Civil commitment experiences among opioid users

Community-based substance use treatment programs for reentering justice-involved adults: A scoping review

Introduction

For adults involved with the criminal justice system who are reentering their communities post-incarceration, there is a large need for community-based substance use treatment. Little is known, however, about the types, availability, and benefits of programs targeting the reentry population in community settings that operate independently from the criminal justice system.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of community-based treatment programs for substance use among reentering justice-involved adults to examine the contemporary state of literature and identify research gaps. We searched four databases for peer-reviewed articles conducted in the United States and published between 2017 and 2021.

Results

The final sample included 58 articles. Interventions varied, but the two most prominent were medications for opioid use disorder (35%) and peer support or social support interventions (22.4%). Studies were more likely to show positive impact on substance use outcomes than criminal justice outcomes. Themes were identified around participant characteristics, treatment delivery, and treatment benefits.

Conclusions

Findings from this scoping review suggest that the range of evidence-based strategies for substance use treatment targeting the reentry population is growing, but there is a need for additional research that examines implementation, cost effectiveness, and racial/ethnic disparities.

The impact of civil commitment laws for substance use disorder on opioid overdose deaths

Objective

Our study analyzed the impact of civil commitment (CC) laws for substance use disorder (SUD) on opioid overdose death rates (OODR) in the U.S. from 2010-21.

Methods

We used a retrospective study design using the CDC Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) dataset to analyze overdose death rates from any opioid during 2010-21 using ICD-10 codes. We used t-tests and two-way ANOVA to compare the OODR between the U.S. states with the law as compared to those without by using GraphPad Prism 10.0.

Results

We found no significant difference in the annual mean age-adjusted OODR from 2010-21 between U.S. states with and without CC SUD laws. During the pre-COVID era (2010-19), the presence or absence of CC SUD law had no difference in age-adjusted OODR. However, in the post-COVID era (2020-21), there was a significant increase in OODR in states with a CC SUD law compared to states without the law (p = 0.032). We also found that OODR increased at a faster rate post-COVID among both the states with CC SUD laws (p < 0.001) and the states without the law (p = 0.019).

Conclusion

We found higher age-adjusted OODR in states with a CC SUD law which could be due to the laws being enacted in response to the opioid crisis or physicians' opposition to or unawareness of the law's existence leading to underutilization. Recent enactment of CC SUD law(s), a lack of a central database for recording relapse rates, and disparities in opioid overdose rate reductions uncovers multiple variables potentially influencing OODR. Thus, further investigation is needed to analyze the factors influencing OODRs and long-term effects of the CC SUD laws.

Gender Differences in Civil Commitment Hearing Experience for Persons Who Use Opioids

OBJECTIVES

Civil commitment has increasingly served as a court-based legal intervention for severe opioid use, but little research has examined the civil commitment (CC) hearing process from the perspective of the person who is committed. Despite documented gender differences in opioid use and experiences within the legal system, past research has also not investigated gender differences in perceptions of the CC process for persons who use opioids.

METHODS

Participants were 121 persons (43% female) with opioid use who were interviewed upon arrival at the CC facility about their experience of the CC hearing process in Massachusetts.

RESULTS

Two thirds of participants were taken to the commitment hearing by police, and 59.5% shared a cell with others while waiting. Overall, the commitment intake process at the courthouse took over 5 hours. Participants spent, on average, less than 15 minutes with their lawyer before the hearing, and a majority of CC hearings lasted less than 15 minutes. Once transferred to a CC facility, opioid withdrawal management began within 4 hours. Compared with women, men reported longer wait times between the hearing and transfer, as well as longer wait times for withdrawal management at the facility ( P < 0.05). Women perceived worse interactions with the judge and greater dissatisfaction with the commitment process compared with men ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There were few gender differences in the experience of CC. However, overall, participants reported a lengthy court process and low levels of perceived procedural justice.

The Other Infodemic: Media Misinformation about Involuntary Commitment for Substance Use

BACKGROUND

As drug-related deaths have surged, the number and scope of legal mechanisms authorizing involuntary commitment for substance use have expanded. Media coverage of involuntary commitment routinely ignores documented health and ethical concerns. Prevalence and dynamics of misinformation about involuntary commitment for substance use have not been assessed.

METHODS

Media content mentioning involuntary commitment for substance use published between January 2015 and October 2020 was aggregated using MediaCloud. Articles were redundantly coded for viewpoints presented, substances mentioned, discussion of incarceration, and mentions of specific drugs. In addition, we tracked Facebook shares of coded content.

RESULTS

Nearly half (48%) of articles unequivocally endorsed involuntary commitment, 30% presented a mixed viewpoint, and 22% endorsed a health-based or rights-based critique. Only 7% of articles included perspectives of people with lived experience of involuntary commitment. Critical articles received nearly twice as many Facebook shares (199,909 shares) as supportive and mixed narratives combined (112,429 shares combined).

DISCUSSION

Empirical and ethical concerns about involuntary commitment for substance use are largely absent from coverage in mainstream media, as are voices of those with lived experience. Better alignment between news coverage and science is vital to inform effective policy responses to emerging public health challenges.

Outcomes for Patients Discharged to Involuntary Commitment for Substance Use Disorder Directly from the Hospital

To evaluate the outcomes of patients discharged to involuntary commitment for substance use disorders directly from the hospital. We performed a retrospective chart review of 22 patients discharged to involuntary commitment for substance use disorder from the hospital between October 2016 and February 2020. We collected demographic data, details about each commitment episode, and healthcare utilization outcomes 1 year following involuntary commitment. Nearly all patients had a primary alcohol use disorder (91%) and had additional medical (82%) and psychiatric comorbidities (71%). One year following involuntary commitment, all patients had relapsed to substance use and had at least one emergency department visit while 78.6% had at least one admission. These findings suggest that patients discharged to involuntary commitment directly from the hospital universally relapsed and experienced significant medical morbidity during the first year following their release. This study adds to a growing literature recognizing the harms of involuntary commitment for substance use disorder.

Civil commitment perspectives and experiences among friends and family of people who use illicit opioids in Massachusetts, USA

BACKGROUND

Civil commitment statutes allow qualified individuals to petition for court-mandated commitment for someone with a substance use disorder (SUD). Despite a lack of empirical evidence showing efficacy of involuntary commitment, these statutes are prevalent worldwide. We examined perspectives on civil commitment among family members and close friends of people who use illicit opioids in Massachusetts, U.S.A.

METHODS

Eligible individuals were Massachusetts residents, ≥18 years of age, did not use illicit opioids but had a close relationship with someone who did. We used a sequential mixed methods approach in which semi-structured interviews (N=22) were followed by a quantitative survey (N=260). Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data and survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

While some family members were influenced by SUD professionals to petition for civil commitment, influence from social networks based on personal experience was more common. Motivations for civil commitment included initiating recovery and believing that commitment would reduce overdose risk. Some reported that it afforded them respite from caring for, and worrying about, their loved one. A minority discussed increases in overdose risk following a period of forced abstinence. Participants expressed concerns about the variable quality of care during commitment, largely based on the use of corrections facilities for civil commitment in Massachusetts. A minority endorsed the use of these facilities for civil commitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite participants' uncertainty and the harms stemming from civil commitment, including increased risk of overdose after forced abstinence and the use of corrections facilities, family members resorted to this mechanism to reduce immediate overdose risk. Our findings indicate that peer support groups are an appropriate forum to disseminate information about evidenced-based treatment and that family members and others close to those with SUD often lack adequate support for, and respite from, the stress of caring for them.

Opioid relapse and MOUD outcomes following civil commitment for opioid use

INTRODUCTION

Opioid use disorder (OUD) continues to present a major public health problem in the United States. Civil commitment for substance use is one mandatory form of treatment for severe opioid use that has become increasingly available in recent years, but empirical data on this approach are lacking. This study examines clinical outcomes of civil commitment in a sample of adults with severe opioid use.

METHODS

Participants were 121 persons with opioid use who were interviewed at the point of entry into civil commitment, then followed for 12 weeks after their release.

RESULTS

Prior to civil commitment, this sample exhibited serious substance use characteristics (including high rates of illicit opioid use, other substance use, and injection drug use), as well as mental health problems (diagnoses of depression and anxiety disorders). During follow-up, approximately 41 % of the sample reported at least one illicit opioid use day. More than 64 % of the sample reported at least one day of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) receipt, and participants were significantly less likely to use illicit opioids on days that they received MOUDs. No participants died during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of persons with severe opioid use, clinical outcomes of civil commitment included illicit opioid relapse as well as varying levels of MOUD uptake. Civil commitment may be a viable method for short-term prevention of overdose for a subset of this vulnerable patient population.

Civil commitment for opioid misuse: do short-term benefits outweigh long-term harms?

In response to a sharp rise in opioid-involved overdose deaths in the USA, states have deployed increasingly aggressive strategies to limit the loss of life, including civil commitment-the forcible detention of individuals whose opioid use presents a clear and convincing danger to themselves or others. While civil commitment often succeeds in providing short-term protection from overdose, emerging evidence suggests that it may be associated with long-term harms, including heightened risk of severe withdrawal, relapse and opioid-involved mortality. To better assess and mitigate these harms, states should collect more robust data on long-term health outcomes, decriminalise proceedings and stays, provide access to medications for opioid use disorder and strengthen post-release coordination of community-based treatment.

Hospital-Based Suicides: Challenging Existing Myths

Myths are widely held and often based on false beliefs. To improve patient safety and speed the translation of research to clinical practice, we highlight and then debunk 10 common myths regarding the assessment, treatment, and management of hospitalized patients at risk for suicide. Myths regarding hospital-based suicides are examined and empirical evidence that counters each myth is offered. Ten common myths regarding hospital-based suicides are found to be untrue or unsupported based on existing empirical evidence. Rethinking common beliefs and practices that lack empirical support and seeking alternatives based on research evidence is consistent with an emphasis on evidence-based practices leading to improved patient care and protection.

Risk behaviors among persons civilly committed for opioid use

Despite the growth in civil commitment for persons who use opioids, we know little about the kinds of risk behaviors among those committed. This study examined the behaviors that a judge might use to determine if there is sufficient evidence that an individual's opioid use poses a risk for serious harm. The study recruited participants (n = 121) from three Massachusetts Department of Public Health civil commitment facilities in 2018. We used a list of risk behaviors that courts consider supportive of opioid-related civil commitment. Participants averaged 28 years of age, 56% were male, and 91% met criteria for severe opioid use disorder. Participants endorsed an average of 9 of the 27 risk behaviors. On average, participants endorsed three of the six drug use behaviors representing a danger to themselves, four of eleven behaviors representing an inability to care for or protect themselves (home safety, weight loss), and two of ten behaviors representing a danger to others (driving high or drunk). Participants who reported they were "not at all pleased" to have been civilly committed endorsed significantly (p = .009) fewer behaviors representing a danger to themselves than those who said they were at least "a little pleased." We conclude that the majority of individuals civilly committed for opioid use are engaging in multiple high-risk behaviors that pose a serious risk of harm to themselves.

Is your syringe services program cost-saving to society? A methodological case study

BACKGROUND

While there is a general acceptance among public health officials and policy-makers that syringe services programs can be effective in reducing HIV transmission among persons who inject drugs, local syringe services programs are often asked to provide economic justifications for their activities. A cost-effectiveness study, estimating the cost of preventing one HIV infection, would be the preferred methods for addressing this economic question, but few local syringe services programs have the needed data, staff and epidemiologic modeling resources needed for a cost-effectiveness study. We present a method for estimating a threshold value for the number of HIV infections prevented above which the program will be cost-saving to society. An intervention is considered "cost-saving" when it leads to a desirable health outcome a lower cost than the alternative.

METHODS

The research literature on the effectiveness of syringe services programs in controlling HIV transmission among persons who inject drugs and guidelines for syringe services program that are "functioning very well" were used to estimate the cost-saving threshold at which a syringe services program becomes cost-saving through preventing HIV infections versus lifetime treatment of HIV. Three steps are involved: (1) determining if HIV transmission in the local persons who inject drugs (PWID) population is being controlled, (2) determining if the local syringe services program is functioning very well, and then (3) dividing the annual budget of the syringe services program by the lifetime cost of treating a single HIV infection.

RESULTS

A syringe services program in an area with controlled HIV transmission (with HIV incidence of 1/100 person-years or less), functioning very well (with high syringe coverage, linkages to other services, and monitoring the local drug use situation), and an annual budget of $500,000 would need to prevent only 3 new HIV infections per year to be cost-saving.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high costs of treating HIV infections, syringe services programs that are operating according to very good practices ("functioning very well") and in communities in which HIV transmission is being controlled among persons who inject drugs, will almost certainly be cost-saving to society.

Clinician's experiences with involuntary commitment for substance use disorder: A qualitative study of moral distress

BACKGROUND

Petitions for involuntary commitment of people living with a substance use disorder (SUD) have almost doubled since 2011 in Massachusetts through the policy Section 35. However, the efficacy of this controversial policy remains unclear, and clinicians differ on whether it ought to be used. This study examines how clinicians decide whether to use Section 35 and their experiences of moral distress, the negative feeling that occurs when a clinician is required to pursue a treatment option against their moral judgement due to institutional constraints, associated with its use.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews with clinicians in Massachusetts were conducted between December 2019 and February 2020 and continued until thematic saturation. Thematic and narrative analysis was conducted with recorded and transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

Among 21 clinicians, most (77%) experienced some or high moral distress when utilizing Section 35 for involuntary commitment, with clinicians working in emergency departments experiencing less distress than those working in SUD clinics. Clinicians with low moral distress referenced successful patient anecdotes and held an abstinence-based view of SUD, while clinicians with high moral distress were concerned by systemic treatment failures and understood SUD through a nuanced and harm reduction-oriented view. Clinicians across professional settings were concerned by the involvement of law enforcement and criminal justice settings in the Section 35 process. Clinicians employed a variety of strategies to cope with moral distress, including team-based decision-making and viewing the petition as a last resort. Barriers to utilizing Section 35 included restrictive court hours and lack of post-section aftercare services.

CONCLUSION

Widespread distress associated with use of involuntary commitment and inconsistent approaches to its use highlight the need for better care coordination and guidance on best practices for utilization of this policy.

Assessing HIV and overdose risks for people who use drugs exposed to compulsory drug abstinence programs (CDAP): A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence supports integrating drug use treatment, harm reduction, and HIV prevention services to address dual epidemics of drug use disorders and HIV. These dual epidemics have spurred a rise in legally-enforced compulsory drug abstinence programs (CDAP), despite limited evidence on its effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association between CDAP exposure and HIV and overdose-related risk.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EBSCOhost and Sociological Abstracts for studies that contained an individual-level association between CDAP exposure and related HIV or overdose risks, with no date restrictions. Meta-analyses were conducted on data abstracted from eligible studies, using pooled random-effects models and I-squared statistics. We assessed quality of the studies across 14 criteria for observational studies.

RESULTS

Out of 2,226 abstracts screened, we included 8 studies (5253 individuals/776 events) across China, Mexico, Thailand, Norway, and the United States. All but two were cross-sectional analyses, limiting strength of observed associations. In the two studies that reported association between CDAP and HIV seropositivity or receptive syringe sharing, findings were inconsistent and did not indicate that those with exposure to CDAP had increased odds of HIV or syringe sharing. However, we found the odds of experiencing non-fatal overdose in lifetime and in the last 6-12 months were 2.02 (95% CI 0.22 - 18.86, p = 0.16) to 3.67 times higher (95% CI 0.21 - 62.88, p = 0.39), respectively, among those with CDAP exposure than those without.

CONCLUSION

Research assessing HIV risk associated with CDAP is scant and inconclusive, while evidence of robust associations between CDAP and overdose risk continues to mount. More rigorous, longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the causal relationships between CDAP and these health outcomes. Aside from the growing evidence base on collateral harms, ethical considerations dictate that voluntary, evidence-based drug treatment should be prioritized to address the drivers of excess morbidity and mortality among people who use drugs.

Municipal police support for harm reduction services in officer-led referrals of people who inject drugs in Tijuana, Mexico

BACKGROUND

Police constitute a structural determinant of health and HIV risk of people who inject drugs (PWID), and negative encounters with law enforcement present significant barriers to PWID access to harm reduction services. Conversely, police may facilitate access via officer-led referrals, potentiating prevention of HIV, overdose, and drug-related harms. We aimed to identify police characteristics associated with support for officer-led referrals to addiction treatment services and syringe service programs (SSP). We hypothesized that officers who believe harm reduction services are contradictory to policing priorities in terms of safety and crime reduction will be less likely to support police referrals.

METHODS

Between January and June 2018, police officers (n = 305) in Tijuana, Mexico, completed self-administered surveys about referrals to harm reduction services during the 24-month follow-up visit as part of the SHIELD police training and longitudinal cohort study. Log-binomial regression was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios and model policing characteristics and attitudes related to officers' support for including addiction treatment and SSP in referrals.

RESULTS

Respondents were primarily male (89%), patrol officers (86%) with a median age of 38 years (IQR 33-43). Overall, 89% endorsed referral to addiction services, whereas 53% endorsed SSP as acceptable targets of referrals. Officers endorsing addiction services were less likely to be assigned to high drug use districts (adjusted prevalence ratio [APR] = 0.50, 95% CI 0.24, 1.08) and more likely to agree that methadone programs reduce crime (APR = 4.66, 95% CI 2.05, 9.18) than officers who did not support addiction services. Officers endorsing SSPs were younger (adjusted prevalence ratio [APR] = 0.96 95% CI 0.93, 0.98), less likely to be assigned to high drug use districts (APR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29, 0.87), more likely to believe that methadone programs reduce crime (APR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.30, 4.55), and less likely to believe that SSPs increase risk of needlestick injury for police (APR = 0.44, 0.27, 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Beliefs related to the occupational impact of harm reduction services in terms of officer safety and crime reduction are associated with support for referral to related harm reduction services. Efforts to deflect PWID from carceral systems toward harm reduction by frontline police should include measures to improve officer knowledge and attitudes about harm reduction services as they relate to occupational safety and law enforcement priorities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02444403.

Involuntary Commitment for Substance Use: Addiction Care Professionals Must Reject Enabling Coercion and Patient Harm

Ethical and epidemiological concerns should mobilize addiction care providers to deploy their expertise and collective influence to challenge the use of state power to coerce people into treatment settings-especially when such settings often diverge from best clinical practices. Troublingly, with few notable exceptions, the voices of professional organizations on this issue have been largely lacking. This issue of the Journal includes a timely manuscript that sheds light on this resounding silence: "Civil Commitment for Substance Use Disorders: A National Survey of Addiction Medicine Physicians" by Jain et al. provides important and novel insights into the beliefs of physicians regarding civil commitment statutes. This study distributed a web-based survey to physician-members of the American Society of Addiction Medicine with questions gauging awareness of, attitudes toward, and experiences with civil commitment for individuals with substance use disorder. Surprisingly, the study found that the overwhelming majority of addiction medicine providers supported the application of civil commitment for substance use disorder-60.7% reported being in favor of its use whereas only 21.5% reported being opposed.

Civil Commitment for Substance Use Disorders: A National Survey of Addiction Medicine Physicians

BACKGROUND

Civil commitment (CC) for substance use disorders (SUDs) is a legal mechanism, initiated by family members, healthcare professionals, or others, that compels individuals with substance use problems into involuntary treatment. With the recent rise of US overdose deaths, more states are considering these laws. Yet little is known about physicians' perspectives regarding CC in treating patients with SUDs.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based survey of American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) physician members regarding their awareness of, attitudes towards, and experiences with CC for adults with SUDs.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-five addiction physicians completed the survey; 60.7% favored, 21.5% opposed, and 17.8% were unsure regarding CC for SUDs. More than a third (38.4%) were unfamiliar with these laws and more than a quarter (28.8%) were unsure if CC for SUDs was permitted in their state. Support for CC was strongest for SUDs involving heroin (79.0%), alcohol (74.7%), and nonheroin opioids (74.7%). Those opposing CC were more likely to believe it would jeopardize patient rapport (P < 0.001), would be ineffective for unmotivated individuals (P < 0.001), and should only be permitted for certain substances (P = 0.007). A majority of respondents endorsed the need for more clinician education (91.5%) and research (87.1%) on this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most addiction physicians in this study approve of CC for SUDs, enthusiasm for this compulsory intervention is mixed with strongest support for patients with opioid and alcohol use disorders. At the same time, many respondents are unfamiliar with these laws and most believe more education and research are needed.

Experiences of Court Clinicians Who Perform Civil Commitment Evaluations for Substance Use Disorders

Civil commitment for substance use disorders is an increasingly used intervention to mitigate the risks associated with severe substance use. Although court clinicians play a vital role in helping courts determine whether respondents meet statutory requirements for commitment, little is known about their experiences conducting these evaluations. In this pilot study, we surveyed all court clinicians who perform evaluations for civil commitment for substance use disorders in Massachusetts, a state with one of the highest rates of such commitments nationally. Court clinicians reported that these evaluations are most frequently ordered for individuals who use heroin and other opioids, alcohol, and cannabis. They reported a recent suicide attempt or drug overdose, intentional physical harm to another, use of dangerous weapon, and driving while intoxicated as the behaviors most likely to satisfy the statutory requirement of imminent risk. At the same time, many court clinicians consider a much broader range of behaviors as constituting imminent risk, and many reported having endorsed commitment on one or more occasions in the absence of statutory criteria being satisfied. These findings underscore the need for additional research on the performance of civil commitment evaluations for substance use disorder and standards for such evaluations.

The perspectives of people who use drugs regarding short term involuntary substance use care for severe substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

In the Canadian Province of British Columbia (BC), the BC Mental Health Act permits involuntary care for treating mental disorders. However, the Act has also been applied to provide involuntary care to individuals with a primary substance use disorder, in the absence of specific guidelines and legislation, and with insufficient understanding of perspectives of people who use drugs (PWUD) regarding this approach.

METHODS

As part of a larger mixed-methods research project providing an overview of involuntary care for severe substance use disorders in BC, three focus groups were convened with: PWUD, families and caregivers, and Indigenous community stakeholders. This analysis examines perspectives from the focus group of PWUD, consisting of nine participants from local and regional drug user and advocacy organizations regarding involuntary care. A qualitative descriptive approach and thematic analysis were conducted, using a coding framework developed deductively and inductively, and participant perspectives were interpreted drawing on problematization theory.

RESULTS

Participants did not endorse the use of involuntary care, instead emphasizing significant changes were needed to address shortcomings of the wider voluntary care system. When asked to conceptualize what an acceptable involuntary care scenario might look like (under hypothetical and ideal conditions), participants recommended it should include: individual control and autonomy, peer advocacy in decision-making, and elimination of police and criminal justice system involvement from treatment encounters. Participants saw involuntary care to be an inappropriate approach given the shortcomings of the current system, noting also problems inherent in its use to manage severe SUDs and imminent harm, and prioritized alternate approaches to offsetting risks.

CONCLUSION

Improving voluntary care for substance use, along with addressing the social determinants of health that put individuals at risk of problematic substance use and harm, were prioritized in participant perspectives. Participant comments regarding the use of involuntary care bring forward alternate solutions in the context of the opioid overdose crisis, and a reconceptualization of the 'problem' of managing severe substance use disorders.

Misalignment of Stakeholder Incentives in the Opioid Crisis

The current opioid epidemic has killed more than 446,000 Americans over the past two decades. Despite the magnitude of the crisis, little is known to what degree the misalignment of incentives among stakeholders due to competing interests has contributed to the current situation. In this study, we explore evidence in the literature for the working hypothesis that misalignment rooted in the cost, quality, or access to care can be a significant contributor to the opioid epidemic. The review identified several problems that can contribute to incentive misalignment by compromising the triple aims (cost, quality, and access) in this epidemic. Some of these issues include the inefficacy of conventional payment mechanisms in providing incentives for providers, practice guidelines in pain management that are not easily implementable across different medical specialties, barriers in adopting multi-modal pain management strategies, low capacity of providers/treatments to address opioid/substance use disorders, the complexity of addressing the co-occurrence of chronic pain and opioid use disorders, and patients' non-adherence to opioid substitution treatments. In discussing these issues, we also shed light on factors that can facilitate the alignment of incentives among stakeholders to effectively address the current crisis.

Comparing views on civil commitment for drug misuse and for mental illness among persons with opioid use disorder

Despite the growing use of civil commitment for drug use disorders, little is known about attitudes among individuals who might be subject to civil commitment. This study examined attitudes of persons with opioid use disorder toward civil commitment for drug misuse and for psychiatric illness. Consecutive persons entering a brief, inpatient opioid detoxification (n = 254) were surveyed regarding their attitudes about civil commitment for mental illness and for drug use, and responses were compared by commitment type and by individual history of being civilly committed for opioid misuse. Participants endorsed high support for civil commitment (both psychiatric and drug misuse-related) when used to address risk of harm to self, to others, and of criminal activity. Respondents were more likely to support civil commitment for psychiatric disorders than for drug misuse, expressing higher support for civil commitment in general, higher agreement with the criteria used to justify civil commitment, and greater perceived efficacy of commitment. Individuals previously committed for opioid misuse were less likely to support drug misuse-related commitment on the basis of its perceived efficacy. These results suggest individuals with opioid use disorder hold more favorable views toward civil commitment for mental health disorders than for drug misuse, and reinforce the need for more research on the procedures and outcomes related to civil commitment for drug misuse.

Interventions for incarcerated adults with opioid use disorder in the United States: A systematic review with a focus on social determinants of health

Incarceration poses significant health risks for people involved in the criminal justice system. As the world’s leader in incarceration, the United States incarcerated population is at higher risk for infectious diseases, mental illness, and substance use disorder. Previous studies indicate that the mortality rate for people coming out of prison is almost 13 times higher than that of the general population; opioids contribute to nearly 1 in 8 post-release fatalities overall, and almost half of all overdose deaths. Given the hazardous intersection of incarceration, opioid use disorder, and social determinants of health, we systematically reviewed recent evidence on interventions for opioid use disorder (OUD) implemented as part of United States criminal justice system involvement, with an emphasis on social determinants of health (SDOH). We searched academic literature to identify eligible studies of an intervention for OUD that was implemented in the context of criminal justice system involvement (e.g., incarceration or parole/probation) for adults ages 19 and older. From 6,604 citations, 13 publications were included in final synthesis. Most interventions were implemented in prisons (n = 6 interventions), used medication interventions (n = 10), and did not include SDOH as part of the study design (n = 8). Interventions that initiated medication treatment early and throughout incarceration had significant, positive effects on opioid use outcomes. Evidence supports medication treatment administered throughout the period of criminal justice involvement as an effective method of improving post-release outcomes in individuals with criminal justice involvement. While few studies included SDOH components, many investigators recognized SDOH needs as competing priorities among justice-involved individuals. This review suggests an evidence gap; evidence-based interventions that address OUD and SDOH in the context of criminal justice involvement are urgently needed.

State Approaches to Addressing the Overdose Epidemic: Public Health Focus Needed

States have implemented a variety of legal and policy approaches to address the overdose epidemic. Some approaches, like increasing access to naloxone and connecting overdose survivors with evidence-based treatment, have a strong public health foundation and a compelling evidence base. Others, like increasing reliance on punitive criminal justice approaches, have neither. This article examines law and policy changes that are likely to be effective in reducing overdose-related harm as well as those that are likely to increase it.