Journal of substance use and addiction treatment最新文献

Introduction: Scant research has examined the impact of residential treatment on adolescent behavioral healthcare utilization post-discharge, even though behavioral healthcare utilization is major driver of healthcare costs. In the primary analyses of a pilot randomized trial, Parent SMART - a technology-assisted intervention for parents of adolescents in residential treatment - was found to improve parental monitoring and parent-adolescent communication, reduce adolescent drinking, and reduce adolescent school-related problems, relative to residential treatment as usual (TAU). The goal of this secondary analysis of the pilot randomized trial was to assess the effects of residential treatment and the adjunctive Parent SMART intervention on both the amount and type of subsequent behavioral healthcare utilization.

Method: The study randomized sixty-one parent-adolescent dyads to residential TAU (n = 31) or residential TAU plus Parent SMART (n = 30). Of the 61 dyads, 37 were recruited from a short-term residential facility and 24 were recruited from a long-term facility. Adolescents completed a structured clinical interview and self-reported their behavioral health-related visits to the emergency department, nights in residential/inpatient, and outpatient visits over the past 90 days, at baseline, 12-, and 24-weeks post-discharge. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) examined both linear and non-linear (pre- to post- residential treatment) trends, pooled, and stratified by residential facility to examine behavioral health service utilization.

Results: Both the linear and pre-post GLMMs revealed that behavioral health-related emergency department visits and residential/inpatient nights decreased across both residential facilities. GLMMs estimating change from the pre- to post period indicated that outpatient visits increased across both facilities. There were no significant effects of the Parent SMART adjunctive intervention in GLMMs, though bivariate tests and the direction of effects signaled that Parent SMART was associated with more nights of residential/inpatient utilization.

Conclusion: Residential substance use treatment may reduce adolescents' subsequent utilization of costly behavioral healthcare services such as emergency department visits and residential/inpatient nights, while increasing utilization of outpatient services. Parent SMART was not associated with significant changes in behavioral healthcare utilization, but the pattern of results was consistent with prior literature suggesting that stronger parenting skills are associated with greater utilization of non-emergency services.

Introduction: Substance use disorder (SUD) recovery is heterogeneous. Yet, over the last 50 years, substance use treatment providers and researchers have often defined success as sustained abstinence from substance use. An often overlooked but equally valid pathway to recovery for persons with SUD is non-abstinent recovery. However, most of the literature on non-abstinent recovery exists for individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with few studies of non-abstinent recovery for other types of SUD. Literature exploring the mechanisms that lead to non-abstinent recovery is also lacking. As such, the current study aimed to examine recovery profiles for individuals (N = 454) recruited in two randomized clinical trials comparing mindfulness-based relapse prevention with cognitive-behavioral relapse prevention and/or treatment as usual.

Methods: Latent profile analysis empirically derived profiles of recovery following outpatient aftercare SUD treatment. Multinomial logistic regression examined associations between treatment assignment and recovery profile, including potential psychological mediators (e.g., mindfulness) and contextual moderators (e.g., annual household income).

Results: Analyses supported four recovery profiles: (1) low-functioning frequent substance use; (2) low-functioning infrequent substance use; (3) high-functioning frequent substance use; (4) high-functioning infrequent substance use. There were no significant interaction effects of race or ethnicity by treatment type, or household income by treatment type, in predicting recovery profiles. Trait mindfulness, craving, and psychological flexibility failed to mediate the association between treatment assignment and recovery profile; however, there were statistically significant differences in trait mindfulness with individuals expected to be classified in the low-functioning infrequent substance use profile showing significantly lower levels of trait mindfulness compared to individuals in the two high-functioning profiles.

Conclusions: Findings suggest that recovery from SUD is heterogeneous, and profiles of recovery based on dimensions of substance use and functioning can be identified across a variety of SUD, including among people with co-occurring SUD. Additionally, trait mindfulness appears to be a differentiating factor across recovery profiles. Further research is needed to explore how psychological and social factors may moderate and influence both abstinent and non-abstinent forms of recovery.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way healthcare providers delivered most health services, including treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Specialty alcohol treatment remained available through the pandemic, and within some systems treatment use increased likely due to telehealth availability. However, the field knows little about the relationship between the pandemic's expanded access to specialty alcohol treatment and alcohol use outcomes.

Methods: The sample included 14,712 patients from Kaiser Permanente Northern California who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care and had an AUD diagnosis or risked developing an AUD by reporting 5 or more heavy drinking days in a 3-month period between 1/1/2019 and 2/29/2020 (pre-pandemic). The study examined the receipt of any specialty alcohol treatment (including at least one outpatient, inpatient, or telehealth specialty treatment encounter, or pharmacotherapy prescription) from 3/1/2020 (pandemic start) to either the first completed follow-up alcohol screening or 6/20/2022 (study period end). The outcomes of alcohol use included changes in heavy drinking days, drinks per week, drinking days per week, and drinks per drinking day between the pre- and post-pandemic periods.

Results: On average patients significantly decreased alcohol use across all four alcohol use measures examined, regardless of whether they received treatment. However, those who received any treatment compared to those who did not have greater reductions in alcohol use, with an additional decrease of -3.55 heavy drinking days (95 % CI = -5.93, -1.17), -3.80 drinks per week (95 % CI = -5.18, -2.42), -0.72 drinks per drinking day (95 % CI = -1.14, -0.30), and - 1.01 drinking days per week (95 % CI = -1.30, -0.72). Treatment effects were greatest among patients who exceeded both daily and weekly limits pre-pandemic, with an additional decrease of -10.75 heavy drinking days (95 % CI = -15.28, -6.21), -12.83 drinks per week (95 % CI = -16.31, -9.35), -1.67 drinks per drinking day (95 % CI = -2.19, -1.14), and -2.02 drinking days per week (95 % CI = -2.41, -1.63).

Conclusions: On average, patients decreased alcohol use during the onset of the pandemic, however, those who had any specialty alcohol treatment had significantly greater decreases, suggesting that the hybrid in-person and telehealth treatment approach was effective during the pandemic.