Implementing a tobacco-free workplace program at a substance use treatment center: a case study.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorders smoke cigarettes at much higher rates than the general population in the United States and are disproportionately affected by tobacco-related diseases. Many substance use treatment centers do not provide evidence-based tobacco cessation treatment or maintain comprehensive tobacco-free workplace policies. The goal of the current work is to identify barriers and facilitators to a successful and sustainable implementation of a tobacco-free workplace program, which includes a comprehensive tobacco-free policy and evidence-based cessation treatment services, in a substance use treatment center. METHODS: This study is based on an ethnographic approach and uses a qualitative case study design. Data were collected via interviews with staff (n = 6) and clients (n = 16) at the substance use treatment center and site visits (n = 8). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis guided by the extended Normalization Process Theory designed to inform the implementation of innovations in healthcare practice. RESULTS: Staff at the substance use treatment center supported the implementation of the program and shared a good understanding of the purpose of the intervention and its potential benefits. However, the study identified significant challenges faced by the center during implementation, including widespread tobacco use among clients, contributing to attitudes among staff that tobacco cessation was a low-priority problem due to a perceived lack of interest in quitting and inability to quit among their clients. We identified several factors that contributed to changing this attitude, including provision of tobacco training to staff, active leadership support, low number of staff members who smoked, and access to material resources, including nicotine replacement products. The implementation and active enforcement of a comprehensive tobacco-free workplace program contributed to a gradual change in attitudes and improved the provision of evidence-based tobacco cessation care at the substance use treatment center. CONCLUSIONS: Substance use treatment centers can integrate tobacco cessation practices in their daily operations, despite multiple challenges they face due to the complex behavioral health and socioeconomic needs of their clients. With proper support, substance use treatment centers can provide much needed tobacco cessation care to their clients who are disproportionately affected by tobacco-related health conditions and systemic health inequities.

Navigating Threats of Wildfires and Individual Rights to Adopt 100% Tobacco-Free Policy in Rural California Community Colleges.

BACKGROUND: In California, all four-year public colleges have adopted 100% smoke-/tobacco-free policies (TFP) whereas community colleges (CCs), particularly rural CCs, are less likely to have tobacco-free environments. This raises concerns about health equity, particularly because smoking prevalence is higher in rural areas compared to urban. We examined policy adoption barriers and facilitators for rural California CCs with the aim of providing lessons learned to support TFP adoption by rural CCs and improve conditions for student health and well-being. METHODS: A multiple case study of four CCs in California with (n = 2) and without (n = 2) TFPs was conducted. Semi-structured interviews with 12 campus and community stakeholders, school administrative data, and policy-relevant documents were analyzed at the case level with comparison across cases to identify key barriers, facilitators and campus-specific experiences. RESULTS: All four CCs shared similar barriers to policy adoption including concerns about wildfires, individual rights, and fear of marginalizing people who smoke on campus. These CCs have experienced serious wildfires in the last ten years, have high community smoking prevalence, and fewer school resources for student health. For the two tobacco-free CCs, long-term wildfire mitigation efforts along with leadership support, campus/community partnerships and a collective approach involving diverse campus sectors were essential facilitators in successful TFP adoption. CONCLUSION: Study results underscore contextual pressures and campus dynamics that impact tobacco control efforts at colleges in rural communities. Strategies to advance college TFP adoption and implementation should recognize rural cultural and community priorities.

Five-year changes in support for tobacco control policy options among students, faculty and staff at a public university.

Over 2500 U.S. colleges and universities have instituted smoke-free (prohibiting combustible tobacco) or tobacco-free (prohibiting all tobacco) campus policies, and support for such policies by students, faculty and staff is an essential ingredient for successful implementation. Cross-sectional studies have found that these policies are well supported, but longitudinal studies that track change in support over time are rare. The present study reports on two campus-wide web-based surveys conducted five years apart, 2013 and 2018, at a public university campus for which a smoke-free policy was in effect. The 2013 samples included 5691 students (26% response rate) and 2051 faculty and staff (43% response rate); the 2018 samples included 4883 students (21% response rate) and 1882 faculty/staff (37% response rate). Question wordings and procedures were largely consistent across the two surveys. Changes in support among students and faculty/staff for both a smoke-free and a tobacco-free campus were measured, including separate analyses for past-month tobacco users and non-users. Chi-square tests revealed that support for both policy options by all respondent groups (student tobacco users and non-users; faculty/staff tobacco users and non-users) increased significantly and substantially, with the exception of student non-users' support of a smoke-free campus, which was already high in 2013 (83.7% support) and remained relatively unchanged. Increases in support for the tobacco-free option were particularly large. Results are discussed in light of theories of social norm change. These findings provide evidence from one university that tobacco control policies, especially those making a campus fully tobacco-free, increase in popularity over time.

A Mixed-Methods Assessment of a Peer-Enforced Tobacco- and Smoke-Free Policy at a Large Urban University.

The study aims to evaluate the enforcement, opinions, and effectiveness of the University of South Florida's tobacco free policy one year following implementation. By assessing readiness to change and using geographic information system (GIS) mapping this study sought to introduce a unique and effective way of evaluating college tobacco free policies. A cross-sectional survey was administered to students, faculty, and staff to assess knowledge of policy and resources, tobacco use observations, stage change regarding policy enforcement, self-efficacy to enforce, and policy impact on perceived campus tobacco use (n = 5242). Additionally, using ArcGIS Collector (in: ESRI, ArcGIS desktop: release 10, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, 2011) volunteers collected geospatial data on tobacco use continuing to occur on campus following policy implementation. Overall there was moderate knowledge of the current policy and low beliefs for policy enforcement. Majority of respondents were not approaching violators to remind them of the policy and did not plan to do so in the future. There were statistically significant differences between smokers and non-smokers as well as between students and faculty and staff. The mapping of observed violations revealed continued tobacco use on campus with 158 data points. From both the geospatial results as well as the survey findings, the current policy is ineffective in reducing tobacco use across campus. With rapidly increasing numbers of smoke and tobacco free universities, new and innovative evaluation tools are needed so institution leaders can efficiently evaluate their implementation.

Cigarettes vs. E-Cigarettes: Policy Implications from a Focus Group Study.

Background: Rates of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarette) use (vaping) have increased among college students over the past decade. Objectives: The current study sought to provide an in-depth examination of college students' beliefs about and attitudes toward cigarettes and e-cigarettes that may influence support/non-support of tobacco-free policies on college campuses and within their communities. Methods: Between August and December 2015, five focus groups (n = 22) were conducted at a large Southern University. Focus group discussions addressed social acceptance and areas where students commonly smoked/vaped on campus. Sessions were transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently coded the transcripts and identified themes. A third researcher independently reviewed the coding and thematic analysis process (triangulation of researchers). Results: Participants expressed positive attitudes toward smoke-free policies that did not target college students, especially those that protected vulnerable populations (e.g., children). However, some were skeptical of tobacco-free policies that included e-cigarettes. Participants believed the campus tobacco-free policy had moved smokers' behavior off campus, but many reported seeing people vape in locations where smoking was not allowed (i.e., library, dorm rooms). Most perceived smoking to be less acceptable than vaping; smoking was described as 'dirty', while vaping was glamorized as a cultural trend. Conclusions/Importance: Findings from our qualitative study suggest that college students are supportive of smoke-free policies, but they are less supportive of comprehensive tobacco-free policies that include e-cigarettes. College campuses and surrounding communities should plan for education about policy protection via communication channels viewed frequently by students when including vaping devices in their comprehensive tobacco-free policies/ordinances.

Policy and Practice Changes Associated with a Tobacco-Free Initiative in Residential Substance Use Disorder Treatment.

A California-sponsored, 18-month, tobacco-free intervention in residential substance use disorder (SUD) programs was associated with increases in tobacco-free grounds and tobacco-related client services. The current study examined whether positive results would be replicated in 11 programs participating subsequently. Program directors (N = 11) completed surveys of tobacco-related policies pre- and post-intervention. Pre- (n = 163) and post-intervention (n = 128) cross-sectional staff surveys examined tobacco-related training, beliefs, practices, smoking policy, and smoking status. Directors reported increases in tobacco-free grounds (from 3 to 8 programs), tobacco-related staff training (1 to 10 programs), tobacco cessation staff services (1 to 9 programs) and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) provision (6 to 10 programs). At post-intervention, staff were more likely to report smoke-free workplaces (p = 0.008), positive beliefs about treating tobacco use (p = 0.017) and less likely to report current smoking (p = 0.003). Clinical staff were more likely to report tobacco-related training receipt (p = 0.001), program-level NRT provision (p = 0.009) and conducting tobacco-related client services (p < 0.0001) post-intervention. Findings of increases in tobacco-free grounds and tobacco cessation client services corroborated prior results. These and the additional finding of decreases in staff smoking strengthen evidence that initiatives supporting tobacco-free policies can be successfully implemented in SUD treatment.

Implementing tobacco-free policy in residential substance use disorders treatment: Practice changes among staff.

Introduction: Implementing tobacco-free policies in substance use disorders (SUD) treatment may reduce tobacco-related, health disparities. This study examined adoption of tobacco-related policy and practices in six residential programs participating in a California-sponsored, 18-month, tobacco-free policy intervention. Methods: Directors (N=6) completed surveys of tobacco-related policies before and after the intervention. Staff completed cross-sectional surveys assessing tobacco-related training, beliefs, practices, workplace smoking policy, tobacco cessation program services, and smoking status pre- (n=135) and post-intervention (n=144). Results: Director surveys indicated no programs had tobacco-free grounds, one provided tobacco-related staff training, and two provided nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) pre-intervention. At post-intervention, 5 programs had implemented tobacco-free grounds, 6 provided tobacco cessation training, and 3 provided NRT. Across all programs, staff were more likely to report smoke-free workplaces (AOR = 5.76, 95% CI1.14,29.18) post- versus pre-intervention. Staff positive beliefs towards addressing tobacco use were higher post-intervention (p<0.001). Odds of clinical staff reporting tobacco-related training participation (AOR = 19.63, 95% CI14.21,27.13) and program-level provision of NRT (AOR = 4.01, 95% CI 1.54, 10.43) increased post- versus pre-intervention. Clinical staff reporting they provided tobacco cessation services were also higher post-intervention (p= 0.045). There were no changes in smoking prevalence or quit intention among smoking staff. Conclusion: A tobacco-free policy intervention in SUD treatment was associated with implementation of tobacco-free grounds, tobacco-related training among staff, more positive staff beliefs towards and delivery of tobacco cessation services to clients. The model may be improved with greater emphasis on staff policy awareness, facilitating availability of NRT, and reducing staff smoking.

Smoke-Free Policy Disparities in Long-Term Care Facilities.

Older adults in long-term care (LTC) facilities suffer disproportionately from health conditions caused or worsened by secondhand smoke. Long-term care facilities in many states and municipalities permit smoking. Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights compiles data on smoke-free policies only in institutional facilities (e.g., nursing homes), but not in transitional (e.g., independent living) or community-based settings (e.g., adult day). A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted of smoke-free policies using cluster random sampling in Kentucky to compare differences in policy location of coverage and strength of smoke-free policies in institutional, transitional, and community-based LTC facilities by rural/urban status. Online or phone surveys of LTC administrators representing 306 facilities were conducted. Of the facilities sampled, 35.5% were institutional, 33.4% transitional, 25.1% community-based, and 6.0% multi-type. Only one in five (19.6%) facilities restricted smoking indoors and outdoors. Only 17.3% of the policies were comprehensive (i.e., prohibiting use of all tobacco products by all persons living, frequenting, or working in LTC facilities). Compared to transitional facilities, institutional and community-based facilities were more likely to have comprehensive policies and restrict smoking indoors and outdoors. Facilities located in rural communities were less likely to restrict smoking indoors or outdoors and less likely to have comprehensive smoke-free policies, reflecting a disparity in policy protections. Strong, consistent smoke-free policies and policy enforcement are needed to reduce the disparity in smoke-free protections for older adults, LTC employees, and visitors. More research is needed to investigate the best strategies for implementing and enforcing policies that completely restrict smoking in all LTC facilities.

Influence of a University Tobacco-Free Policy on the Attitudes, Perceptions of Compliance, and Policy Benefit Among the University Students: A Pre-Post Investigation.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a university tobacco-free policy by examining differences in students' attitudes, perceptions of compliance and policy benefits, after one year of the policy's implementation. Methods: Cross-sectional studies were undertaken to collect data pre- and 1 year post-policy implementation. The two samples were selected using stratified random sampling. Results: The prevalence of smoking decreased from 26% pre-policy implementation to 21% 1 year after (p = 0.035). The proportion of smokers who thought the policy had contributed to a reduction in smoking frequency increased from 10% to 70% (p < 0.001). Smokers' support for the policy rose from 42 to 58% (p = 0.007). Conclusion: Against the background of a strongly pro-tobacco environment in Lebanon, it is possible to create a positive change in the mindset of smokers at the levels of the education and smoking cessation and more efforts should be expended to bring it about.

Smoking related outcomes before and after implementation of tobacco-free grounds in residential substance use disorder treatment programs.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the impact of a tobacco-free grounds (TFG) policy and the California $2.00/pack tobacco tax increase on tobacco use among individuals in residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. METHODS: We conducted three cross-sectional surveys of clients enrolled in three residential SUD treatment programs. Wave 1 (Pre-TFG) included 190 clients, wave 2 (post-TFG and pre-tax increase) included 200 clients, and wave 3 (post-tax increase) included 201 clients. Demographic and tobacco-use characteristics were first compared between waves using bivariate comparisons. Regression models were used to compare each outcome with survey wave as the predictor, while adjusting for demographic characteristics and nesting of participants within programs. RESULTS: Odds of clients being current smokers was lower (AOR = 0.43, 95%CI = 0.30,0.60) after implementation of TFG compared to baseline. Adjusted mean ratio (AMR) for cigarettes per day was lower post-TFG compared to baseline (AMR = 0.70, CI = 0.59, 0.83). There were no differences, across waves, in tobacco-related knowledge, attitudes, or services received by program clients, or use of nicotine replacement therapy. Increased cigarette taxation was not associated with reductions in client smoking. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a TFG policy was associated with a lower prevalence of client smoking among individuals in residential SUD treatment. Increased state cigarette excise taxes were not associated with a further reduction in client smoking in the presence of TFG policies, though this may have been confounded by relaxing of the TFG policy. SUD treatment programs should promote TFG policies and increase tobacco cessation services for clients.