Breaking the Cycle—Rethinking Substance Use Care in Nepal

Association of Mood, Anxiety, and Substance Use Disorders With Occupational Status and Disability in a Community Sample

Service utilization and chronic condition outcomes among primary care patients with substance use disorders and co-occurring chronic conditions

The Evidence for SBIRT in Adolescents

Poster Abstracts from the AAAP 20th Annual Meeting and Symposium

Pilot Program Zeroes in on SNF Mental, Behavioral Health Care

While there is broad recognition of the high societal costs of substance use disorders (SUD), treatment rates are low. We examined whether, in the United States, participants with substance or alcohol use disorder would report a greater willingness to enter SUD treatment located in a primary care setting (primary care) or more commonly found specialty care setting in the United States (usual care). Randomized survey-embedded experiment. US web-based research panel in which participants were randomized to read one-paragraph vignettes describing treatment in usual care (specialty drug or alcohol treatment center), primary care or collaborative care within a primary care setting. A total of 42451 panelists aged 18+ were screened for substance or alcohol use disorder using validated diagnostic criteria. Participants included 344 with a substance use disorder and 634 with an alcohol use disorder not in treatment with no prior treatment history. Willingness to enter treatment across vignettes by condition. Among participants with a substance use disorder, 24.6% of those randomized to usual care reported being willing to enter drug treatment compared with 37.2% for primary care [12.6 percentage point difference; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.8, 24.4) and 34.0% for collaborative care (9.4 percentage point difference; 95% CI=-2.0, 20.8). Among participants with an alcohol use disorder, 17.6% of those randomized to usual care reported being willing to enter alcohol treatment compared with 20.3% for primary care (2.6 percentage point difference; 95% CI=-4.9, 10.1) and 20.8% for collaborative care (3.1 percentage point difference; 95% CI=-4.3, 10.6). The most common reason for not being willing to enter drug (63%) and alcohol (78%) treatment was the belief that treatment was not needed. In the United States, people diagnosed with substance or alcohol use disorders appear to be more willing to enter treatment in a primary care setting than in a specialty drug treatment center. Expanding availability of primary care-based substance use disorder treatment could increase treatment rates in the United States.

Introduction Illness models, including illness recognition, perceived severity, and perceived nature can affect treatment-seeking behaviors. Vignettes are a leading approach to examine models of illness but are understudied for substance use disorders (SUDs). We created vignettes for multiple common DSM-5 SUDs and assessed SUD illness models among college students. Methods Seven vignettes in which the protagonist meets DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for SUDs involving tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, Adderall, cocaine, Vicodin, and heroin were pilot tested and randomly assigned to 216 college students who completed measures related to illness recognition, perceived severity, and perceived nature. MANOVAs with Scheffe post-hoc tests were conducted to examine vignette group differences on models of illness. Results Vignettes met acceptable levels of clarity and plausibility. Participants characterized the protagonist’s substance use as a problem, a SUD, or an addiction most frequently with Vicodin, heroin, and cocaine and least frequently with tobacco and cannabis. Participants assigned to the Vicodin, heroin, and cocaine vignettes were the most likely to view the protagonist’s situation as serious and life-threatening, whereas those assigned to the cannabis vignette were the least likely. Numerically more participants characterized the pattern of substance use as a problem (91%) or an addiction (90%) than a SUD (76%), while only 15% characterized it as a chronic medical condition. Conclusions Illness recognition and perceived severity varied across substances and were lowest for cannabis. Few participants conceptualized SUDs as chronic medical conditions. College students may benefit from psychoeducation regarding cannabis use disorder and the chronic medical condition model of SUDs.

: Approximately 5% of adolescents in the US meet criteria for a substance use disorder (SUD), and many of them benefit from residential treatment programs at points in the course of the disorder to achieve early sobriety and stabilization. Youth with chronic medical conditions use alcohol, marijuana, and other substances at levels similar to peers, but are at greater risk of progression to heavy or problem use of alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco by young adulthood and often encounter unique treatment barriers that limit access to an appropriate level of care. We describe 2 such adolescents; a 15-year-old boy with type 1 diabetes who experienced interruptions in substance use treatment because of concerns regarding routine glycemic management and a 17-year-old boy with inflammatory bowel disease, who experienced treatment delays in the context of increasing alcohol and marijuana use because of digestive symptoms. For both of these adolescents, lack of access to professionals who could manage chronic medical conditions prevented delivery of substance use treatment and resulted in an increase in substance use behaviors. These cases illustrate the need for integrated substance use care within medical specialty settings. We propose opportunities for improvement, such as providing cross-training for medical and addiction treatment teams and integration of substance use treatment within traditional medical facilities.

Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents With Substance Use Disorders

Substance use disorder (SUD) among women of reproductive age is a complex public health problem affecting a diverse spectrum of women and their families, with potential consequences across generations. The goals of this study were 1) to describe and compare the prevalence of patterns of injury requiring emergency department (ED) visits among SUD-positive and SUD-negative women and 2) among SUD-positive women, to investigate the association of specific categories of injury with type of substance used. This study was a secondary analysis of a large, multisource health care utilization data set developed to analyze SUD prevalence, and health and substance abuse treatment outcomes, for women of reproductive age in Massachusetts, 2002 through 2008. Sources for this linked data set included diagnostic codes for ED, inpatient, and outpatient stay discharges; SUD facility treatment records; and vital records for women and for their neonates. Injury data (ICD-9-CM E-codes) were available for 127,227 SUD-positive women. Almost two-thirds of SUD-positive women had any type of injury, compared to 44.8% of SUD-negative women. The mean (±SD) number of events also differed (2.27 ± 4.1 for SUD-positive women vs. 0.73 ± 1.3 for SUD-negative women, p < 0.0001). For four specific injury types, the proportion injured was almost double for SUD-positive women (49.3% vs 23.4%), and the mean (±SD) number of events was more than double (0.72 ± 0.9 vs. 0.26 ± 0.5, p < 0.0001). The numbers and proportions of motor vehicle incidents and falls were significantly higher in SUD-positive women (22.5% vs. 12.5% and 26.6% vs. 11.0%, respectively), but the greatest differences were in self-inflicted injury (11.5% vs. 0.8%; mean ± SD events = 0.19 ± 0.9 vs. 0.009 ± 0.2, p < 0.0001) and purposefully inflicted injury (11.5% vs 1.9%, mean ± SD events = 0.18 ± 0.1 vs. 0.02 ± 0.2, p < 0.0001). In each of the injury categories that we examined, injury rates among SUD-positive women were lowest for alcohol disorders only and highest for alcohol and drug disorders combined. Among 33,600 women identified as using opioids, 2,132 (6.3%) presented to the ED with overdose. Multiple overdose visits were common (mean ± SD = 3.67 ± 6.70 visits). After adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics, psychiatric history, and complex/chronic illness, SUD remained a significant risk factor for all types of injury, but for the suicide/self-inflicted injury category, psychiatric history was by far the stronger predictor. The presence of SUD increases the likelihood that women in the 15- to 49-year age group will present to the ED with injury. Conversely, women with injury may be more likely to be involved in alcohol abuse or other substance use. The high rates of injury that we identified among women with SUD suggest the utility of including a brief, validated screen for substance use as part of an ED injury treatment protocol and referring injured women for assessment and/or treatment when scores indicate the likelihood of SUD.

DSM-5 substance use disorder: how conceptual missteps weakened the foundations of the addictive disorders field.

In spite of the growing knowledge and understanding of addiction as a chronic relapsing medical condition, individuals with substance use disorders (SUD) continue to experience stigmatization. Pregnant women who use substances suffer additional stigma as their use has the potential to cause fetal harm, calling into question their maternal fitness and often leading to punitive responses. Punishing pregnant women denies the integral interconnectedness of the maternal-fetal dyad. Linking substance use with maternal unfitness is not supported by the balance of the scientific evidence regarding the actual harms associated with substance use during pregnancy. Such linkage adversely impacts maternal, child, and family health by deterring pregnant women from seeking both obstetrical care and SUD treatment. Pregnant women who use substances deserve compassion and care, not pariah-status and punishment.

The epidemic within the pandemic: Behavioral health and substance use in the face of COVID-19

This study investigated the role of personality and stress in the development of substance use disorder among substance use disorder patients in Kaduna State. A cross sectional design was adopted in the study and participants were 47 substance use disorder (SUD) patients (42 males and 5 females) between the ages of 18 – 40 years. They were drawn from the substance use disorder patients of Federal Neuropsychiatric Hospitals Kaduna using purposive sampling method in Kaduna. The questionnaire measures; Social and Psychological Determinants of Drug Abuse Questionnaire [1]. ‘The Big Five Inventory’ (BFI) as developed by John and Srivastava [2], Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-28) developed by Skinner [3] and The Life Events Inventory’ [4] were completed by the participants. Prediction for the development of drugs use was considered using neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, agreeability, conscientiousness and stress. While cross-sectional design was adopted for the study. Linear Regression Analysis and Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was applied to analyze the data. Results showed that neuroticism did not significantly predict substance use disorder (R= .040; F= .072, P &gt; .05) thus, accounted for about 0.2% variance for the substance use disorder among clients. While extraversion significantly predict substance use disorder (R= .303; F= 4.557, P &lt; .05) thus, accounted for about 9.2% variance for the substance use disorder among clients. Openness to experience did not significantly predict substance use disorder (R= .235; F= 2.625, P &gt; .05) thus, accounted for about 5.5% variance for the substance use disorder among clients. Agreeableness did not significantly predict substance use disorder (R= .241; F= 2.772, P &gt; .05) thus, accounted for about 5.8% variance for the substance use disorder among clients. Also, the results indicates a no statistically significantly positive impact of agreeableness (β= .345 t= 1.665, p &gt; .05) on substance use disorder. Conscientiousness did not significantly predict substance use disorder (R= .257; F= 3.024, P &gt; .05) thus, accounted for about 6.3% variance for the substance use disorder among clients. Stress did not significantly predict substance use disorder (R= .020; F= .018, P &gt; .05) thus, accounted for no variance for substance use disorder among clients. In hypothesis seven, it was shown that the first model was jointly significant F (5, 41) = 3.159, P&lt; 0.05, R2 = 0.280. Both conscientiousness and extraversion were the significant predictors of substance use disorder. It is suggested that, clinicians treating the patients at the hospital should endeavor to assess personality factors and substance abuse disorders to ascertain their co-morbidity status and if found, should be treated for both at the same time to enhance better quality of life and reduce susceptibility to substance use disorder.

Introduction: Reproductive and sexual health (RSH) is an important component of wellness and recovery for people with substance use disorder (SUD). Evidence to guide better integration of RSH services into SUD treatment is limited. Our objectives were to compare 1) unmet RSH needs; and 2) barriers to RSH service utilization between care settings providing treatment for SUD or other chronic medical conditions. Methods: Participants at two outpatient clinics, addiction medicine (women n = 91, men n = 75) and primary care (women n = 59, men n = 50), completed a one-time electronic survey between July and September 2019. Separately for men and women, comparisons between addiction medicine and primary care groups were made using Pearson χ2, Fisher’s Exact, and T-tests. Results: Participants were 75.0% Black and aged 49.4 years. Overall, unmet RSH needs were less prevalent among participants at the primary care than the addiction medicine clinic, such as receipt of a past 12-month sexual exam (men: 36.0% vs. 17.3%; women: 55.6% vs. 30.1%). The most common barrier to RSH service receipt was cost (men: 59.4%; women: 52.6%), followed by fear of judgment for drug/alcohol use for SUD participants (men: 33% vs. 12%; women: 26% vs. 7%). Many SUD participants expressed high desire for integrated RSH services into the addiction medicine clinic (men: 51.4%; women: 59.8%). Conclusion/Implications: The integration of RSH into addiction medicine is lagging compared to care settings for people with other chronic medical conditions. Future research should focus on advancing sex- and gender-informed RSH service integration into SUD treatment settings.