The entanglement between relapse and posttreatment criminal justice involvement

"A lot of moving parts": Recovery home challenges linking and housing individuals with criminal legal system involvement

INTRODUCTION

There are high rates of substance use disorder (SUD) among people released from carceral settings and, upon release, many of these people also face unstable housing situations, posing challenges to connecting with resources to facilitate SUD recovery. Recovery homes provide a temporary sober living environment for those seeking both SUD recovery and transition back to the community after carceral release. However, successful recovery home placement for this population can prove difficult, and there is a need for research to identify ways to overcome them.

METHODS

The current qualitative study seeks to understand barriers to recovery home access for people leaving carceral settings and identify potential best practices for overcoming these barriers from the perspective of recovery home directors. The study conducted semi-structured interviews at two data collection points with eight recovery home directors from sites participating in a housing linkage and placement intervention pilot. The research team used qualitative software to identify and organize directors' experiences and practices in housing and supporting this population.

RESULTS

Recovery home directors identified significant barriers to linkage from carceral settings, including difficulties communicating and coordinating placement with potential residents while still incarcerated. Interviews also revealed approaches recovery home directors take to improve recovery home placement, such as sharing information and resources with carceral settings prior to release and helping residents avoid reincarceration by managing relationships with court agents and parole.

CONCLUSION

Recovery resident directors have considerable insight into the most significant placement challenges faced by recovery homes upon carceral release as well as experience with potential solutions for overcoming them. Directors can be the key to direct seamless support and continuity of care for criminal legal system involved individuals through coordination with jails, prisons, and other community resources. Directors can also play a significant role in the successful completion of probation and parole by helping residents avoid further issues with the legal system. These directors view working cooperatively with residents as an effective approach to ensuring clients adhere to court orders and are successful in recovery and reentry.

Substance Use Disorders and HIV/AIDS Risk Behaviors in Youth After Juvenile Detention: A 16-Year Longitudinal Study

PURPOSE

To examine the association between substance use disorders (SUDs) and HIV/AIDS risk behaviors in detained youth as they age.

METHODS

Prospective longitudinal study of a stratified random sample of 1,829 youth aged 10 to 18 years at baseline, sampled between November 1995 and June 1998 from the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center, Chicago, Illinois, and reinterviewed up to 13 times (to median age 32); 17,766 interviews overall.

RESULTS

Youth had greater odds of engaging in every risk behavior when they had an SUD compared with when they did not have an SUD. For example, SUD was associated with condomless vaginal sex with a high-risk partner (OR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.84-2.82). SUD was also associated with multiple partners, although the strength varied by time and sex (e.g., 16 years after baseline, OR: 3.58, 95% CI: 2.46-5.23 females; OR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.48-2.88 males). Types of SUD-alcohol, comorbid alcohol and marijuana, drugs other than marijuana-were also associated with HIV/AIDS risk behaviors.

DISCUSSION

SUDs and HIV/AIDS risk behaviors are linked among youth in the juvenile justice system and as they age. There is a longstanding need for targeted and integrated HIV and SUD services, but this need remains unmet.

Is the relapse concept in studies of substance use disorders a 'one size fits all' concept? A systematic review of relapse operationalisations

ISSUES

Relapse is a theoretical construct and empirical object of inquiry. It is unclear how relapse is operationalised with regard to the various phases in substance use disorders (SUD). The aim was to investigate relapse operationalisations in SUDs studies after short- and long-term abstinence and remission, recovery and slip/lapse.

APPROACH

Systematic review using the following databases: Epistemonikos, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL and DARE), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Search returned 3426 articles, with 276 meeting the following inclusion criteria: empirical study published in English in a peer-reviewed journal; samples meet diagnostic criteria for dependence syndrome or moderate-severe drug use disorder or alcohol use disorder; reports relapse, abstinence, recovery, remission, slip or lapse. Review protocol registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020154062).

KEY FINDINGS

Thirty-two percent of the studies had no definition of 'relapse'. Most relapse operationalisations were defined according to measure (26%), time (17%), use (26%) and amount and frequency (27%). Of the 16 studies with a follow-up duration of up to 2 years, one (6%) contained a definition of 'long-term abstinence'. Of the 64 studies with a follow-up duration of more than 2 years, four (6%) contained a definition of 'long-term abstinence'. Of those, one (2%) mentioned 'early relapse' and one (2%) mentioned 'late relapse'.

IMPLICATIONS

Future research is needed to explore the possible difference between early and late relapse. Moreover, working to increase consensus on relapse operationalisations in SUD research is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified no consensus on relapse operationalisations nor agreement on the differentiation between early and late relapse. The clinical utility of current relapse operationalisations seems low and may compromise knowledge accumulation about relapse and implementation of research into treatment.

Exploring Problematic Substance Use during Reentry from Prison to the Community: A Thematic Analysis

The reentry process from prison to the community is rife with obstacles. Substance use problems, in particular, can present significant barriers to successful reentry. However, little research has examined the various roles that substance use plays during reentry from the perspective of those reentering the community. The current study explores reentry experiences of people who have been recently released from prison with a specific focus on their experiences with substance use during the reentry process. Using thematic analysis, the present study explored substance use experiences from 26 semi-structured interviews. Seven main themes emerged: recovery and sobriety, substance use programs, relapse, substance use exposure, triggers and other challenges, impact of incarceration on substance use, and reflections about substance use. Within each of these broad themes, additional subthemes emerged. Findings suggest complex histories of substance use spanning ecological contexts, including family, neighborhood, and corrections facilities as well as provide support for the pervasive and persistent nature of substance use among previously incarcerated individuals. Implications for practice and policy are discussed as well as potential future directions for research.

Reentry interventions that address substance use: A systematic review

Justice-involved individuals with substance use problems have heightened risk of relapse and recidivism after release from incarceration, making reentry a critical time to provide evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for substance use; however, the extent to which reentry interventions incorporate EBTs for substance use is unclear. This systematic review identified studies of reentry interventions in the past 10 years that address substance use, assessed whether EBTs were used, and explored which interventions were effective in reducing substance use and recidivism postrelease. Eligible studies included interventions that began during incarceration and continued postrelease or began within 3 months of release and addressed substance use in some capacity. One hundred twelve full text articles were reviewed and 38 met inclusion criteria, representing 34 unique interventions. Of the 34 interventions, 21 provided substance use treatment whereas 13 facilitated connections to treatment. Of the 21 interventions providing treatment, the primary modalities were cognitive-behavioral therapy (n = 6), motivational interviewing (n = 2), medication assisted treatment (n = 2), therapeutic community (n = 2), psychoeducation or 12-step (n = 5), and four did not specify the modality. Of the 31 studies that assessed recidivism outcomes, 18 found reduced recidivism for the treatment group on at least one indicator (e.g., rearrest, reincarceration). Of the 13 studies that assessed substance use outcomes, 7 found reduced substance use for the treatment group on at least one indicator. Results were not consistent for any particular treatment approach or modality and highlight the need for consistent integration of EBTs for substance use into reentry interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Cost-effectiveness of subdermal implantable buprenorphine versus sublingual buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder

AIMS

Subdermal implantable buprenorphine (BSI) was recently approved to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) in clinically-stable adults. In the pivotal clinical trial, BSI was associated with a higher proportion of completely-abstinent patients (85.7% vs 71.9%; p = .03) vs sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BPN). Elsewhere, relapse to illicit drug use is associated with diminished treatment outcomes and increased costs. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BSI vs SL-BPN from a US societal perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model simulated BSI and SL-BPN cohorts (clinically-stable adults) transiting through four mutually-exclusive health states for 12 months. Cohorts accumulated direct medical costs from drug acquisition/administration; treatment-diversion/abuse; newly-acquired hepatitis-C; emergency room, hospital, and rehabilitation services; and pediatric poisonings. Non-medical costs of criminality, lost wages/work-productivity, and out-of-pocket expenses were also included. Transition probabilities to a relapsed state were derived from the aforementioned trial. Other transition probabilities, costs, and health-state utilities were derived from observational studies and adjusted for trial characteristics. Outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained and incremental net-monetary-benefit (INMB). Uncertainty was assessed by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

BSI was associated with lower total costs (-$4,386), more QALYs (+0.031), and favorable INMB at all willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds considered. Higher drug acquisition costs for BSI (+$6,492) were outpaced, primarily by reductions in emergency room/hospital utilization (-$8,040) and criminality (-$1,212). BSI was cost-effective in 89% of PSA model replicates, and had a significantly higher NMB at $50,000/QALY ($20,783 vs $15,007; p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

BSI was preferred over SL-BPN from a health-economic perspective for treatment of OUD in clinically-stable adults. These findings should be interpreted carefully, due to some relationships having been modeled from inputs derived from multiple sources, and would benefit from comparison with outcomes from studies that employ administrative claims data or a naturalistic comparative design.