4.1 Article

Clinical Correlates of Smoking Status in Men and Women with Opioid Use Disorder

Journal

SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE
Volume 55, Issue 7, Pages 1054-1058

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2020.1725056

Keywords

Opioid use disorder; smoking; sex differences; anxiety

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [K23 DA035297, K02 DA042987]
  2. Charles Engelhard Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Smoking is highly prevalent in people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality in this population. However, little is known about the differences between those with OUD who do and do not smoke cigarettes. Objectives: Our aim was to investigate differences between treatment-seeking adults with OUD who did and did not smoke. Methods: Participants (N = 568; 30% female) completed a battery of self-report questionnaires including measures of current smoking status and number of cigarettes smoked per day as well as measures of clinical characteristics (e.g. craving, anxiety). Results: Of the total sample, 77% were current smokers. Multivariable logistic regression identified heroin use (OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.38, 3.53) and younger age (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.95, 0.997) as strong correlates of smoking status; other characteristics were not significant. Older age and opioid craving were associated with more cigarettes smoked per day. Notably, these patterns differed for males and females; opioid craving (B = 0.62, SEB = 0.24) was associated with the number of cigarettes smoked among men, and anxiety (B = 0.39, SEB = 0.19) was associated with the number of cigarettes smoked among women. Conclusion: Adults with OUD who used heroin in the past month were more likely to be current smokers. No sex differences were observed in likelihood of smoking; however, the predictors of smoking status and severity differed between men and women.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available