Understanding the drug treatment community's ambivalence towards tobacco use and treatment

Abstract

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.

A mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health professionals' attitudes toward smoking and smoking cessation among people with mental illnesses

“…This perception appeared to arise from beliefs that patients would not be interested in quitting smoking 39, 40, 41, 42, that patients would be unable to quit smoking successfully 35, 36, 40 and the view that smoking cessation would be too much for patients to cope with alongside their other issues 36, 39, 41, 42, 43. A minority of studies reported concerns about the negative consequences of quitting smoking, such as concerns about a negative impact on psychiatric symptoms/abstinence 36, 41, the potential effects on medication 36 and a fear that smoking cessation may make patients violent 36.…”

“…A perceived lack of opportunity to provide smoking cessation support was evident 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. This generally arose from a perceived lack of treatment resources either on‐site or to refer patients to off‐site 36, 40, 41, 42 and a lack of guidance for implementing smoking cessation treatment alongside treatment for patients' primary disorders 36, 41, 42, 43.…”

“…This generally arose from a perceived lack of treatment resources either on‐site or to refer patients to off‐site 36, 40, 41, 42 and a lack of guidance for implementing smoking cessation treatment alongside treatment for patients' primary disorders 36, 41, 42, 43. In addition, a lack of staff 36, 41, staff time 36, 39, funding 36, 40 and support from management 36, 41 were identified as further barriers to providing smoking cessation treatment.…”

“…The behaviour of MHPs was identified commonly as a barrier to addressing smoking among patients 35, 40, 41, 42. This tended to relate to professionals' smoking status, as staff smoking was viewed as providing a bad example to patients 35, 36, 40, 41, 42 and could potentially undermine motivation to address patients' smoking (e.g.…”

“…This tended to relate to professionals' smoking status, as staff smoking was viewed as providing a bad example to patients 35, 36, 40, 41, 42 and could potentially undermine motivation to address patients' smoking (e.g. because it would be hypocritical) 41.…”