Providers who held relatively more sympathetic attitudes toward their role in smoking cessation, who were never or former smokers, who were health professionals rather than paraprofessionals, and who were relatively more confident were more likely to assess their clients’ smoking status (see Table 3). Similarly, providers who held sympathetic attitudes about their role and their clients’ role in smoking cessation, who were health professionals, who were more confident, and more years of experience in the mental health field were more likely to engage in discussions with their clients about their tobacco use (see Table 4).
Table 3.
Bivariate relationships between study predictors and assessment of clients’ smoking status.
Variable Ever assess clients’ smoking statusn = 187 Never assess clients’ smoking status n = 86 Chi-squareaor t-statistic d.f.
Perceived provider-related barriers M (S.D.) 2.7 (0.6) 2.3 (0.7) t = 4.1 **
264
Perceived client-related barriers M (S.D.) 2.5 (0.4) 2.4 (0.4) t = 1.4 267
Perceived tobacco-related barriers M (S.D.) 2.0 (0.4) 2.0 (0.5) t = 1.0 264
Confidence in providing cessation intervention M(S.D.) 50.7 (20.4) 39.0 (25.2) t = 4.0 **
262
Smoking status N (%) χ2 = 4.34 *
1
Current 34 (56.7) 26 (43.3)
Never or former smoker 151 (71.9) 59 (28.1)
Gender N χ2 = 0.1 1
Male 57 (64.8) 31 (35.2)
Female 129 (70.9) 53 (29.1)
Role N (%) χ2 = 14.4 **
1
Health professional 100 (80.6) 24 (19.4)
Paraprofessional 84 (58.3) 60 (41.7)
Time worked in mental health N (%) χ2 = 0.6 1
10 or fewer years 98 (66.2) 50 (33.8)
>10 years 87 (71.3) 35 (28.7)
a
Yates’ continuity correction applied.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .001.
Table options
Table 4.
Bivariate relationships between study predictors and engagement in discussions with clients about tobacco use.
Variable Ever engage in discussions (n = 248) Never engage in discussions (n = 29) Chi-squareaor t-statistic d.f.
Perceived provider-related barriersM (S.D.) 2.6 (0.0) 2.2 (0.5) t = 3.3 **
268
Perceived client-related barriers M(S.D.) 2.5 (0.4) 2.2 (0.5) t = 2.7 *
29