Amy A. Mericle

HIV and AIDS Risk Behaviors in Juvenile Detainees: Implications for Public Health Policy

HIV and AIDS are increasingly diseases of minorities and the disadvantaged.1,2 These same groups are disproportinately involved in the justice system.3 Detained youths may be at particular risk. Sexually transmitted diseases, related to HIV and AIDS,4-6 are prevalent among detained youths. Moreover, although HIV seropositivity is infrequent among detained youths,4 studies of adult detainees suggest that detained youths are at great risk for developing HIV as they age.

Psychiatric disorders of youth in detention

A comprehensive understanding of the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among juvenile detainees is an important step toward meeting their needs. Although epidemiological data are key to understanding the psychiatric disorders of juvenile detainees, few empirical studies exist. This chapter lists studies published in the United States since 1990 that examined the diagnostic characteristics of incarcerated and detained juveniles. The Northwestern Juvenile Project was designed to overcome the methodological limitations in two ways. Four directions for future research are recommended: pathways to co-morbidity, studies of females in the juvenile justice system, longitudinal studies, and studies of vulnerability to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in high-risk youth. Research findings indicate that a substantial number of youth in detention need mental health services. However, providing services within the juvenile justice system poses a number of challenges: screening for mental health needs, providing services, community linkages, and avoid retraumatizing youth.

HIV/sexually transmitted infection risk behaviors in delinquent youth with psychiatric disorders: A longitudinal study

OBJECTIVES To examine the prevalence and persistence of 20 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/sexually transmitted infection (STI) sexual and drug use risk behaviors and to predict their occurrence in four mutually exclusive diagnostic groups of delinquent youths: major mental disorder (MMD), substance use disorder (SUD), comorbid MMD and SUD (MMD+SUD), and neither disorder. METHOD At the baseline interview, HIV/STI risk behaviors were assessed in 800 juvenile detainees, ages 10 to 18 years; youths were reinterviewed approximately 3 years later. The final sample (N = 689) includes 298 females and 391 males. RESULTS The prevalence and persistence of HIV/STI risk behaviors were high in all of the diagnostic groups. Youths with an SUD at baseline were greater than 10 times more likely to be sexually active and to have vaginal sex at follow-up than youths with MMD+SUD (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 10.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-82.32; AOR 11.63, 95% CI 1.49-90.89, respectively) and four times more likely to be sexually active and to have vaginal sex than youths with neither disorder (AOR 4.20, 95% CI 1.06-16.62; AOR 4.73, 95% CI 1.21-18.50, respectively). Youths with an MMD at baseline were less likely to have engaged in unprotected vaginal and oral sex at follow-up compared with youths with neither disorder (AOR0.11, 95% CI 0.02-0.50; AOR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.34, respectively), and with youths with an SUD (AOR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.50; AOR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.47, respectively). Youths with MMD+SUD were less likely (AOR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.92) to engage in unprotected oral sex compared with those with neither disorder. CONCLUSIONS Irrespective of diagnostic group, delinquent youths are at great risk for HIV/STIs as they enter into adulthood. SUD increases risk. Because detained youths are released after approximately 2 weeks, their risk behaviors become a community health problem. Pediatricians and child and adolescent psychiatrists must collaborate with corrections professionals to develop HIV/STI interventions and ensure that programs started in detention centers continue after youths are released.

Harm reduction among at-risk elderly drinkers: a site-specific analysis from the multi-site Primary Care Research in Substance Abuse and Mental Health for Elderly (PRISM-E) study

To assess the efficacy of a harm‐reduction based intervention to enhance access to treatment and clinical outcomes among elderly at‐risk drinkers.

Characteristics of recent violence among entrants to acute mental health and substance abuse services

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of recent interpersonal violence perpetrated and experienced by individuals recruited from acute crisis mental health and substance abuse treatment settings and to examine differences among incidents involving individuals with mental disorders only (MDO), substance use disorders only (SDO), and co-occurring mental and substance use disorders (COD).MethodParticipants (N = 419) were interviewed about their involvement in specific acts of violence in the past 30 days. Participants were also asked about where each incident took place, who was involved, whether individuals were injured, and whether alcohol or drugs were used before the incident. We examined distributions of violence characteristics for the full sample and used logistic regression analyses to test differences among incidents involving participants with MDO, SDO, and COD.ResultsApproximately 41% (n = 171) of the sample was involved in at least one incident of violence as a perpetrator or a victim, generating a total of 379 incidents. Far more incidents of violence involved victimization (62%) than perpetration (38%). Most incidents were isolated and involved only perpetration or only victimization. However, a total of 98 (26%) incidents occurred with another incident and constituted 49 episodes of violence that included incidents of perpetration and victimization. Characteristics of perpetration and victimization incidents were similar, except that victimization incidents involved more serious types of violence. The majority of incidents took place outdoors and did not result in injuries. Participants used drugs or alcohol prior to over 40% of incidents. Most incidents of perpetration (70%) targeted someone known to the participant. Diagnostic group was the strongest predictor of type of injury, location of incident, and use of alcohol and drugs before the incident. Individuals with substance use disorders, either alone or co-occurring with mental disorders, were more likely to report that violent incidents took place outdoors. Individuals with mental disorders, either alone or co-occurring with substance use disorders, were less likely to report alcohol and drug use prior to involvement in violence.ConclusionsViolence is common among individuals entering acute crisis mental health and substance abuse treatment. We found that such persons are more likely to report being victims of violence than perpetrators of violence. In contrast to prior studies, we found that most incidents took place outdoors. Although individuals in different diagnostic groups were no more or less likely to perpetrate or experience violence, they perpetrated and experienced violence under different circumstances. Implications and directions for future research and practice are discussed.

Maximizing Social Model Principles in Residential Recovery Settings

Abstract Peer support is integral to a variety of approaches to alcohol and drug problems. However, there is limited information about the best ways to facilitate it. The “social model” approach developed in California offers useful suggestions for facilitating peer support in residential recovery settings. Key principles include using 12-step or other mutual-help group strategies to create and facilitate a recovery environment, involving program participants in decision making and facility governance, using personal recovery experience as a way to help others, and emphasizing recovery as an interaction between the individual and their environment. Although limited in number, studies have shown favorable outcomes for social model programs. Knowledge about social model recovery and how to use it to facilitate peer support in residential recovery homes varies among providers. This article presents specific, practical suggestions for enhancing social model principles in ways that facilitate peer support in a range of recovery residences.

A Critical Component of the Continuum of Care for Substance Use Disorders: Recovery Homes in Philadelphia

Abstract For many struggling with addiction, the ability to achieve stable recovery is often jeopardized by untenable housing or unsupportive living environments. Despite promising research on recovery residences, there are still significant gaps in the research on them. Using data collected from a stratified random sample of recovery homes in Philadelphia (N = 25), this study describes the organizational, operational, and programmatic characteristics of these homes and explores potential differences in these characteristics by funding source and gender of residents served. Although not licensed treatment providers, the majority of these homes operated in a recovery-oriented manner and offered a range of different services to their residents—all for a reasonable monthly fee (M =

Recovery Residences and Providing Safe and Supportive Housing for Individuals Overcoming Addiction

340.40, SE = 18.60). Few differences emerged between homes that received funding from the Philadelphia Office of Addiction Services and those that did not or between those that served males as opposed to females. More research is needed to address resident outcomes and how Philadelphia recovery homes may compare with recovery residences in other parts of the country.

Comparison of 12-step groups to mutual help alternatives for AUD in a large, national study: Differences in membership characteristics and group participation, cohesion, and satisfaction

Recovery residences provide safe and supportive housing to help individuals initiate and sustain recovery from substance abuse. They are a potentially important yet understudied component of the substance abuse continuum of care. Unlike other substance abuse treatment and service delivery options, recovery residences are largely privately owned and funded by the residents themselves, and we know little about how these residences open and the factors that influence their ability to stay open. Using qualitative data from interviews with recovery home operators (N = 21) in Philadelphia, this article explores what recovery home operators want to accomplish with their homes, how they try to do this, the obstacles they encounter in trying to run their homes, and why they keep at it. Themes highlight the potential of recovery residences as well as the challenges faced by those who operate them.

Recent Violence Among Persons Entering Short-Term Residential Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment.

BACKGROUND Many studies suggest that participation in 12-step groups contributes to better recovery outcomes, but people often object to such groups and most do not sustain regular involvement. Yet, research on alternatives to 12-step groups is very sparse. The present study aimed to extend the knowledge base on mutual help group alternatives for those with an alcohol use disorder (AUD), sampling from large, active, abstinence-focused groups including Women for Sobriety (WFS), LifeRing, and SMART Recovery (SMART). This paper presents a cross-sectional analysis of this longitudinal study, using baseline data to describe the profile and participation characteristics of attendees of these groups in comparison to 12-step members. METHODS Data from participants 18 and over with a lifetime AUD (N=651) were collected using Web-based surveys. Members of alternative 12-step groups were recruited in collaboration with group directors, who helped publicize the study by emailing meeting conveners and attendees and posting announcements on social media. A comparison group of current (past-30-day) 12-step attendees was recruited from an online meeting hub for recovering persons. Interested parties were directed to a Webpage where they were screened, and eligible participants completed an online survey assessing demographic and clinical variables; in-person and online mutual help involvement; and group satisfaction and cohesion. Analyses involved comparing those identifying WFS, SMART, and LifeRing as their primary group to 12-step members on the above characteristics. RESULTS Compared to 12-step members, members of the mutual help alternatives were less religious and generally higher on education and income. WFS and LifeRing members were also older, more likely to be married, and lower on lifetime drug and psychiatric severity; meanwhile, LifeRing and SMART members were less likely to endorse the most stringent abstinence goal. Finally, despite lower levels of in-person meeting attendance, members of all the 12-step alternatives showed equivalent activity involvement and higher levels of satisfaction and cohesion, compared to 12-step members. CONCLUSIONS Results suggest differences across 12-step groups and their alternatives that may be relevant when advising clients on a choice of mutual help group. Meanwhile, findings for high levels of participation, satisfaction, and cohesion among members of the mutual help alternatives suggest promise for these groups in addressing addiction problems.