Correlates of Heroin and Methamphetamine Use among Homeless Male Ex-Jail and Prison Offenders

Violence and victimisation in the lives of persons experiencing homelessness who use methamphetamine: A scoping review

Methamphetamine (MA) use among individuals who experience homelessness has tripled in recent years. This is a problematic trend given the harmful impacts of this substance on health and social well-being. While there is a large body of literature on the relationship between substance use and trauma, little is known about the scope of existing empirical literature exploring this topic related to MA use. Anecdotally, MA is frequently associated with violence and victimisation, which may be related to stigma associated with using MA. However, little is known about the scope of empirical literature exploring violence and victimisation in the lives of individuals who experience homelessness and use MA. We conducted a scoping review to fill this gap in existing literature using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. Our search was conducted between January 2021 and March 2021 and was deployed in seven databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Nursing and Allied Health and AMED. Two independent raters screened 700 titles and abstracts after the removal of duplicates. A total of 54 articles were subjected to a full-text review and 20 articles met the inclusion criteria. We generated two themes: methamphetamine and victimisation and challenging behaviours. Six (30%) of the included articles explored MA use in relation to violence, while 18 (90%) explored experiences of victimisation among persons experiencing homelessness. Our findings highlight that individual who experience homelessness and use MA are particularly vulnerable to experiences of trauma. Though existing literature does acknowledge the challenging behaviour associated with MA use, only three existing studies demonstrated a relationship between MA use and physical violence. Research exploring the impacts of MA use on victimisation among persons who experience homelessness, and the development of interventions for managing challenging behaviours associated with MA use are needed.

A comprehensive review of prioritised interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness

Background

Homelessness has emerged as a public health priority, with growing numbers of vulnerable populations despite advances in social welfare. In February 2020, the United Nations passed a historic resolution, identifying the need to adopt social-protection systems and ensure access to safe and affordable housing for all. The establishment of housing stability is a critical outcome that intersects with other social inequities. Prior research has shown that in comparison to the general population, people experiencing homelessness have higher rates of infectious diseases, chronic illnesses, and mental-health disorders, along with disproportionately poorer outcomes. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to improve the lives of people living with homelessness.

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and social outcomes of people experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

In consultation with an information scientist, we searched nine bibliographic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, from database inception to February 10, 2020 using keywords and MeSH terms. We conducted a focused grey literature search and consulted experts for additional studies.

Selection Criteria

Teams of two reviewers independently screened studies against our inclusion criteria. We included randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies conducted among populations experiencing homelessness in high-income countries. Eligible interventions included permanent supportive housing (PSH), income assistance, standard case management (SCM), peer support, mental health interventions such as assertive community treatment (ACT), intensive case management (ICM), critical time intervention (CTI) and injectable antipsychotics, and substance-use interventions, including supervised consumption facilities (SCFs), managed alcohol programmes and opioid agonist therapy. Outcomes of interest were housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment and income.

Data Collection and Analysis

Teams of two reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed our statistical analyses using RevMan 5.3. For dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI if the outcomes were measured in the same way between trials. We used the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods of measurement. Whenever possible, we pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model.

Main Results

The search resulted in 15,889 citations. We included 86 studies (128 citations) that examined the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with lived experience of homelessness. Studies were conducted in the United States (73), Canada (8), United Kingdom (2), the Netherlands (2) and Australia (1). The studies were of low to moderate certainty, with several concerns regarding the risk of bias. PSH was found to have significant benefits on housing stability as compared to usual care. These benefits impacted both high- and moderate-needs populations with significant cimorbid mental illness and substance-use disorders. PSH may also reduce emergency department visits and days spent hospitalised. Most studies found no significant benefit of PSH on mental-health or substance-use outcomes. The effect on quality of life was also mixed and unclear. In one study, PSH resulted in lower odds of obtaining employment. The effect on income showed no significant differences. Income assistance appeared to have some benefits in improving housing stability, particularly in the form of rental subsidies. Although short-term improvement in depression and perceived stress levels were reported, no evidence of the long-term effect on mental health measures was found. No consistent impact on the outcomes of quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment status, or earned income could be detected when compared with usual services. SCM interventions may have a small beneficial effect on housing stability, though results were mixed. Results for peer support interventions were also mixed, though no benefit was noted in housing stability specifically. Mental health interventions (ICM, ACT, CTI) appeared to reduce the number of days homeless and had varied effects on psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and substance use over time. Cost analyses of PSH interventions reported mixed results. Seven studies showed that PSH interventions were associated with increased cost to payers and that the cost of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical- and social-services costs. Six studies revealed that PSH interventions saved the payers money. Two studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of income-assistance interventions. For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$45 (95% CI, -$19, -$108) from the societal perspective. In addition, the benefits gained from temporary financial assistance were found to outweigh the costs, with a net savings of US$20,548. The economic implications of case management interventions (SCM, ICM, ACT, CTI) was highly uncertain. SCM clients were found to incur higher costs than those receiving the usual care. For ICM, all included studies suggested that the intervention may be cost-offset or cost-effective. Regarding ACT, included studies consistently revealed that ACT saved payers money and improved health outcomes than usual care. Despite having comparable costs (US$52,574 vs. US$51,749), CTI led to greater nonhomeless nights (508 vs. 450 nights) compared to usual services.

Authors' Conclusions

PSH interventions improved housing stability for people living with homelessness. High-intensity case management and income-assistance interventions may also benefit housing stability. The majority of included interventions inconsistently detected benefits for mental health, quality of life, substance use, employment and income. These results have important implications for public health, social policy, and community programme implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to tackle systemic inequality and address social determinants of health. Our review provides timely evidence on PSH, income assistance, and mental health interventions as a means of improving housing stability. PSH has major cost and policy implications and this approach could play a key role in ending homelessness. Evidence-based reviews like this one can guide practice and outcome research and contribute to advancing international networks committed to solving homelessness.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

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.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

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.

The Prevalence of Substance Use Disorders among Community-based Adults with Legal Problems in the U.S

BACKGROUND

Current national prevalence estimates of DSM-5 diagnosed substance use disorders (SUDs) among adults with justice system involvement are lacking.

METHODS

This study drew from NESARC-III data (n = 36,309; 2012-2013), a nationally representative U.S. sample, to examine current and lifetime alcohol use disorder (AUD) and drug use disorder (DUD) diagnoses among adults reporting current or prior drug-related, alcohol-related, and general legal problems.

RESULTS

Adults reporting current alcohol-related legal problems were 22 times more likely to have a current AUD diagnosis (AOR = 22.0, 95% CI = 12.1; 40.1) and 15 times more likely to have had a lifetime AUD diagnosis (AOR = 15.2, 95% CI = 7.5; 30.9) than adults without alcohol-related legal problems. Adults with lifetime drug-related legal problems were 3-5 times more likely to have a current (AOR = 2.6, 95% CI = 2.1; 3.2) and lifetime (AOR = 5.1, 95% CI = 4.3; 6.1) DUD diagnosis, with stimulant use disorder being the most prevalent (AOR = 5.4, 95% CI = 4.5; 6.5). Adults with general legal problems were around 3 times more likely to have a current AUD (AOR = 3.2, 95% CI = 2.6; 4.0) or DUD (AOR = 3.5, 95% CI = 2.8; 4.4). Women with any type of legal problem were more likely to have SUD diagnoses than men.

CONCLUSIONS

SUD diagnoses are prevalent among adults reporting legal problems, particularly those involving alcohol. There is a continued need for community-based addiction prevention and intervention efforts, especially for women with justice system involvement.

Trends and mental health correlates of nonmedical opioid use among criminal justice-involved African American men

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has deemed nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) an epidemic. Population-based survey data indicate high rates of NMOU among Caucasians, however, these estimates exclude incarcerated samples and may underestimate use among criminal justice-involved African Americans. Despite opioid-associated risks of co-occurring mental illness and mortality, to our knowledge, this is the first study to examine NMOU and mental health among a sample of African American men receiving corrections-based substance use disorder (SUD) treatment in jail, prison, or the community.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study examining trends and mental health correlates of NMOU during the year prior to each participant's incarceration, across five cohorts of African American men (N = 4021) enrolled in corrections-based SUD treatment between the years, 2010 and 2014. A series of chi-square, ANOVAs, correlations, and logistic regression models were conducted.

RESULTS

Over 20% of our sample reported NMOU during the year prior to incarceration. On average, participants were 36-years-old, earned 13 years of education, and were generally unemployed, prior to incarceration. We found a statistically significant positive linear trend between NMOU prior to incarceration and cohort year. The final stepwise multivariate regression model was significant and revealed, older age was associated with lower odds of NMOU. More years of education and frequent mental health symptoms were associated with significantly increased odds of NMOU.

DISCUSSION

Our findings are unique in that extant literature has primarily described NMOU as a 'White suburban' problem. Culturally-adapted behavioral interventions and medication assisted therapies are discussed.

Changes in US Lifetime Heroin Use and Heroin Use Disorder: Prevalence From the 2001-2002 to 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions

Importance

Heroin use is an urgent concern in the United States. Little is know about the course of heroin use, heroin use disorder, and associated factors.

Objective

To examine changes in the lifetime prevalence, patterns, and associated demographics of heroin use and use disorder from 2001-2002 to 2012-2013 in 2 nationally representative samples of the US adult general population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study included data from 43 093 respondents of the 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) and 36 309 respondents of the 2012-2013 NESARC-III. Data were analyzed from February 2 to September 15, 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Lifetime heroin use and DSM-IV heroin use disorder.

Results

Among the 79 402 respondents (43.3% men; 56.7% women; mean [SD] age, 46.1 [17.9] years), prevalence of heroin use and heroin use disorder significantly increased from 2001-2002 to 2012-2013 (use: 0.33% [SE, 0.03%] vs 1.6% [SE, 0.08%]; disorder: 0.21% [SE, 0.03%] vs 0.69% [SE, 0.06%]; P < .001). The increase in the prevalence of heroin use was significantly pronounced among white (0.34% [SE, 0.04%] in 2001-2002 vs 1.90% [SE, 0.12%] in 2012-2013) compared with nonwhite (0.32% [SE, 0.05%] in 2001-2002 vs 1.05% [SE, 0.10%] in 2012-2013; P < .001) individuals. The increase in the prevalence of heroin use disorder was more pronounced among white individuals (0.19% [SE, 0.03%] in 2001-2002 vs 0.82% [SE, 0.08%] in 2012-2013; P < .001) and those aged 18 to 29 (0.21% [SE, 0.06%] in 2001-2002 vs 1.0% [0.17%] in 2012-2013; P = .01) and 30 to 44 (0.20% [SE, 0.04%] in 2001-2002 vs 0.77% [0.10%] in 2012-2013; P = .03) years than among nonwhite individuals (0.25% [SE, 0.04%] in 2001-2002 vs 0.43% [0.07%] in 2012-2013) and older adults (0.22% [SE, 0.04%] in 2001-2002 vs 0.51% [SE, 0.07%] in 2012-2013). Among users, significant differences were found across time in the proportion of respondents meeting DSM-IV heroin use disorder criteria (63.35% [SE, 4.79%] in 2001-2001 vs 42.69% [SE, 2.87%] in 2012-2013; P < .001). DSM-IV heroin abuse was significantly more prevalent among users in 2001-2002 (37.02% [SE, 4.67%]) than in 2012-2013 (19.19% [SE, 2.34%]; P = .001). DSM-IV heroin dependence among users was similar in 2001-2002 (28.22% [SE, 3.95%]) and in 2012-2013 (25.02% [SE, 2.20%]; P = .48). The proportion of those reporting initiation of nonmedical use of prescription opioids before initiating heroin use increased across time among white individuals (35.83% [SE, 6.03%] in 2001-2002 to 52.83% [SE, 2.88%] in 2012-2013; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

The prevalence of heroin use and heroin use disorder increased significantly, with greater increases among white individuals. The nonmedical use of prescription opioids preceding heroin use increased among white individuals, supporting a link between the prescription opioid epidemic and heroin use in this population. Findings highlight the need for educational campaigns regarding harms related to heroin use and the need to expand access to treatment in populations at increased risk for heroin use and heroin use disorder.