Search

Research on acceptability of non-abstinence goals has focused primarily on addiction counsellors and lacks representation of clinical social workers (SWs). We examined whether acceptability of non-abstinence varied as a function of a client's severity of substance use disorder (SUD) diagnosis (severe vs. moderate), finality of an outcome goal (intermediate vs. final), and type of substance (e.g. alcohol, cannabis) among clinical SWs in the US (United States). We surveyed a geographically representative sample of 309 SWs (Mean age = 48.9; Female = 76%; Mean years practicing = 14.6). For tobacco, alcohol and cannabis use, most SWs (51%–84%) rated non-abstinence as an acceptable goal regardless of finality of the outcome goal for clients with a moderate SUD; but smaller proportions rated non-abstinence acceptable for clients with severe SUD regardless of drug type or finality of the goal. Higher ratings of acceptability of non-abstinence were significantly associated with younger age and lower drug use stigma. Supporting clients who pursue non-abstinence is consistent with the values of the Social Work (SW) profession (e.g. self-determination, social justice, dignity/self-worth, importance/centrality of human relationships). Thus, SW education and training programmes should bolster understanding SUD recovery can take multiple pathways, should be self-directed and empowering, and may be defined in terms of improved health and wellness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Although at-home coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) testing offers several benefits in a relatively cost-effective and less risky manner, evidence suggests that at-home COVID-19 test kits have a high rate of false negatives. One way to improve the accuracy and acceptance of COVID-19 screening is to combine existing at-home physical test kits with an easily accessible, electronic, self-diagnostic tool. The objective of the current study was to test the acceptability and usability of an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled COVID-19 testing tool that combines a web-based symptom diagnostic screening survey and a physical at-home test kit to test differences across adults from varying races, ages, genders, educational, and income levels in the United States. Methods: A total of 822 people from Richmond, Virginia, were included in the study. Data were collected from employees and patients of Virginia Commonwealth University Health Center as well as the surrounding community in June through October 2021. Data were weighted to reflect the demographic distribution of patients in United States. Descriptive statistics and repeated independent t tests were run to evaluate the differences in the acceptability and usability of an AI-enabled COVID-19 testing tool. Results: Across all participants, there was a reasonable degree of acceptability and usability of the AI-enabled COVID-19 testing tool that included a physical test kit and symptom screening website. The AI-enabled COVID-19 testing tool demonstrated overall good acceptability and usability across race, age, gender, and educational background. Notably, participants preferred both components of the AI-enabled COVID-19 testing tool to the in-clinic testing. Conclusion: Overall, these findings suggest that our AI-enabled COVID-19 testing approach has great potential to improve the quality of remote COVID testing at low cost and high accessibility for diverse demographic populations in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioid overdose mortality in the US has exceeded one million deaths over the last two decades. A regulated opioid supply may help prevent future overdose deaths by reducing exposure to the unregulated opioid supply. We examined the acceptability, delivery model preference, and anticipated effectiveness of different regulated opioid models among people in the Seattle area who inject opioids. We enrolled people who inject drugs in the 2022 Seattle-area National HIV Behavior Surveillance (NHBS) survey. Participants were recruited between July and December 2022 using respondent-driven sampling. Participants who reported injecting opioids (N = 453) were asked whether regulated opioids would be acceptable, their preferred model of receiving regulated opioids, and the anticipated change in individual overdose risk from accessing a regulated opioid supply. In total, 369 (81 %) participants who injected opioids reported that a regulated opioid supply would be acceptable to them. Of the 369 who found a regulated opioid supply to be acceptable, the plurality preferred a take-home model where drugs are prescribed (35 %), followed closely by a dispensary model that required no prescription (28 %), and a prescribed model where drugs need to be consumed on site (13 %), a model where no prescription is required and drugs can be accessed in a community setting with a one-time upfront payment was the least preferred model (5 %). Most participants (69 %) indicated that receiving a regulated opioid supply would be "a lot less risky" than their current supply, 20 % said, "a little less risky", 10 % said no difference, and 1 % said a little or a lot more risky. A regulated opioid supply would be acceptable to most participants, and participants reported it would greatly reduce their risk of overdose. As overdose deaths continue to increase in Washington state pragmatic and effective solutions that reduce exposure to unregulated drugs are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]