4.4 Editorial Material

Failure to treat tobacco use in mental health and addiction treatment settings: A form of harm reduction?

Journal

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
Volume 110, Issue 3, Pages 177-182

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.03.002

Keywords

Tobacco; Cigarette smoking; Mental health; Harm reduction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In mental health and addiction treatment settings, failure to treat tobacco dependence has been rationalized by some as a clinical approach to harm reduction. That is, tobacco use is viewed as a less harmful alternative to alcohol or illicit drug use and/or other self-harm behaviors. This paper examines the impact of providers' failure to treat tobacco use on patients' alcohol and illicit drug use and associated high-risk behaviors. The weight of the evidence in the literature indicates: (1) tobacco use is a leading cause of death in patients with psychiatric illness or addictive disorders; (2) tobacco use is associated with worsened substance abuse treatment outcomes, whereas treatment of tobacco dependence supports long-term sobriety; (3) tobacco use is associated with increased (not decreased) depressive symptoms and suicidal risk behavior; (4) tobacco use adversely impacts psychiatric treatment; (5) tobacco use is a lethal and ineffective long-term coping strategy for managing stress, and (6) treatment of tobacco use does not harm mental health recovery. Failure to treat tobacco dependence in mental health and addiction treatment settings is not consistent with a harm reduction model. In contrast, emerging evidence indicates treatment of tobacco dependence may even improve addiction treatment and mental health outcomes. Providers in mental health and addiction treatment settings have an ethical duty to intervene on patients' tobacco use and provide available evidence-based treatments. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available