This policy commentary addresses a significant access to care issue that faces methadone maintenance patients seeking residential treatment in the United States. Methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) has demonstrated strong efficacy in the outpatient treatment of opiate dependence. However, many opiate dependent patients are also in need of more intensive interventions, such as residential care. Many publically-funded residential treatment programs explicitly decline to admit MMT patients, contending that methadone raises both clinical and administrative problems in treatment. Although advocates within the field believe that this issue is a violation of the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the United States, no lawsuits have been brought forth, and there is no legal precedent or public policy to inform the debate. The present paper provides an overview of this problem and discusses factors that may contribute to the problem, including an abstinence-oriented philosophy and treatment program operational concerns. The paper also draws parallels between methadone and other medical conditions and analyzes the problem in the context of disabilities encompassed in the ADA. Finally, recommendations on strategies for increasing access to residential care for MMT patients are provided.

Participation in clinical research trials has been hypothesized to facilitate the adoption of evidence-based practices by community-based substance abuse treatment providers. However, little empirical information is available regarding the methodological and collaborative characteristics of research trials that may affect the chances of adoption. The current paper describes the development of the Survey of Practiced Research Efforts to Aid Dissemination (SPREAD), a standardized instrument designed to measure characteristics of clinical trials that may facilitate adoption. The survey was administered to a sample of 33 community-based research trials from the top four impact factor journals of 2007. Overall, methodological quality was high and levels of collaboration were low, with little involvement of community-based clinic staff in most study related activities. Future research to determine the predictive validity of the SPREAD instrument on post-trial adoption of studies interventions in clinical research is encouraged. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York.

A major barrier to actualizing the public health impact potential of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is the suboptimal development and implementation of evidence-based training curricula for healthcare providers. As part of a federal grant to develop and implement SBIRT training in medical residency programs, the authors assessed 95 internal medicine residents before they received SBIRT training to identify self-reported characteristics and behaviors that would inform curriculum development. Residents' confidence in their SBIRT skills significantly predicted SBIRT practice. Lack of experience dealing with alcohol or drug problems and discomfort in dealing with these issues were significantly associated with low confidence. To target these barriers, the authors revised their SBIRT curriculum to increase residents' confidence in their skills and developed an innovative SBIRT Proficiency Checklist and Feedback Protocol for skills practice observations. Qualitative feedback suggests that, despite the discomfort residents experience in being observed, a proficiency checklist and feedback protocol appear to boost learner confidence.

Background

While brief intervention (BI) for risky alcohol use generally yields positive effects among those identified by screening, effect sizes are small and there is unexplained heterogeneity in outcome. The heterogeneity may be related to differences in intervention style and content, including elements of motivational interviewing (MI). To date, it has been difficult to interpret the role of MI in BI and these gaps in knowledge interfere with efforts to train, disseminate and implement BI that retains and maximizes efficacy. This study sought to develop BI protocols with varying doses of MI and test their differentiability. Differentiable BI protocols could allow for future studies that prospectively evaluate the role MI plays in affecting BI outcome.

Methods

We developed three intervention protocols: brief advice, standard BI (NIAAA Clinician's Guide), and MI-enhanced BI and administered them to 45 primary care patients who reported exceeding recommended drinking limits. We then rated the BI sessions for fidelity to the assigned protocol as well as MI consistency based on Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) scale scores. The differentiability of BI protocols was determined by calculating fidelity to assigned protocols and comparing MITI scores using pairwise, Tukey-adjusted comparisons of least squares mean scores.

Results

High rates of fidelity to each protocol were achieved. The three BI protocols were also highly differentiable based on MITI scores.

Conclusions

The three interventions can be used in future trials to prospectively examine the role MI has in determining BI outcome. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT02978027, retrospectively registered 11/28/16.