Kirsten Becker

Trauma exposure and retention in adolescent substance abuse treatment

Trauma exposure and related symptoms interfere with adult adherence to drug treatment. Whether these findings hold true for adolescents is unknown. We examined trauma exposure, PTSD symptoms, and psychosocial functioning among 212 adolescents upon admission to long-term residential drug treatment and examined retention in treatment at 6 months. Seventy-one percent reported lifetime trauma exposure, and 29% of the trauma-exposed met criteria for current PTSD. Trauma-exposed adolescents reported more behavioral problems, with gender differences apparent. We divided the sample into three groups: no trauma exposure (21%), trauma-exposed without PTSD (59%), and trauma-exposed with PTSD (20%). Survival analysis showed that trauma-exposed adolescents without PTSD left treatment sooner than the nonexposed. Need for attention to trauma in substance abuse treatment programs is discussed.

Seven-Year Life Outcomes of Adolescent Offenders in Los Angeles

OBJECTIVES We examined important life outcomes for adolescent offenders to describe how they were faring in young adulthood. METHODS We assessed 449 adolescent offenders (aged 13-17 years) in Los Angeles, CA, whose cases had been adjudicated by the Los Angeles Superior Court and who had been referred to group homes between February 1999 and May 2000. We used the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs to interview respondents at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 72, and 87 months after baseline. A total of 395 respondents (88%) were interviewed or confirmed as dead at the final interview. RESULTS At final interview, 12 respondents had died, 7 of them from gunshot wounds. Thirty-six percent of respondents reported recent hard drug use, and 27% reported 5 or more symptoms of substance dependence. Sixty-six percent reported committing an illegal activity within the previous year, 37% reported being arrested within the previous year, and 25% reported being in jail or prison every day for the previous 90 days. Fifty-eight percent had completed high school or obtained a GED, and 63% reported working at a job in the previous year. CONCLUSIONS The high rates of negative life outcomes presented here suggest the need for more effective rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders.

The dimensions of change in therapeutic community treatment instrument.

In this article, the authors describe the refinement and preliminary evaluation of the Dimensions of Change in Therapeutic Community Treatment Instrument (DCI), a measure of treatment process. In Study 1, a 99-item DCI, administered to a cross-sectional sample of substance abuse clients (N = 990), was shortened to 54 items on the basis of results from confirmatory factor analyses and item response theory invariance tests. In Study 2, confirmatory factor analyses of the 54-item DCI, completed by a longitudinal cohort of 993 clients, established and validated an 8-factor solution across 2 subpopulations (adults and adolescents) and 2 time points (treatment entry and 30-days postentry). The results of the 2 studies are encouraging and support use of the 54-item DCI as a tool to measure treatment process.

How important are client characteristics to understanding treatment process in the therapeutic community

Prior research has demonstrated that therapeutic communities (TCs) are effective at improving posttreatment outcomes for substance abusers. However, little is known about the in‐treatment experience for clients with different backgrounds, experiences, and needs. The aim of this study is to examine the in‐treatment experience for different clients by exploring the relationships between treatment process and client characteristics. A comprehensive measure of treatment process, operationalized as Community Environment and Personal Change and Development and change was administered to 447 adults and 148 adolescents receiving treatment at community‐based TC programs in New York, California, and Texas. Data on demographic characteristics, substance use and treatment history, and client risk factors were extracted from intake interviews and analyzed separately for adolescent and adult residents. Multivariate general linear models were used to examine the effect of client variables on treatment process, after controlling for treatment duration and program effects. Within adult programs, clients who were 25 years or older, female, and had a prior drug treatment experience had higher Community Environment scores. Adolescents with one or more arrests within the past 2 years had lower scores on both process dimensions of Community Environment and Personal Development and Change. Our results indicate the need to understand why adult clients who are younger, male, and have no prior treatment history and adolescent clients with recent arrests reported lower ratings of treatment process. Future research should also examine the role of modifiable mediators so that appropriate strategies to enhance therapeutic engagement may be developed as necessary.

Collaborative Care for Opioid and Alcohol Use Disorders in Primary Care: The SUMMIT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Primary care offers an important and underutilized setting to deliver treatment for opioid and/or alcohol use disorders (OAUD). Collaborative care (CC) is effective but has not been tested for OAUD. Objective To determine whether CC for OAUD improves delivery of evidence-based treatments for OAUD and increases self-reported abstinence compared with usual primary care. Design, Setting, and Participants A randomized clinical trial of 377 primary care patients with OAUD was conducted in 2 clinics in a federally qualified health center. Participants were recruited from June 3, 2014, to January 15, 2016, and followed for 6 months. Interventions Of the 377 participants, 187 were randomized to CC and 190 were randomized to usual care; 77 (20.4%) of the participants were female, of whom 39 (20.9%) were randomized to CC and 38 (20.0%) were randomized to UC. The mean (SD) age of all respondents at baseline was 42 (12.0) years, 41(11.7) years for the CC group, and 43 (12.2) yearsfor the UC group. Collaborative care was a system-level intervention, designed to increase the delivery of either a 6-session brief psychotherapy treatment and/or medication-assisted treatment with either sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone for opioid use disorders or long-acting injectable naltrexone for alcohol use disorders. Usual care participants were told that the clinic provided OAUD treatment and given a number for appointment scheduling and list of community referrals. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were use of any evidence-based treatment for OAUD and self-reported abstinence from opioids or alcohol at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) initiation and engagement measures, abstinence from other substances, heavy drinking, health-related quality of life, and consequences from OAUD. Results At 6 months, the proportion of participants who received any OAUD treatment was higher in the CC group compared with usual care (73 [39.0%] vs 32 [16.8%]; logistic model adjusted OR, 3.97; 95% CI, 2.32-6.79; P < .001). A higher proportion of CC participants reported abstinence from opioids or alcohol at 6 months (32.8% vs 22.3%); after linear probability model adjustment for covariates (&bgr; = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01-0.23; P = .03). In secondary analyses, the proportion meeting the HEDIS initiation and engagement measures was also higher among CC participants (initiation, 31.6% vs 13.7%; adjusted OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.02-6.20; P < .001; engagement, 15.5% vs 4.2%; adjusted OR, 5.89; 95% CI, 2.43-14.32; P < .001) as was abstinence from opioids, cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana, and any alcohol (26.3% vs 15.6%; effect estimate, &bgr; = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.23; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance Among adults with OAUD in primary care, the SUMMIT collaborative care intervention resulted in significantly more access to treatment and abstinence from alcohol and drugs at 6 months, than usual care. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01810159

Cost of rapid HIV testing at 45 U.S. hospitals.

In 2006, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended expanded and routine use of single-session rapid HIV tests in all health care settings to increase the proportion of persons who learn their HIV status. Limited empiric information is available regarding the costs of rapid testing and pre- and posttest counseling in health care settings. We surveyed 45 U.S. hospitals during 2005 through 2006 to assess the costs associated with rapid testing and counseling. Cost analyses were conducted from the provider (hospital) perspective, and results were expressed in year 2006 U.S. dollars. The mean per-test cost of rapid HIV testing and counseling was

Scope of Rapid HIV Testing in Private Nonprofit Urban Community Health Settings in the United States

48.07 for an HIV-negative test and

Provider-related Barriers to Rapid HIV Testing in U.S. Urban Non-profit Community Clinics, Community-based Organizations (CBOs) and Hospitals

64.17 for a preliminary-positive test. Pre- and posttest counseling costs accounted for 38.4% of the total cost of rapid testing for HIV-negative patients. Counseling costs were significantly correlated with overall test costs. Many hospitals contained overall test costs by limiting time spent in pre- and posttest counseling or by using lower-paid personnel for counseling activities or both. Counseling costs constituted a significant proportion of the overall costs of rapid testing and counseling activities at study hospitals. Our data provide useful baseline data before implementation of the CDCs 2006 recommendations. Costs can be reduced by limiting time spent in pre- and posttest counseling or by using lower-paid personnel for counseling activities or both.

Scope of Rapid HIV Testing in Urban U. S. Hospitals

OBJECTIVES We examined patterns of rapid HIV testing in a multistage national random sample of private, nonprofit, urban community clinics and community-based organizations to determine the extent of rapid HIV test availability outside the public health system. METHODS We randomly sampled 12 primary metropolitan statistical areas in 4 regions; 746 sites were randomly sampled across areas and telephoned. Staff at 575 of the sites (78%) were reached, of which 375 were eligible and subsequently interviewed from 2005 to 2006. RESULTS Seventeen percent of the sites offered rapid HIV tests (22% of clinics, 10% of community-based organizations). In multivariate models, rapid test availability was more likely among community clinics in the South (vs West), clinics in high HIV/AIDS prevalence areas, clinics with on-site laboratories and multiple locations, and clinics that performed other diagnostic tests. CONCLUSIONS Rapid HIV tests were provided infrequently in private, nonprofit, urban community settings. Policies that encourage greater diffusion of rapid testing are needed, especially in community-based organizations and venues with fewer resources and less access to laboratories.

Cost of OraQuick oral fluid rapid HIV testing at 35 community clinics and community-based organizations in the USA

We examined provider-reported barriers to rapid HIV testing in U.S. urban non-profit community clinics, community-based organizations (CBOs), and hospitals. 12 primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs; three per region) were sampled randomly, with sampling weights proportional to AIDS case reports. Across PMSAs, all 671 hospitals and a random sample of 738 clinics/CBOs were telephoned for a survey on rapid HIV test availability. Of the 671 hospitals, 172 hospitals were randomly selected for barriers questions, for which 158 laboratory and 136 department staff were eligible and interviewed in 2005. Of the 738 clinics/CBOs, 276 were randomly selected for barriers questions, 206 were reached, and 118 were eligible and interviewed in 2005–2006. In multivariate models, barriers regarding translation of administrative/quality assurance policies into practice were significantly associated with rapid HIV testing availability. For greater rapid testing diffusion, policies are needed to reduce administrative barriers and provide quality assurance training to non-laboratory staff.