Search

Background and Aims: Methadone patients who discontinue treatment are at high risk of relapse, yet a substantial proportion discontinue treatment within the first year. We investigated whether a patient-centered approach to methadone treatment improved participant outcomes at 12 months following admission, compared with methadone treatment-as-usual., Design: Two-arm open-label randomized trial., Setting: Two methadone treatment programs (MTPs) in Baltimore, MD, USA., Participants: Three hundred newly admitted MTP patients were enrolled between 13 September 2011 and 26 March 2014. Their mean age was 42.7 years [standard deviation (SD) = 10.1] and 59% were males., Intervention: Newly admitted MTP patients were assigned randomly to either patient-centered methadone treatment (PCM; n = 149), which modified the MTP's rules (e.g. counseling attendance was optional), and counselor roles (e.g. counselors were not responsible for enforcing clinic rules) or treatment-as-usual (TAU; n = 151)., Measurements: The primary outcome was opioid-positive urine test at 12-month follow-up. Other 12-month outcomes included days of heroin and cocaine use, cocaine-positive urine tests, meeting DSM-IV opioid and cocaine dependence diagnostic criteria, HIV risk behavior and quality of life and retention in treatment., Findings: There was no significant difference between PCM and TAU conditions in opioid-positive urine screens at 12 months [adjusted odds ratio = 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.61, 1.56]. There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcome measures (all Ps > 0.05) except Quality of Life Global Score (P = 0.04; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.45). There were no significant differences between conditions in the number of individual or group counseling sessions attended. (Ps > 0.05)., Conclusions: Patient-centered methadone treatment (with optional counseling and the counselor not serving as the treatment program disciplinarian) does not appear to be more effective than methadone treatment-as-usual., Competing Interests: Declarations of interest No financial disclosures were reported by the other authors., (© 2016 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Objectives: To investigate the factor structure of the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST)., Methods: Secondary analysis on an adult primary care sample (N = 2,599)., Results and Discussion: Factor analysis of the tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis items did not yield an acceptable oblique, three-factor solution, due in part to floor effects and limited variability. A short form comprises three items (past-3-month frequency of use, urge to use, and whether others have expressed concern for use), that showed good psychometrics., Scientific Significance: Supports the need for further investigation of the ASSIST factor structure and a short form. (Am J Addict 2016;25:259-263)., (© 2016 American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.)

Background: Self-report questions in substance use research and clinical screening often ask individuals to reflect on behaviors, symptoms, or events over a specified time period. However, there are different ways of phrasing conceptually similar time frames (eg, past year vs. past 12 months)., Methods: We conducted focused, abbreviated cognitive interviews with a sample of community health center patients (N = 50) to learn how they perceived and interpreted questions with alternative phrasing of similar time frames (past year vs. past 12 months; past month vs. past 30 days; past week vs. past 7 days)., Results: Most participants perceived the alternative time frames as identical. However, 28% suggested that the "past year" and "past 12 months" phrasings would elicit different responses by evoking distinct time periods and/or calling for different levels of recall precision. Different start and end dates for "past year" and "past 12 months" were reported by 20% of the sample. There were fewer discrepancies for shorter time frames., Conclusions: Use of "past 12 months" rather than "past year" as a time frame in self-report questions could yield more precise responses for a substantial minority of adult respondents., Scientific Significance: Subtle differences in wording of conceptually similar time frames can affect the interpretation of self-report questions and the precision of responses., (© American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.)

Background and Aims: The World Health Organization's Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) has strong support as a clinical screening tool and research instrument, but has only been validated with adults. This study evaluated the ASSIST and ASSIST-Lite in an adolescent population., Design: Internal consistency, concurrent validity, discriminant validity and diagnostic accuracy were examined for tobacco, alcohol and cannabis ASSIST scores. An abbreviated version (the ASSIST-Lite) was evaluated for cannabis., Setting: Three community health centers in Baltimore, MD, USA., Participants: A total of 525 primary care patients, ages 12-17 years., Measurements: Measures included the ASSIST, the CRAFFT screening tool and items from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) corresponding to substance use disorder criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition., Findings: The ASSIST had good internal consistency (α = 0.68-0.88), good concurrent validity with the CRAFFT (r = 0.41-0.76; P < 0.001), and was able to discriminate between gradations of cannabis problem severity. In receiver operating characteristics analysis of optimal clinical cut-points, the ASSIST accurately identified tobacco, alcohol and cannabis use disorders (sensitivities = 95-100%; specificities = 79-93%; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.90-0.94), but did so at minimally low cut-points (indicative of any use in the past 3 months). The ASSIST-Lite performed similarly to the ASSIST in identifying cannabis use disorders (sensitivity = 96%; specificity = 88%; AUC = 0.92), also at a minimally low cut-point. However, confirmatory factor analysis of the ASSIST indicated poor model fit., Conclusions: The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) is promising as a research and screening/brief assessment tool with adolescents, but revisions to clinical risk thresholds are warranted. The ASSIST-Lite is sufficiently informative for rapid clinical screening of adolescents for cannabis use disorders., (© 2014 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Aims: Several studies have found that brief interventions (BIs) for drug misuse have superior effectiveness to no-treatment controls. However, many health centers do not provide BIs for drug use consistently due to insufficient behavioral health staff capacity. Computerized BIs for drug use are a promising approach, but their effectiveness compared with in-person BIs has not been established. This study compared the effectiveness of a computerized brief intervention (CBI) to an in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by a behavioral health counselor., Methods: Two-arm randomized clinical trial, conducted in two health centers in New Mexico, United States. Participants were 360 adult primary care patients with moderate-risk drug scores on the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) who were randomly assigned on a 1 : 1 basis to a computerized brief intervention (CBI) or to an in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by a behavioral health counselor. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 3-month follow-up, and included the ASSIST and drug testing on hair samples., Results: The IBI and CBI conditions did not differ at 3 months on global ASSIST drug scores [b = -1.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -4.37, 0.80] or drug-positive hair tests [odds ratio (OR) = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.47, 2.02]. There was a statistically significant advantage of CBI over IBI in substance-specific ASSIST scores for marijuana (b = -1.73; 95% CI = -2.91, -0.55; Cohen's d = 0.26; P = 0.004) and cocaine (b = -4.48; 95% CI = -8.26, -0.71; Cohen's d = 0.50; P = 0.021) at 3 months., Conclusions: Computerized brief intervention can be an effective alternative to in-person brief intervention for addressing moderate drug use in primary care., (© 2014 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background: Recent policy initiatives in Baltimore City, MD significantly reduced access disparities between methadone and buprenorphine in the publicly funded treatment sector., Objectives: This study examines reasons for choosing buprenorphine over methadone among patients with access to both medications., Method: This study was embedded within a larger clinical trial conducted at two outpatient substance abuse treatment programs offering buprenorphine. Qualitative and quantitative data on treatment choice were collected for new patients starting buprenorphine treatment (n = 80). The sample consisted of predominantly urban African American (94%) heroin users who had prior experience with non-prescribed street buprenorphine (85%), and opioid agonist treatment (68%). Qualitative data were transcribed and coded for themes, while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics., Results: Participants typically conveyed their choice of buprenorphine treatment as a decision against methadone. Buprenorphine was perceived as a helpful medication while methadone was perceived as a harmful narcotic with multiple unwanted physical effects. Positive experiences with non-prescribed "street buprenorphine" were a central factor in participants' decisions to seek buprenorphine treatment., Conclusions: Differences in service structure between methadone and buprenorphine did not strongly influence treatment-seeking decisions in this sample. Personal experiences with medications and the street narrative surrounding them play an important role in treatment selection decisions., Scientific Significance: This study characterizes important decision factors that underlie patients' selection of buprenorphine over methadone treatment., (Copyright © American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.)

Background: Despite the advantages of using high schools for conducting school-based Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs for adolescent substance misuse, there have been very few studies of Brief Interventions (BIs) in these settings., Objectives: This multi-site, repeated measures study examined outcomes of adolescents who received SBIRT services and compared the extent of change in substance use based on the intensity of intervention received., Methods: Participants consisted of 629 adolescents, ages 14-17, who received SBIRT services across 13 participating high schools in New Mexico. The level of service received and number of sessions were collected through administrative records, while the number of self-reported days in the past month of drinking; drinking to intoxication; and drug use were gathered at baseline and 6-month follow-up., Results: BI was provided to 85.1% of adolescents, while 14.9% received brief treatment or referral to treatment (BT/RT). Participants receiving any intervention reported significant reductions in frequency of drinking to intoxication (p < .05) and drug use (p < .001), but not alcohol use, from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The magnitude of these reductions did not differ based on service variables. Controlling for baseline frequency of use, a BT/RT service level was associated with more days of drinking at 6-month follow-up (p < .05), but was no longer significant when controlling for number of service sessions received., Conclusions and Scientific Significance: These findings support school-based SBIRT for adolescents, but more research is needed on this promising approach., (Copyright © American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.)