Creating an ethical culture to support recovery from substance use disorders

Transitioning Virtual-Only Group Therapy for Substance Use Disorder Patients to a Hybrid Model

Purpose

Telehealth is associated with a myriad of benefits; however, little is known regarding substance use disorder (SUD) treatment outcomes when participants join group therapy sessions in a combination in-person and virtual setting (hybrid model). We sought to determine if treatment completion rates differed.

Patients and Methods

Policy changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic created a naturalistic, observational cohort study at seven intensive outpatient (IOP) programs in rural Minnesota. Virtual-only delivery occurred 6/1/2020-6/30/2021, while hybrid groups occurred 7/1/2021-7/31/2022. Data was evaluated retrospectively for participants who initiated and discharged treatment during the study period. Participants were IOP group members 18 years and older who had a SUD diagnosis that both entered and discharged treatment during the 26-month period. A consecutive sample of 1502 participants (181-255 per site) was available, with 644 removed: 576 discharged after the study conclusion, 49 were missing either enrollment or discharge data, 14 transferred sites during treatment, and 5 initiated treatment before the study initiation. Helmert contrasts evaluated the impact of hybrid group exposure.

Results

A total of 858 individuals were included. Data was not from the medical chart and was deidentified preventing specific demographics; however, the overall IOP sample for 2020-2022, from which the sample was derived, was 29.8% female, and 64.1% were 18-40 years of age. For completed treatment, hybrid group exposure relative to virtual-only had a univariate odds ratio of 1.88 (95% CI: 1.50-2.41, p < 0.001). No significant difference was seen across IOP sites.

Conclusion

These results describe a novel hybrid group approach to virtual care for SUDs with outcome data not previously documented in the literature. While virtual treatment delivery can increase access, these results suggest a benefit is derived from including an in-person option. Further research is needed to identify how an in-person component may change dynamics and if it can be replicated in virtual-only models.

Cognitive impairment as a predictor of long-term psychological distress in patients with polysubstance use disorders: a prospective longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

The association between polysubstance use disorder (pSUD), mental illness, and cognitive impairments is well established and linked to negative outcomes in substance use disorder treatment. However, it remains unclear whether cognitive impairment predicts long-term psychological distress among treatment seeking patients with pSUD. This study aimed to investigate the associations and predictive ability of cognitive impairment on psychological distress one and 5 years after treatment initiation.

METHODS

N = 164 treatment seeking patients with pSUD were sampled at treatment initiation. We examined associations between cognitive impairment according to Montreal Cognitive Assessment® (MoCA®), Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI), and Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult version (BRIEF-A) administered at treatment initiation and psychological distress defined by the Symptom Check List-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) at treatment initiation, one and five years later. We ran hierarchical logistic regressions to assess the predictive ability of the respective cognitive instruments administered at treatment initiation on psychological distress measured one and five years later including psychological distress at treatment initiation and substance intake at the time-points of the measurements as covariates.

RESULTS

The main results was that MoCA® and BRIEF-A predicted psychological distress at years one and five, but BRIEF-A lost predictive power when accounting for psychological distress at treatment initiation. WASI predicted psychological distress at year one, but not at year five.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from MoCA® and WASI was found to be less sensitive to the effect of psychological distress than BRIEF-A. Cognitive impairment at treatment initiation may hold predictive value on later psychological distress, yet its clinical utility is uncertain.

Off the Beaten Path: Caring for People Engaging in Potentially Unsafe Low Evidence Therapies

Palliative care clinicians regularly care for patients with serious illnesses, many of whom are engaging in the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) either alone or along with conventional medical therapies. A subset of these patients may be engaging in therapies that have little or no evidence for efficacy and carry significant potential risks to their health. These therapies, however, may carry a great deal of significance for the patient and family for whom conventional medicine has failed or is otherwise deemed untenable. Dismissing such therapies as "quackery" risks alienating patients and damaging or even severing a therapeutic relationship. When faced with patients who are engaging in potentially unsafe low-evidence therapies (PULETs), clinicians themselves may experience a great deal of moral distress when deciding how to balance supporting the hope PULETs may represent with the principles of nonmaleficence and autonomy. In this article, we will review the definition of PULETs and distinguish them from most CAM therapies. Drawing upon existing writings in the CAM literature, we will then review a framework to evaluate the relative risk/benefit ratio of such therapies followed by a review of the ethical and legal aspects of care. Finally, utilizing existing principles and tools in emotion-based communication, we present a communication approach to foster continued collaboration and care for patients who engage in PULETs.