Search

Mental health and health promotion research and practice have consistently revealed the social and structural inequities that boys and men of color (BMoC) face. Moreover, scholarship highlights the importance of gender, especially the concepts of masculinity and manhood, in understanding inequities that are experienced. Providers and community leaders are finding culturally relevant ways to foster healing and restoration while addressing racial trauma and the adverse community environments tied to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). This article introduces the restorative integral support (RIS) model to promote connectivity through networks and to acknowledge the contextual differences BMoC experience when suffering from trauma and adversities. RIS is a framework used to address adversities and trauma while increasing societal awareness and advancing equity. This community-based, multidimensional approach is offered to enhance individual, agency, community, and policymaking leadership, raising awareness of mental health concerns and trauma while offering a flexible guide to developing safe spaces and support for recovery from ACEs and trauma. This article offers an in-depth appreciation of the real-life contexts within which BMoC overcome histories of adversity and trauma, demonstrating how the RIS model is applied to advance structural transformation while fostering community resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We sought to identify trends and characteristics associated with the availability of tailored mental health services for individuals involved in the criminal justice system and ordered to treatment by a court, nationally in the US and by state.We used National Mental Health Services Survey to identify outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the US (2016 n = 4744; 2018 n = 4626; 2020 n = 4869). We used clustered multiple logistic regression to identify changes over time as well as facility- and state-level factors associated with the availability of specialty court-ordered services.Slightly more than half of the outpatient mental health treatment facilities offered specialized services for individuals ordered to treatment by a court, with wide variation between states. Nationally, there was a significant increase in the odds of offering court-ordered treatment in 2020 compared to 2016 (aOR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.06–1.27, p < 0.01). Notable associations included offering integrated substance use treatment (versus none, aOR = 2.95, 95% CI = 2.70–3.22, p < 0.0001) and offering trauma therapy (versus none, aOR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.85–2.27, p < 0.0001).The availability of mental health services for individuals ordered to treatment by a court is growing nationally but several states are lagging behind. Court ordered treatment is a promising strategy to improve health and reduce reliance on the carceral system as a healthcare provider. At the same time, we express caution around disparities within behavioral health courts and advocate for equity in access to incarceration alternatives.Methods: We sought to identify trends and characteristics associated with the availability of tailored mental health services for individuals involved in the criminal justice system and ordered to treatment by a court, nationally in the US and by state.We used National Mental Health Services Survey to identify outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the US (2016 n = 4744; 2018 n = 4626; 2020 n = 4869). We used clustered multiple logistic regression to identify changes over time as well as facility- and state-level factors associated with the availability of specialty court-ordered services.Slightly more than half of the outpatient mental health treatment facilities offered specialized services for individuals ordered to treatment by a court, with wide variation between states. Nationally, there was a significant increase in the odds of offering court-ordered treatment in 2020 compared to 2016 (aOR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.06–1.27, p < 0.01). Notable associations included offering integrated substance use treatment (versus none, aOR = 2.95, 95% CI = 2.70–3.22, p < 0.0001) and offering trauma therapy (versus none, aOR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.85–2.27, p < 0.0001).The availability of mental health services for individuals ordered to treatment by a court is growing nationally but several states are lagging behind. Court ordered treatment is a promising strategy to improve health and reduce reliance on the carceral system as a healthcare provider. At the same time, we express caution around disparities within behavioral health courts and advocate for equity in access to incarceration alternatives.Results: We sought to identify trends and characteristics associated with the availability of tailored mental health services for individuals involved in the criminal justice system and ordered to treatment by a court, nationally in the US and by state.We used National Mental Health Services Survey to identify outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the US (2016 n = 4744; 2018 n = 4626; 2020 n = 4869). We used clustered multiple logistic regression to identify changes over time as well as facility- and state-level factors associated with the availability of specialty court-ordered services.Slightly more than half of the outpatient mental health treatment facilities offered specialized services for individuals ordered to treatment by a court, with wide variation between states. Nationally, there was a significant increase in the odds of offering court-ordered treatment in 2020 compared to 2016 (aOR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.06–1.27, p < 0.01). Notable associations included offering integrated substance use treatment (versus none, aOR = 2.95, 95% CI = 2.70–3.22, p < 0.0001) and offering trauma therapy (versus none, aOR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.85–2.27, p < 0.0001).The availability of mental health services for individuals ordered to treatment by a court is growing nationally but several states are lagging behind. Court ordered treatment is a promising strategy to improve health and reduce reliance on the carceral system as a healthcare provider. At the same time, we express caution around disparities within behavioral health courts and advocate for equity in access to incarceration alternatives.Conclusion: We sought to identify trends and characteristics associated with the availability of tailored mental health services for individuals involved in the criminal justice system and ordered to treatment by a court, nationally in the US and by state.We used National Mental Health Services Survey to identify outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the US (2016 n = 4744; 2018 n = 4626; 2020 n = 4869). We used clustered multiple logistic regression to identify changes over time as well as facility- and state-level factors associated with the availability of specialty court-ordered services.Slightly more than half of the outpatient mental health treatment facilities offered specialized services for individuals ordered to treatment by a court, with wide variation between states. Nationally, there was a significant increase in the odds of offering court-ordered treatment in 2020 compared to 2016 (aOR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.06–1.27, p < 0.01). Notable associations included offering integrated substance use treatment (versus none, aOR = 2.95, 95% CI = 2.70–3.22, p < 0.0001) and offering trauma therapy (versus none, aOR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.85–2.27, p < 0.0001).The availability of mental health services for individuals ordered to treatment by a court is growing nationally but several states are lagging behind. Court ordered treatment is a promising strategy to improve health and reduce reliance on the carceral system as a healthcare provider. At the same time, we express caution around disparities within behavioral health courts and advocate for equity in access to incarceration alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HIV-related prevention and intervention efforts for deaf adults with mental illness have been developed in the absence of empirical data regarding the risk behaviors in which this group engages. This study analyzes data provided by 66 deaf adults who received specialized services from a large psychiatric rehabilitation agency. Deafness-related social, linguistic, and behavioral factors are examined in relation to risky sexual behaviors, substance use, and serious mental illness. Risky behavior was significantly elevated among those who use cocaine and alcohol, have a history of sexually transmitted infections, have low levels of social integration and above average linguistic (sign) ability. Proficient sign language ability and engagement in the Deaf community interacted with substance use to increase the risk for HIV. Risk reduction for deaf adults should consider the interaction between mental health symptoms and the social consequences of deafness (e.g., delayed language acquisition). As well, interventions must be straightforward and administered by fluently signing, clinical staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals involved in the criminal justice (CJ) system continue to be at disproportionate risk for HIV infection, and often have a greater prevalence of substance use and sexual related risk behaviors relative to their non-CJ involved peers. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a once daily antiretroviral medicine, is an evidence-based approach for reducing the risk of contracting HIV but limited data exist regarding the use of PrEP among CJ populations, especially in the U.S. South. This study was conducted at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility (PCRDF) in Little Rock, Arkansas (AR), the largest county jail in the state. We explored knowledge about PrEP and HIV, perceptions about PrEP feasibility in both the jail and community settings and barriers to PrEP program implementation, through in-depth qualitative interviews with 21 jail detainees. We purposively sampled individuals based on specific self-reported risk behavior, including sexual risk (both heterosexual and same-sex) and drug related risk (e.g. IDU), among all eligible individuals. We identified five primary themes from the interviews: 1) accessing healthcare during community reentry was a low priority; 2) perception of risk and interaction with people with HIV was low; 3) there are many barriers to disclosing HIV risk behaviors in jail settings; 4) knowledge of PrEP is low but willingness to use is high; and 5) multiple barriers exist to PrEP uptake post-release. Our findings are contextually unique and therefore have important implications for future implementation of PrEP access either within jail settings or linkage to PrEP post release. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]