Background and objectives

Little is known about whether people in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment are at risk for multiple-tobacco use. We examined the factors associated with dual- and polytobacco use among clients in SUD treatment.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2019 among 562 clients (M_age  = 39, 74% male) in 20 residential SUD treatment programs in California, USA. The outcomes included single-, dual- (use of two products), and polytobacco use (use of three of more products). Independent variables were nicotine dependence, quitting-related factors, blunt/spliff use, and health-related factors. A multinomial model examined associations between the independent variables and the outcome, controlling for demographics, and time in treatment.

Results

Overall, 32.6%, 18.9%, and 14.0% of the sample were single-, dual-, and polytobacco users, respectively. Factors associated with increased odds of polytobacco use included greater nicotine dependence (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.19, 2.16), ever using e-cigarettes for quitting (AOR = 4.56; 95% CI = 2.23, 9.34), and past 30-day use of blunt/spliff (AOR = 2.96; 95% CI = 1.48, 5.89). Factors associated with increased odds of dual use were ever using e-cigarettes for quitting (AOR = 3.19; 95% CI = 1.79, 5.66) and reporting more mentally unhealthy days (AOR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.07).

Conclusion and scientific significance

This study extends the literature on tobacco use among people in SUD treatment by revealing the high prevalence of dual- and polytobacco use and the unique characteristics of users. The findings have implications for interventions reducing all types of tobacco use in this understudied population.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic may present special challenges for residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities, which may lack infrastructure and support to implement infection control protocols while maintaining on-site treatment services. However, little is known about how residential SUD treatment programs are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

The research team conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 directors of 20 residential SUD treatment programs across California during the state's shelter-in-place order. The researchers then analyzed qualitative interview data thematically and coded them using ATLAS.ti software.

Findings

Thematic analyses identified six major themes: program-level impacts, staff impacts, client impacts, use of telehealth, program needs, and positive effects. "Program-level impacts" were decreased revenue from diminished client censuses and insufficient resources to implement infection control measures. "Staff impacts" included layoffs, furloughs, and increased physical and emotional fatigue. "Client impacts" were delayed treatment initiation; receipt of fewer services while in treatment; lower retention; and economic and psychosocial barriers to community re-entry. "Use of telehealth" included technical and interpersonal challenges associated with telehealth visits. "Program needs" were personal protective equipment (PPE), stimulus funding, hazard pay, and consistent public health guidance. "Positive effects" of the pandemic response included increased attention to hygiene and health, telehealth expansion, operational improvements, and official recognition of SUD treatment as an essential health care service.

Conclusion

Study findings highlight COVID-related threats to the survival of residential SUD treatment programs; retention of the SUD treatment workforce; and clients' SUD treatment outcomes. These findings also identify opportunities to improve SUD service delivery and suggest avenues of support for residential SUD treatment facilities during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction

This study examined the impact of a San Francisco City and County ban on all flavoured tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, among clients in residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment.

Methods

We conducted cross-sectional surveys of clients at two residential SUD programmes before the County began enforcing the ban (n=160) and twice after enforcement began (n=102, n=120). The samples were compared on demographic characteristics, smoking status, smoking behaviours and the proportion reporting menthol as their usual cigarette. Menthol smokers were asked whether they smoked only menthol cigarettes, mostly menthol, both menthol and non-menthol or mostly non-menthol. Post-ban samples were asked about awareness of the ban and access to menthol cigarettes.

Results

In multivariate analyses, we found no evidence that the ban was associated with decreased number of cigarettes per day or increased readiness to quit among current smokers. However, odds were lower post-ban for reporting menthol as the usual cigarette (OR=0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.90), and for smoking only menthol cigarettes (OR=0.19, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.19). Perhaps most importantly, and with the ability to influence all other findings, 50% of self-identified menthol smokers reported purchasing menthol cigarettes in San Francisco nearly 1 year after the ban was implemented.

Conclusion

In subgroups where smoking has remained elevated, like those receiving SUD treatment, local menthol bans may have only modest impacts on smoking behaviour. Broader regional, state or national bans, that effectively restrict access to menthol products, may be needed to show stronger effects on smoking behaviour.