Abstract
BACKGROUND: People in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment experience disproportionate rates of tobacco use. California has prioritized smoking cessation among these individuals through the Tobacco-Free for Recovery Initiative, which includes an intervention aimed at supporting programs in implementing tobacco-free grounds. The current study examined changes in client smoking prevalence, tobacco use behaviors, and receipt of cessation services among the first seven programs participating in the initiative. METHODS: Residential treatment program clients completed cross-sectional surveys at the start of the intervention (baseline: n = 249), at an interim timepoint post-baseline (interim: n = 275), and at the end of the intervention 15 months later (post-intervention: n = 219). All participants reported smoking status. Current smokers reported tobacco use behaviors, and both current smokers and those who quit in treatment reported receipt of cessation services. Univariate analyses explored differences across the three timepoints and multivariate logistic regression assessed change from baseline to interim and baseline to post-intervention. RESULTS: Client smoking prevalence decreased from 54.2% at pre- to 26.6% at post-intervention (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.13, 0.45). Current smokers and those who quit while in treatment reported an increase in NRT/pharmacotherapy (11.9% vs. 25.2%; AOR = 3.02, CI = 1.24, 7.35). When comparing baseline to the interim timepoint (a timepoint before the COVID-19 pandemic), data analyses also demonstrated a significant decrease in smoking prevalence (54.2% vs. 41.8%; AOR = 0.62, CI = 0.42, 0.92) and increase in NRT/pharmacotherapy (11.9% vs. 24.5%; AOR = 3.68, CI = 1.11, 12.19). CONCLUSION: An intervention to promote tobacco-free grounds implemented in residential SUD treatment programs was associated with a significant reduction in client smoking and an increase in NRT/pharmacotherapy. These associations were observed both before the COVID-19 pandemic and in the early stages of the pandemic, suggesting that they may be due to the intervention rather than to the pandemic.