Evidence suggests that individuals with history of substance use disorder (SUD) are at increased risk of COVID-19, but little is known about relationships between SUDs, overdose and COVID-19 severity and mortality. This study investigated risks of severe COVID-19 among patients with SUDs. We conducted a retrospective review of data from a hospital system in New York City. Patient records from 1 January to 26 October 2020 were included. We assessed positive COVID-19 tests, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and death. Descriptive statistics and bivariable analyses compared the prevalence of COVID-19 by baseline characteristics. Logistic regression estimated unadjusted and sex-, age-, race- and comorbidity-adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for associations between SUD history, overdose history and outcomes. Of patients tested for COVID-19 (n = 188 653), 2.7% (n = 5107) had any history of SUD. Associations with hospitalization [AORs (95% confidence interval)] ranged from 1.78 (0.85–3.74) for cocaine use disorder (COUD) to 6.68 (4.33–10.33) for alcohol use disorder. Associations with ICU admission ranged from 0.57 (0.17–1.93) for COUD to 5.00 (3.02–8.30) for overdose. Associations with death ranged from 0.64 (0.14–2.84) for COUD to 3.03 (1.70–5.43) for overdose. Patients with histories of SUD and drug overdose may be at elevated risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes.

Veterans with mental health disorders smoke at high rates, but encounter low rates of tobacco treatment. We sought to understand barriers and facilitators to treating tobacco use in VA mental health clinics. This qualitative study was part of a trial evaluating a telephone care coordination program for smokers using mental health services at six VA facilities. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 staff: 12 mental health clinic staff working at the parent study’s intervention sites (n = 6 psychiatrists, three psychologists, two social workers, one NP), as well as one psychiatrist and one psychologist on the VA’s national tobacco advisory committee. Interviews were transcribed and inductively coded to identify themes. Five “barriers” themes emerged: (1) competing priorities, (2) patient challenges/resistance, (3) complex staffing/challenging cross-discipline coordination, (4) mixed perceptions about whether tobacco is a mental health care responsibility, and (5) limited staff training/comfort in treating tobacco. Five “facilitators” themes emerged: (1) reminding mental health staff about tobacco, (2) staff belief in the importance of addressing tobacco, (3) designating a cessation medication prescriber, (4) linking tobacco to mental health outcomes and norms, and (5) limiting mental health staff burden. VA mental health staff struggle with knowing that tobacco use is important, but they face competing priorities, encounter patient resistance, are conflicted on their role in addressing tobacco, and lack tobacco training. They suggested strategies at multiple levels that would help overcome those barriers that can be used to design interventions that improve tobacco treatment delivery for mental health patients. This study builds upon the existing literature on the high rates of smoking, but low rates of treatment, in people with mental health diagnoses. This study is one of the few qualitative evaluations of mental health clinic staff perceptions of barriers and facilitators to treating tobacco. The study results provide a multi-level framework for developing strategies to improve the implementation of tobacco treatment programs in mental health clinics.

In 2018, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development required public housing authorities to implement a smoke-free housing (SFH) policy that included individual apartments. We analyzed the policy implementation process in the New York City Public Housing Authority (NYCHA). From June–November 2019, we conducted 9 focus groups with 64 NYCHA residents (smokers and nonsmokers), 8 key informant interviews with NYCHA staff and resident association leaders, and repeated surveys with a cohort of 130 nonsmoking households pre- and 12-month post policy. One year post policy implementation, participants reported widespread smoking violations and multi-level factors impeding policy implementation. These included the shared belief among residents and staff that the policy overreached by “telling people what to do in their own apartments”. This hindered compliance and enforcement efforts. Inconsistent enforcement of illegal marijuana use, staff smoking violations, and a lack of accountability for other pressing housing issues created the perception that smokers were being unfairly targeted, as did the lack of smoking cessation resources. Resident support for the policy remained unchanged but satisfaction with enforcement declined (60.1% vs. 48.8%, p = 0.047). We identified multilevel contextual factors that are influencing SFH policy implementation. Findings can inform the design of strategies to optimize policy implementation.

Introduction: People with serious mental illness (SMI) have a high smoking prevalence and low quit rates. Few cessation treatments are tested in smokers with SMI. Mental health (MH) providers are reluctant to address smoking. Proactive tobacco cessation treatment strategies reach out directly to smokers to offer counseling and medication and improve treatment utilization and quit rates. The current study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of proactive outreach for tobacco cessation treatment in VA MH patients. Aims and Methods: Participants (N = 1938, 83% male, mean age 55.7) across four recruitment sites, who were current smokers and had a MH visit in the past 12 months, were identified using the electronic medical record. Participants were randomized to Intervention (telephone outreach call plus invitation to engage in MH tailored telephone counseling and assistance obtaining nicotine replacement therapy) or Control (usual care). The current study assessed outcomes in participants with SMI (N = 982). Results: Compared to the Control group, participants assigned to the Intervention group were more likely to engage in telephone counseling (22% vs. 3%) and use nicotine replacement therapy (51% vs. 41%). Participants in the Intervention group were more likely to be abstinent (7-day point prevalence; 18%) at 12 months than participants in the Control group (11%) but equally likely to make quit attempts. Conclusions: Proactive tobacco cessation treatment is an effective strategy for tobacco users with SMI. Proactive outreach had a particularly strong effect on counseling utilization. Future randomized clinical trials examining proactive tobacco treatment approaches in SMI treatment settings are needed. Implications: Few effective treatment models exist for smokers with SMI. Proactive tobacco cessation outreach with connections to MH tailored telephone counseling and medication promotes tobacco abstinence among smokers with SMI and is an effective treatment strategy for this underserved population.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet