Preliminary feasibility of integrating tobacco treatment into SUD peer recovery coaching: a mixed-methods study of peer recovery coaches

Table 3 Tobacco Treatment Commitment Scale (TTCS) ratings among SUD peer recovery coaches by coaches smoking status

Mean (standard deviation)		Past 30d Smoking Status^a
All items scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree	All (N = 23)	Not Smoking (n = 15/22; 68%)	Smoking (n = 7/22; 32%)	P value
Factor 1. “Tobacco is less harmful than other drugs”
Tobacco is less harmful than other SUDs, M (SD)	3.7 (1.1)	4.2 (0.80)	2.6 (0.98)	< 0.001
Tobacco causes few problems for my recoverees, M (SD)	3.4 (1.1)	3.7 (0.91)	2.9 (1.2)	0.08
Factor 2. “It’s not our job to treat tobacco”
Treating tobacco dependence should be part of the mission of SUD treatment programs, M (SD)	2.9 (1.1)	2.9 (1.18)	3.0 (1.15)	0.89
SUD treatment programs should not treat tobacco because it isn’t what clients are in treatment for, M (SD)	3.2 (1.1)	3.2 (1.1)	3.1 (1.1)	0.91
Factor 3. “Tobacco treatment will harm clients”
Treating tobacco dependence will interfere with a recoveree’s other SUD recovery, M (SD)	3.3 (1.1)	3.6 (1.0)	2.7 (1.3)	0.08
Smoking helps recoverees cope with the stress in their lives, M (SD)	2.4 (0.79)	2.4 (0.84)	2.3 (0.76)	0.85
It’s unfair to take recoverees tobacco away from them, M (SD)	2.1 (0.99)	2.3 (1.0)	1.9 (1.1)	0.37

Note. Cells depicting mean (standard deviation) excluding those who reported “don’t know.” P values based on t-tests. The TTCS is recommended to be scored on a 1–5 scale ranging from 1”strongly agree” to 5 “strongly disagree.[11, 25]” Our study included additional qualitative anchors of 2 “agree”, 3 ”neither agree or disagree”, 4”disagree.”
^a1 participant had unknown past 30d smoking status and was not included

ISSN: 1940-0640