Effectiveness of a multi-level intervention to improve tobacco policy in alcohol addiction treatment centers

Sample: Pretreatment: Data of N= 200 employees from 40 alcohol addiction treatment centers Instruments: Tobacco policy was measured by a modified questionnaire, developed from evidence and Background: It was demonstrated that tobacco policy is connected to smoking prevalence in companies and ● Posttreatment: Data of N=184 employees from 38 centers (matching pre-post: N=115) 10 employees were excluded because the center dropped out before posttreatment assessment. recommendations of international guidelines (ENSH, 2003; Fiore et al., 2000; Hopkins et al., 2001; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). public buildings. Smoking bans (Fichtenberg and Glantz, 2002) and restrictive structural measures (Serra, Cabezas, Bonfill and Pladevall-Vila, 2000) are very effective in order to reduce 6 employees left the center and were no longer available for assessment. Tobacco policy was devided in seven category groups: smoking. Structual based interventions seem to be an efficient way to increase cessation rates and the multi● Design: 20 centers (waiting control group) Pretreatment assessment Posttreatment assessment Smoking restrictions Smoking-related training of employees Consequences Non-smoker protection level intervention is regarded the most promising way. Supported by management and executives, it seems even more successful. (Serra, Cabezas, Bonfill and Pladevall-Vila, 2000) In alcohol addiction treatment centers, individual specific smoking cessation interventions, do not ● (Pra) Assessment of smokers Commitment of center Smoking cessation offers for patients seem to be effective in the subgroup of smokers (Metz et al., 2006; Prochaska et al., 2004). The implementation of a multi-level intervention and its influence on structual measures and tobacco 40 alcohol addiction treatment centers ONE YEAR MULTI-LEVEL INTERVENTION Each group consists of 5-12 categorial items („yes“, „no“, „I do not know“), where „yes“ answers were policy has not been investigated in the setting of alcohol addiction treatment centers, so far.