1
|
Hyland CJ, McDowell MJ, Bain PA, Huskamp HA, Busch AB. Integration of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder treatment in primary care settings: A scoping review. J Subst Abuse Treat 2023; 144:108919. [PMID: 36332528 PMCID: PMC10321472 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2022.108919] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2022] [Revised: 09/01/2022] [Accepted: 10/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Alcohol use disorder (AUD) represents the most prevalent addiction in the United States. Integration of AUD treatment in primary care settings would expand care access. The objective of this scoping review is to examine models of AUD treatment in primary care that include pharmacotherapy (acamprosate, disulfiram, naltrexone). METHODS The team undertook a search across MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on May 21, 2021. Eligibility criteria included: patient population ≥ 18 years old, primary care-based setting, US-based study, presence of an intervention to promote AUD treatment, and prescription of FDA-approved AUD pharmacotherapy. Study design was limited to controlled trials and observational studies. We assessed study bias using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Rating Framework quality rating scheme. RESULTS The qualitative synthesis included forty-seven papers, representing 25 primary studies. Primary study sample sizes ranged from 24 to 830,825 participants and many (44 %) were randomized controlled trials. Most studies (80 %) included a nonpharmacologic intervention for AUD: 56 % with brief intervention, 40 % with motivational interviewing, and 12 % with motivational enhancement therapy. A plurality of studies (48 %) included mixed pharmacologic interventions, with administration of any combination of naltrexone, acamprosate, and/or disulfiram. Of the 47 total studies included, 68 % assessed care initiation and engagement. Fewer studies (15 %) explored practices surrounding screening for or diagnosing AUD. Outcome measures included receipt of pharmacotherapy and alcohol consumption, which about half of studies included (53 % and 51 %, respectively). Many of these outcomes showed significant findings in favor of integrated care models for AUD. CONCLUSIONS The integration of AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings may be associated with improved process and outcome measures of care. Future research should seek to understand the varied experiences across care integration models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Colby J Hyland
- Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.
| | - Michal J McDowell
- Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America
| | - Paul A Bain
- Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, 10 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.
| | - Haiden A Huskamp
- Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, 180 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.
| | - Alisa B Busch
- Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, 180 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America; McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 115 Mill Street, Belmont, MA 02478, United States of America.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Oros SM, Christon LM, Barth KS, Berini CR, Padgett BL, Diaz VA. Facilitators and barriers to utilization of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care in South Carolina. Int J Psychiatry Med 2021; 56:14-39. [PMID: 32726568 PMCID: PMC10954352 DOI: 10.1177/0091217420946240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Utilization of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) has not been widely adopted by primary care providers. This study sought to identify interprofessional barriers and facilitators for use of MOUD (specifically naltrexone and buprenorphine) among current and future primary care providers in a southeastern academic center in South Carolina. METHOD Faculty, residents, and students within family medicine, internal medicine, and a physician assistant program participated in focus group interviews, and completed a brief survey. Survey data were analyzed quantitatively, and focus group transcripts were analyzed using a deductive qualitative content analysis, based upon the theory of planned behavior. RESULTS Seven groups (N = 46) completed focus group interviews and surveys. Survey results indicated that general attitudes towards MOUD were positive and did not differ significantly among groups. Subjective norms around prescribing and controllability (i.e., beliefs about whether prescribing was up to them) differed between specialties and between level of training groups. Focus group themes highlighted attitudes about MOUD (e.g., "opens the flood gates" to patients with addiction) and perceived facilitators and barriers of using MOUD in primary care settings. Participants felt that although MOUD in primary care would improve access and reduce stigma for patients, prescribing requires improved provider education and an integrated system of care. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study provide an argument for tailoring education to specifically address the barriers primary care prescribers perceive. Results promote the utilization of active, hands-on learning approaches, to ultimately promote uptake of MOUD prescribing in the primary care setting in South Carolina.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah M Oros
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Lillian M Christon
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Kelly S Barth
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Carole R Berini
- Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Bennie L Padgett
- College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Vanessa A Diaz
- Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sirdifield C, Brooker C, Marples R. Substance misuse and community supervision: A systematic review of the literature. FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL. MIND AND LAW 2020; 1:100031. [PMID: 33458713 PMCID: PMC7790447 DOI: 10.1016/j.fsiml.2020.100031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2020] [Revised: 09/08/2020] [Accepted: 09/10/2020] [Indexed: 12/04/2022]
Abstract
A narrative systematic review was undertaken of the literature concerning the health of people on probation or parole (community supervision). In this paper, we provide an up-to-date summary of what is known about substance misuse in this context. This includes estimates of the prevalence and complexity of substance misuse in those under community supervision, and studies of the effectiveness of approaches to treating substance misuse and engaging and retaining this population in treatment. A total of 5125 papers were identified in the initial electronic searches, and after careful double-blind review only 31 papers related to this topic met our criteria. In addition, a further 15 background papers were identified which are reported. We conclude that internationally there is a high prevalence and complexity of substance misuse amongst people under community supervision. Despite clear benefits to individuals and the wider society through improved health, and reduced re-offending; it is still difficult to identify the most effective ways of improving health outcomes for this group in relation to substance misuse from the research literature. Further research and investment is needed to support evidence-based commissioning by providing a detailed and up-to-date profile of needs and the most effective ways of addressing them, and sufficient funds to ensure that appropriate treatment is available and its impact can be continually measured. Without this, it will be impossible to truly establish effective referral and treatment pathways providing continuity of care for individuals as they progress through, and exit, the criminal justice pathway.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Charlie Brooker
- Centre for Sociology and Criminology, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
| | - Rebecca Marples
- School of Law and Social Sciences, University of Suffolk, Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP4 1QJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Perry AE, Martyn‐St James M, Burns L, Hewitt C, Glanville JM, Aboaja A, Thakkar P, Santosh Kumar KM, Pearson C, Wright K. Interventions for female drug-using offenders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 12:CD010910. [PMID: 31834635 PMCID: PMC6910124 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010910.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both. SEARCH METHODS We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low-certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low-certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low-certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug-related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow-up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low-certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty-evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low-certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD -0.89, 95% CI -4.83 to 3.05; low certainty-evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT-CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow-up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self-reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low-certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low- to low-certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate-certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre- and post-release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post-release; low certainty-evidence. No adverse effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Marrissa Martyn‐St James
- University of SheffieldSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)Regent Court, 30 Regent StreetSheffieldSouth YorkshireUKS1 4DA
| | - Lucy Burns
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Catherine Hewitt
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Julie M Glanville
- York Health Economics ConsortiumMarket SquareUniversity of York, HeslingtonYorkUKYO10 5NH
| | - Anne Aboaja
- Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation TrustMiddlesbroughUKTS4 3AF
| | | | | | - Caroline Pearson
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Perry AE, Martyn‐St James M, Burns L, Hewitt C, Glanville JM, Aboaja A, Thakkar P, Santosh Kumar KM, Pearson C, Wright K, Swami S. Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 10:CD010901. [PMID: 31588993 PMCID: PMC6778977 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010901.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.This review addresses the following questions.• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)? SEARCH METHODS We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane . MAIN RESULTS We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.Two studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Marrissa Martyn‐St James
- University of SheffieldSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)Regent Court, 30 Regent StreetSheffieldSouth YorkshireUKS1 4DA
| | - Lucy Burns
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Catherine Hewitt
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Julie M Glanville
- York Health Economics ConsortiumMarket SquareUniversity of York, HeslingtonYorkUKYO10 5NH
| | - Anne Aboaja
- Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation TrustMiddlesbroughUKTS4 3AF
| | | | | | - Caroline Pearson
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | | | - Shilpi Swami
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Johnson K, Gilbert L, Hunt T, Wu E, Metsch L, Goddard-Eckrich D, Richards S, Tibbetts R, Rowe JC, Wainberg ML, El-Bassel N. The effectiveness of a group-based computerized HIV/STI prevention intervention for black women who use drugs in the criminal justice system: study protocol for E-WORTH (Empowering African-American Women on the Road to Health), a Hybrid Type 1 randomized controlled trial. Trials 2018; 19:486. [PMID: 30201039 PMCID: PMC6131955 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-2792-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2018] [Accepted: 07/06/2018] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This paper describes the study protocol of a hybrid type I randomized controlled trial that evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing Empowering African-American Women on the Road to Health (E-WORTH), an Afrocentric, group-based, computerized human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention intervention for controlled substance-using black women in community corrections settings in New York City. METHODS/DESIGN We provide an overview of E-WORTH's hybrid type I design, which is guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). E-WORTH combines HIV/STI and intimate partner violence (IPV) prevention components and tests the comparative effectiveness of E-WORTH and streamlined HIV testing versus streamlined HIV testing alone in decreasing biologically confirmed HIV and STI incidence, sexual risk, and IPV, as well as in improving access to HIV and STI prevention services and care. DISCUSSION This paper provides an overview of E-WORTH's intervention protocol and serves as a framework for using hybrid type I designs, guided by the CFIR conceptual framework, to evaluate HIV/STI and IPV prevention interventions in community corrections settings. We discuss how E-WORTH's hybrid type I design advances implementation science through its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness aims as well as through a mixed-methods study that evaluates multilevel theory-driven factors (structural, organizational, staffing, and client) guided by the CFIR that influences the implementation of E-WORTH in a criminal justice setting. This study also addresses the novel challenges and opportunities of implementing an intervention that targets specific racial subgroup(s) in a community corrections setting that services all populations, implementing a group-based intervention with technological components in such settings, and employing community-based participatory research strategies to guide recruitment and retention efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02391233 . Registered on 17 March 2015.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen Johnson
- University of Alabama School of Social Work, Little Hall, 670 Bonner Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 USA
- Columbia University School of Social Work, Social Intervention Group, 1255 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027 USA
| | - Louisa Gilbert
- University of Alabama School of Social Work, Little Hall, 670 Bonner Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 USA
| | - Timothy Hunt
- University of Alabama School of Social Work, Little Hall, 670 Bonner Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 USA
| | - Elwin Wu
- University of Alabama School of Social Work, Little Hall, 670 Bonner Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 USA
| | - Lisa Metsch
- Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032 USA
| | - Dawn Goddard-Eckrich
- University of Alabama School of Social Work, Little Hall, 670 Bonner Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 USA
- Social Intervention Group, Columbia University Teacher’s College, 1255 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027 USA
| | - Stanley Richards
- The Fortune Society, 625 West 140th Street, New York, NY 10031 USA
| | - Rick Tibbetts
- New York City Department of Probation, 210 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 USA
| | - Jessica C. Rowe
- Center for Teaching and Learning, Columbia University, Lewisohn Hall, 2970 Broadway #603, New York, NY 10027 USA
| | - Milton L. Wainberg
- Columbia University / New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, #24, New York, NY 10032 USA
| | - Nabila El-Bassel
- University of Alabama School of Social Work, Little Hall, 670 Bonner Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
The criminal justice (CJ) system can be leveraged to access women for HIV prevention and treatment programs. Research is lacking on effective implementation strategies tailored to the specific needs of CJ-involved women. We conducted a scoping review of published studies in English from the United States that described HIV interventions, involved women or girls, and used the CJ system as an access point for sampling or intervention delivery. We identified 350 studies and synthesized data from 42 unique interventions, based in closed (n = 26), community (n = 7), or multiple/other CJ settings (n = 9). A minority of reviewed programs incorporated women-specific content or conducted gender-stratified analyses. CJ systems are comprised of diverse access points, each with unique strengths and challenges for implementing HIV treatment and prevention programs for women. Further study is warranted to develop women-specific and trauma-informed content and evaluate program effectiveness.
Collapse
|
8
|
Lagisetty P, Klasa K, Bush C, Heisler M, Chopra V, Bohnert A. Primary care models for treating opioid use disorders: What actually works? A systematic review. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0186315. [PMID: 29040331 PMCID: PMC5645096 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186315] [Citation(s) in RCA: 90] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2016] [Accepted: 09/28/2017] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Primary care-based models for Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) have been shown to reduce mortality for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and have equivalent efficacy to MAT in specialty substance treatment facilities. Objective The objective of this study is to systematically analyze current evidence-based, primary care OUD MAT interventions and identify program structures and processes associated with improved patient outcomes in order to guide future policy and implementation in primary care settings. Data sources PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychInfo. Methods We included randomized controlled or quasi experimental trials and observational studies evaluating OUD treatment in primary care settings treating adult patient populations and assessed structural domains using an established systems engineering framework. Results We included 35 interventions (10 RCTs and 25 quasi-experimental interventions) that all tested MAT, buprenorphine or methadone, in primary care settings across 8 countries. Most included interventions used joint multi-disciplinary (specialty addiction services combined with primary care) and coordinated care by physician and non-physician provider delivery models to provide MAT. Despite large variability in reported patient outcomes, processes, and tasks/tools used, similar key design factors arose among successful programs including integrated clinical teams with support staff who were often advanced practice clinicians (nurses and pharmacists) as clinical care managers, incorporating patient “agreements,” and using home inductions to make treatment more convenient for patients and providers. Conclusions The findings suggest that multidisciplinary and coordinated care delivery models are an effective strategy to implement OUD treatment and increase MAT access in primary care, but research directly comparing specific structures and processes of care models is still needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pooja Lagisetty
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- Institute for Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| | - Katarzyna Klasa
- University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| | - Christopher Bush
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Michele Heisler
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- Institute for Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| | - Vineet Chopra
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| | - Amy Bohnert
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- Institute for Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- Division of Psychiatry, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Perry AE, Neilson M, Martyn‐St James M, Glanville JM, Woodhouse R, Godfrey C, Hewitt C. Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD010862. [PMID: 26035084 PMCID: PMC11060505 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010862.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both, for illicit drug-using offenders. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both. SEARCH METHODS We searched Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological intervention a component of which is designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity, or both, in drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS Fourteen trials with 2647 participants met the inclusion criteria. The interventions included in this review report on agonistic pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) compared to no intervention, other non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Studies could not be combined all together because the comparisons were too different. Only subgroup analysis for type of pharmacological treatment were done. When compared to non-pharmacological, we found low quality evidence that agonist treatments are not effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity, objective results (biological) (two studies, 237 participants (RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.00); subjective (self-report), (three studies, 317 participants (RR 0.61 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); self-report drug use (three studies, 510 participants (SMD: -0.62 (95% CI -0.85 to -0.39). We found low quality of evidence that antagonist treatment was not effective in reducing drug use (one study, 63 participants (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.70) but we found moderate quality of evidence that they significantly reduced criminal activity (two studies, 114 participants, (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74).Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity showed mixed results. In the comparison of methadone to buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone, no significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (two studies, 370 participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.55), continuous measures of drug use (one study, 81 participants, (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% CI -5.33 to 6.73); or criminal activity (one study, 116 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similar results were found for comparisons with diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.51) or naltrexone for dichotomous measures of reincarceration (one study, 44 participants, (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.26), and continuous outcome measure of crime, (MD -0.50, 95% CI -8.04 to 7.04) or self report drug use (MD 4.60, 95% CI -3.54 to 12.74). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS When compared to non-pharmacological treatment, agonist treatments did not seem effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity. Antagonist treatments were not effective in reducing drug use but significantly reduced criminal activity. When comparing the drugs to one another we found no significant differences between the drug comparisons (methadone versus buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone) on any of the outcome measures. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Matthew Neilson
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Marrissa Martyn‐St James
- University of SheffieldSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)Regent Court, 30 Regent StreetSheffieldSouth YorkshireUKS1 4DA
| | - Julie M Glanville
- York Health Economics ConsortiumMarket SquareUniversity of York, HeslingtonYorkUKYO10 5NH
| | - Rebecca Woodhouse
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Christine Godfrey
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Catherine Hewitt
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Perry AE, Neilson M, Martyn-St James M, Glanville JM, Woodhouse R, Godfrey C, Hewitt C. Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD010901. [PMID: 26034938 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010901.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one from a family of four reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both. SEARCH METHODS We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and 5 Internet resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2009). We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent relapse of drug use and criminal activity, or both in drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS Eight trials with 2058 participants met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the trials was generally difficult to rate due to a lack of clear reporting. On most 'Risk of bias' items, we rated the majority of studies as unclear. Overall, we could not statistically combine the results due to the heterogenous nature of the different study interventions and comparison groups. A narrative summary of the findings identified that the interventions reported limited success with reducing self report drug use, but did have some impact on re-incarceration rates, but not re-arrest. In the single comparisons, we found moderate-quality evidence that therapeutic communities determine a reduction in re-incarceration but reported less success for outcomes of re-arrest, moderate quality of evidence and self report drug use. Three single studies evaluating case management via a mental health drug court (very low quality of evidence), motivational interviewing and cognitive skills (low and very low quality of evidence) and interpersonal psychotherapy (very low quality of evidence) did not report significant reductions in criminal activity and self report drug use respectively. Quality of evidence for these three types of interventions was low to very low. The trials reported some cost information, but it was not sufficient to be able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Two of the five trials showed some promising results for the use of therapeutic communities and aftercare, but only in relation to reducing subsequent re-incarceration. Overall, the studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. More evaluations are required to assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK, YO105DD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Perry AE, Neilson M, Martyn-St James M, Glanville JM, Woodhouse R, Hewitt C. Interventions for female drug-using offenders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD010910. [PMID: 26035085 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010910.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both. SEARCH METHODS We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Website resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity in female drug-using offenders. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS Nine trials with 1792 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. We rated the majority of studies as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. We divided the studies into different categories for the purpose of meta-analyses: for any psychosocial treatments in comparison to treatment as usual we found low quality evidence that there were no significant differences in arrest rates, (two studies; 489 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52) or drug use (one study; 77 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but we found moderate quality evidence that there was a significant reduction in reincarceration, (three studies; 630 participants; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce self reported drug use (one study; 36 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35). No cost or cost-effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Three of the nine trials show a positive trend towards the use of any psychosocial treatment in comparison to treatment as usual showing an overall significant reduction in subsequent reincarceration, but not arrest rates or drug use. Pharmacological interventions in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce drug use and did not measure criminal activity. Four different treatment comparisons showed varying results and were not combined due to differences in the intervention and comparison groups. The studies overall showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons and outcome measures assessed, which limited the possibility to pool the data. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the precision of confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK, YO105DD
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Underhill K, Dumont D, Operario D. HIV prevention for adults with criminal justice involvement: a systematic review of HIV risk-reduction interventions in incarceration and community settings. Am J Public Health 2014; 104:e27-53. [PMID: 25211725 PMCID: PMC4202946 DOI: 10.2105/ajph.2014.302152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/21/2014] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
We summarized and appraised evidence regarding HIV prevention interventions for adults with criminal justice involvement. We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that evaluated an HIV prevention intervention, enrolled participants with histories of criminal justice involvement, and reported biological or behavioral outcomes. We used Cochrane methods to screen 32,271 citations from 16 databases and gray literature. We included 37 trials enrolling n = 12,629 participants. Interventions were 27 psychosocial, 7 opioid substitution therapy, and 3 HIV-testing programs. Eleven programs significantly reduced sexual risk taking, 4 reduced injection drug risks, and 4 increased testing. Numerous interventions may reduce HIV-related risks among adults with criminal justice involvement. Future research should consider process evaluations, programs involving partners or families, and interventions integrating biomedical, psychosocial, and structural approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristen Underhill
- At the time of the study, Kristen Underhill was with Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Department of Community Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, and Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS and Yale Law School, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Dora Dumont was with The Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights, Miriam Hospital, Providence, and Rhode Island Department of Health, Providence. Don Operario is with Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, School of Public Health, Brown University
| | | | | |
Collapse
|