A cluster-randomized trial of a brief multi-component intervention to improve tobacco outcomes in substance use treatment.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy Pub Date : 2023-06-16 DOI:10.1186/s13011-023-00539-w
Joseph Guydish, Caravella McCuistian, Sindhushree Hosakote, Thao Le, Carmen L Masson, Barbara K Campbell, Kevin Delucchi
{"title":"A cluster-randomized trial of a brief multi-component intervention to improve tobacco outcomes in substance use treatment.","authors":"Joseph Guydish, Caravella McCuistian, Sindhushree Hosakote, Thao Le, Carmen L Masson, Barbara K Campbell, Kevin Delucchi","doi":"10.1186/s13011-023-00539-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Smoking prevalence is high among people in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and program interventions to address smoking are often complex and lengthy. This cluster-randomized trial tested whether a brief multi-component intervention impacted tobacco outcomes among staff and clients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seven SUD treatment programs were randomly assigned to the multi-component intervention or to waitlist control. The 6-month intervention included a leadership motivation assessment, program incentives, 4 staff training sessions and a leadership learning community session. Survey data were collected from staff and clients at pre- and post-intervention. Outcomes were first compared across condition (intervention vs waitlist control), and then examined pre- to post-intervention with condition collapsed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Staff in the intervention (n = 48) and control conditions (n = 26) did not differ at post-intervention on smoking prevalence, self-efficacy to help clients quit, or practices used to help clients quit smoking. Intervention clients (n = 113) did not differ from controls (n = 61) in smoking prevalence or receipt of tobacco services. Pre-post comparisons collapsed across condition showed a decrease in client and staff smoking prevalence, which could not be attributed to the intervention, and a decrease in client receipt of cessation medication.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The brief multi-component intervention did not support changes in smoking prevalence or in tobacco-related services received by clients. Other intervention features are needed to reduce smoking among SUD clients.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Randomization occurred at the program level and outcomes measured are program-level measures. Accordingly, the trial is not registered.</p>","PeriodicalId":22041,"journal":{"name":"Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy","volume":"18 1","pages":"34"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10276468/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-023-00539-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Smoking prevalence is high among people in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and program interventions to address smoking are often complex and lengthy. This cluster-randomized trial tested whether a brief multi-component intervention impacted tobacco outcomes among staff and clients.

Methods: Seven SUD treatment programs were randomly assigned to the multi-component intervention or to waitlist control. The 6-month intervention included a leadership motivation assessment, program incentives, 4 staff training sessions and a leadership learning community session. Survey data were collected from staff and clients at pre- and post-intervention. Outcomes were first compared across condition (intervention vs waitlist control), and then examined pre- to post-intervention with condition collapsed.

Results: Staff in the intervention (n = 48) and control conditions (n = 26) did not differ at post-intervention on smoking prevalence, self-efficacy to help clients quit, or practices used to help clients quit smoking. Intervention clients (n = 113) did not differ from controls (n = 61) in smoking prevalence or receipt of tobacco services. Pre-post comparisons collapsed across condition showed a decrease in client and staff smoking prevalence, which could not be attributed to the intervention, and a decrease in client receipt of cessation medication.

Conclusion: The brief multi-component intervention did not support changes in smoking prevalence or in tobacco-related services received by clients. Other intervention features are needed to reduce smoking among SUD clients.

Trial registration: Randomization occurred at the program level and outcomes measured are program-level measures. Accordingly, the trial is not registered.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在药物使用治疗中采用简短的多成分干预措施改善烟草治疗效果的分组随机试验。
背景:在接受药物使用障碍(SUD)治疗的人群中,吸烟率很高,而针对吸烟问题的项目干预通常复杂而漫长。这项分组随机试验测试了简短的多成分干预是否会影响员工和客户的吸烟结果:方法: 七个 SUD 治疗项目被随机分配到多组分干预或等待名单对照组。为期 6 个月的干预包括领导力动机评估、项目激励、4 次员工培训课程和一次领导力学习社区课程。在干预前和干预后收集了员工和客户的调查数据。首先比较了不同条件下的结果(干预与候补对照),然后对干预前和干预后的结果进行了比较:结果:干预人员(48 人)和对照组人员(26 人)在干预后的吸烟率、帮助服务对象戒烟的自我效能以及帮助服务对象戒烟的方法上没有差异。干预对象(n = 113)与对照组(n = 61)在吸烟率或接受烟草服务方面没有差异。不同条件下的前后比较显示,服务对象和工作人员的吸烟率有所下降,但这不能归因于干预措施,服务对象接受戒烟药物治疗的人数也有所减少:结论:简短的多成分干预并不能帮助改变客户的吸烟率或接受的烟草相关服务。需要其他干预措施来减少 SUD 患者的吸烟率:随机化发生在项目层面,测量的结果也是项目层面的测量结果。因此,该试验未进行注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that encompasses research concerning substance abuse, with a focus on policy issues. The journal aims to provide an environment for the exchange of ideas, new research, consensus papers, and critical reviews, to bridge the established fields that share a mutual goal of reducing the harms from substance use. These fields include: legislation pertaining to substance use; correctional supervision of people with substance use disorder; medical treatment and screening; mental health services; research; and evaluation of substance use disorder programs.
期刊最新文献
The power of people who use drugs as mass media influencers in changing public opinion during the global overdose epidemic. Mapping the subjective importance of the topic 'parenthood' for parents with substance use disorder in inpatient rehabilitative care - an explorative qualitative study in Germany. Reimagining recovery: a commentary centering youth and caregiver voices on substance use recovery and healing from across British Columbia, Canada. Association between the location of Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) providers and heroin-related ambulance attendances. Profiles of care trajectories among patients with substance-related disorders, assessed over nine years considering other patient characteristics and subsequent adverse outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1