Behavioral health care provider's beliefs, confidence, and knowledge in treating cigarette smoking in relation to their use of the 5A's intervention.

Introduction: Evidence-based smoking cessation interventions are underused settings where behavioral health treatment is provided, contributing to smoking-related health disparities in this patient group. This study assessed the relationship of provider's beliefs about patients' smoking, perceptions of treatment capability, and knowledge of referral options and their use of the 5A's (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange) intervention for smoking cessation. Methods: Surveys were collected from providers in healthcare settings in Texas where patients receive behavioral health care (N = 86; 9 federally qualified health centers, 16 Local Mental Health Authorities (LMHAs), 6 substance use treatment programs in LMHAs, and 55 stand-alone substance use treatment centers). Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between provider's beliefs about patients' concern and desire to quit smoking; perceptions of their confidence, skills, and effectiveness in treating smoking; their knowledge of referral options; and their use of the 5A's with patients who smoked. Results: Providers who believed that patients were concerned about smoking and wanted to quit; who perceived themselves as confident in providing cessation care, having the required skills, and being effective in providing advice; and/or who had greater referral knowledge were more likely to use the 5A's with patients who smoked than their (respective) provider counterparts (ps < 0.05). Conclusion: Provider-level constructs affect their 5A's provision for patients with behavioral health needs. Future work should train providers to correct misconceptions about patients' interest in quitting, bolster their confidence, and provide referral options to support tobacco provision efforts.

Influence of Provider and Leader Perspectives about Concurrent Tobacco-Use Care during Substance-Use Treatment on Their Tobacco Intervention Provision with Clients: A Mixed-Methods Study.

People with substance-use disorders have elevated rates of tobacco use compared with the general population, yet rarely receive tobacco-dependence treatment within substance-use treatment settings (SUTS). One barrier to delivering evidence-based interventions in SUTS is providers' misconception that treating tobacco use and non-nicotine substance use concurrently jeopardizes clients' substance-use recovery, although research indicates that it enhances support for recovery and relapse prevention. A total of 86 treatment providers employed in SUTS (i.e., 9 Federally Qualified Health Centers, 16 Local Mental Health Authorities (LMHAs), 6 substance-use treatment programs in LMHAs, and 55 stand-alone substance-use treatment centers) in Texas, USA, answered survey questions about their (1) thoughts about treating tobacco during substance-use treatment, and (2) delivery of the 5A's tobacco-use intervention (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange). Twenty-six providers and leaders were interviewed about attitudes toward tobacco-free workplace policies and tobacco dependence and the relative importance of treating tobacco (vs. other substance-use disorders) at their center. Providers who did not believe tobacco use should be addressed as soon as clients begin treatment (i.e., endorsed responses of after 1 year, it depends on the client, or never) had lower odds of Asking clients about their tobacco use (OR = 0.195), Advising clients to quit smoking (OR = 0.176), and Assessing interest in quitting smoking (OR = 0.322). Qualitative results revealed barriers including beliefs that clients need to smoke to relieve the stress of substance-use recovery, are disinterested in quitting, fears that concurrent treatment would jeopardize substance use, and limited resources; additional training and education resources was the key facilitator theme. The results demonstrate a critical need to eliminate barriers to tobacco-treatment provision for clients in SUTS through education to correct misperceptions, specialized training to equip providers with knowledge and skills, and resources to build center capacity. Integrating evidence-based smoking interventions into routine care is key to support the recovery efforts of clients in SUTS.

Providers' Non-Cigarette Tobacco Use Intervention Practices in Relation to Beliefs about Patients, Prioritization of and Skills for Intervention, and Referral Knowledge in Texas Healthcare Centers Providing Care to Persons with Behavioral Health Needs.

Rates of non-cigarette (colloquially, other) tobacco use is elevated among adults with behavioral health conditions. Little is known about whether behavioral health providers are using brief interventions, including the evidence-based 5As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange) for other tobacco use, or what provider factors may be associated with use of these interventions. The current study redressed this gap. Overall, 86 providers in Texas (9 Federally Qualified Health Centers, 16 Local Mental Health Authorities (LMHAs) that provide a broad range of mental and behavioral health services, 6 substance use treatment programs in LMHAs, and 55 stand-alone substance use treatment programs) took a survey assessing their beliefs regarding (1) patients' concerns about other tobacco use; (2) their desire to quit; (3) importance of intervening on other tobacco use with cessation counseling; (4) perceived skills to intervene; (5) knowledge of referral options for treatment. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the association between each factor and use of the 5As. Results showed that 70.9% of providers asked patients about other tobacco use status, 65.1% advised them to quit, 59.3% assessed quit interest, 54.7% assisted with a quit attempt, and 31.4% arranged a follow-up. Providers who believed patients were concerned about other tobacco use, recognized the importance of offering other tobacco use cessation counseling, believed they had the necessary skills to treat other tobacco use, and possessed knowledge of referral options, respectively, were more likely to deliver the 5As (ps < 0.05). Results add to a limited literature on provider intervention practices for other tobacco use in settings where behavioral health care is provided, highlighting the significance of provider beliefs, perceived skills, and referral knowledge to care delivery. Findings reveal opportunities to increase delivery of the 5As for other tobacco use to behavioral health patients and suggest provider factors that could be targeted to build this capacity.

Guest Support for Outdoor Smoke-Free Policies within a Homeless Shelter.

Roughly 70-80% of adults experiencing homelessness smoke cigarettes. Smoke-free living/workplace policies are an empirically-supported tobacco control intervention. However, homeless shelters may be reluctant to implement smoke-free policies due to fears of it discouraging current/potential shelter guests from taking refuge there. The current study was meant to characterize guest support for on-property smoke-free policies within a homeless shelter with an extant indoor tobacco use ban amongst never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers to provide data on this point. Participants comprised a convenience sample of adult guests of a homeless shelter in Texas (N = 394, 28.2% women; 10.2% former; and 75.9% current smokers). Participant sociodemographics, smoking status, behavioral health diagnoses, and support for two versions of an on-property outdoor courtyard smoke-free policy (one partial, one complete) were assessed. Data were collected in two waves in a repeated cross-sectional design. Overall, 64.0% of participants supported a partial, and 32.0% a full smoking ban. Logistic regressions, controlling for wave of data collection, age, sex, and any additional significant predictors from a semi-adjusted model, examined associations between participant characteristics and policy support. Older participants (OR = 1.024, CI0.95 = 1.005-1.044), non-veterans (OR = 2.523, CI0.95 = 1.156-5.506), former smokers (OR = 2.730, CI0.95 = 1.191-6.258), and those without severe mental illness (OR = 1.731, CI0.95 = 1.061-2.824) had significantly greater odds of supporting a partial smoking ban. Relative to current smokers, never smokers (OR = 3.902, CI0.95 = 2.133-7.137) and former smokers (OR = 8.257, CI0.95 = 3.951-17.258) had significantly greater odds of supporting a complete smoking ban. The implementation of smoke-free living/workplace policies in homeless shelters may enjoy more support from guests-specifically, non-smokers-than anticipated by shelter administrators. Aside from reducing ambient smoke exposure for never and former smokers, these policies can help to reduce ubiquitous smoking cues for those who may want to quit, are undergoing a quit attempt, or are trying to maintain abstinence. Interventionists might partner with shelter guests, particularly smokers, to inform the roll-out of such policies for maximal acceptance and adoption.

Perceived Social Support Attenuates the Association between Stress and Health-Related Quality of Life among Adults Experiencing Homelessness.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is defined as a multidimensional subjective assessment of one's physical and mental health. Homelessness is associated with numerous stressors that can reduce HRQoL. Social support is defined as the availability of individuals, or resources provided by individuals, to cope with stress. Interpersonal social support may be important in buffering HRQoL from the negative implications of stress. Here, we examine this association in a marginalized group known for high rates of physical and mental health comorbidities: adults experiencing homelessness. Participants (N = 581; 63.7% men; Mage = 43.6 ± 12.2) were recruited from homeless-serving agencies in Oklahoma City. Social support was measured with the 12-item Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL). HRQoL was measured by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey using self-rated health, the number of poor mental and poor physical health days over the preceding 30 days, as well as the number of limited activity days as the result of poor mental and/or physical health. Perceived stress was assessed using the 4-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The potential moderation effect of social support was examined by assessing the interaction term of social support and stress in a series of linear regression analyses, controlling for sex, age, months homeless, race, education, health insurance status, serious mental illness diagnosis, and recruitment agency/site. There was a significant interaction effect of social support and stress on the prediction of days of poor physical health, days of poor mental health, and days of limited activity (p in all cases ≤ 0.05). Results add to a growing literature on the potentially protective benefits of social support for HRQoL, extend them to a large sample of adults experiencing homelessness in the South, and demonstrate the significance of this moderating effect of social support over and above the influence of several prominent sociodemographic and diagnostic variables. Future work should determine if interventions designed to enhance social support can buffer HRQoL from the deleterious effects of stress among this vulnerable population.