 7 11 19–21. Thus, extension of smoking regulations to outdoor areas is a relevant tool for tobacco control 13 22 23…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, staff who smoke have been found to be less likely to address smoking cessation in their clients (Guydish, Passalacqua, Tajima & Manser, 2007; Knudsen & Studts, 2010). Moreover, individuals treated at SUD treatment facilities that implement a comprehensive smoking ban (smoking banned in all indoor and outdoor areas) are 43% less likely to be a current tobacco user (Knudsen, Boyd & Studts, 2010). Unfortunately, less than 20% of SUD treatment facilities have been found to have a comprehensive smoking ban (Knudsen et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%