Children whose parents have a history of substance use are at elevated risk of developing substance use disorders (SUDs) and related debilitating behaviors. Although specialty treatment programs are uniquely positioned to deliver prevention care to children of adult clients, these programs may have limited capacity to implement prevention and early intervention care services, particularly in racial and ethnic minority communities. We merged data from program surveys and client records collected in 2015 to examine the extent to which program capacity factors are associated with the odds of delivering prevention and early intervention services for children of adult clients attending outpatient SUD treatment in low-income minority communities in Los Angeles County, California. Our analytic sample consisted of 16,712 clients embedded in 82 programs. Our results show that 85% of these programs reported delivering prevention care services, while 71% of programs delivered early intervention services. Programs with organizational climates supporting change and those that served a high number of clients annually were more likely to implement both prevention and early intervention practices. Programs accepting Medicaid payments and serving clients whose primary drug was marijuana were more than three times as likely to implement prevention services. Overall, our findings suggest both program- and client-level characteristics are associated with delivering preventive care offered to children of adult clients receiving SUD treatment in communities of color. As Medicaid has become a major payor of SUD treatment services and marijuana use has been legalized in California, findings identify capacity factors to deliver public health prevention interventions in one of the nations largest public SUD treatment systems.

In 2011 and 2012, 147 patients in urban United States Community Health Centers who misused drugs, but did not meet criteria for drug dependence, received a brief intervention as part of a National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded clinical trial of a screening and brief intervention protocol. Potential study participants were identified using the World Health Organization (WHO) Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test. Data gathered during brief interventions were analyzed using grounded theory strategies to identify barriers patients believed inhibited drug use behavior change. Numerous perceived barriers to drug use behavior change were identified. Study implications and limitations are discussed.

Background

Brief interventions (BIs) have shown potential to reduce both alcohol and drug use. Although BIs for adults have been studied extensively, little is known about how to adapt them to meet the needs and preferences of adolescents. This article examines adolescents' preferences to consider when adapting BIs for use with adolescents.

Methods

Eighteen adolescents (age 9-17 years) living in Los Angeles County with adults receiving substance use disorder treatment were interviewed and asked about their perspectives on how to adapt a BI originally developed for adults for use with adolescents. Questions focused on adolescents' preferences for who should deliver BIs, how BIs should be delivered, and what content they would want to be included in BIs. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using summative content analysis.

Results

Adolescents did not express any discernable opinions concerning who delivers BIs or what content they would want to be included, but they did share perspectives on how BIs should be delivered. Most adolescents did not endorse incorporating text messaging or social media into BIs. Instead they preferred having BIs delivered face-to-face or over the telephone. They reported that they did not want BIs to incorporate text messaging or social media due to concerns about trust, the quality of information they would receive, and challenges communicating in writing instead of speaking.

Conclusion

Although the study has limitations because of its small sample size, findings indicate that adolescents may not want text messaging or social media to be incorporated into BIs for substance use. These findings warrant further research and consideration, particularly as work to enhance BIs for adolescents continues.

Objective

The publication of the President's New Freedom Commission Report in 2003 led to hope and anticipation that system transformation would address barriers that have impeded the delivery of integrated services for clients with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. Have problems been resolved? This study analyzed providers' perspectives on serving clients with co-occurring disorders in a large mental health system that has undergone transformation.

Methods

Six focus groups were conducted with providers at specialty mental health treatment organizations that received funding to transform services. Using content analysis, the authors identified major themes of the focus group discussions.

Results

Participants reported several barriers within the mental health system and challenges associated with collaborating with specialty substance abuse treatment providers that impede the delivery of integrated care.

Conclusions

In spite of efforts to improve co-occurring disorder service delivery in a transformed mental health system, barriers that have historically impeded integrated treatment persist.

Background

Despite a solid research base supporting evidence-based practices (EBPs) for addiction treatment such as contingency management and medication-assisted treatment, these services are rarely implemented and delivered in community-based addiction treatment programs in the USA. As a result, many clients do not benefit from the most current and efficacious treatments, resulting in reduced quality of care and compromised treatment outcomes. Previous research indicates that addiction program leaders play a key role in supporting EBP adoption and use. The present study expanded on this previous work to identify strategies that addiction treatment program leaders report using to implement new practices.

Methods

We relied on a staged and iterative mixed-methods approach to achieve the following four goals: (a) collect data using focus groups and semistructured interviews and conduct analyses to identify implicit managerial strategies for implementation, (b) use surveys to quantitatively rank strategy effectiveness, (c) determine how strategies fit with existing theories of organizational management and change, and (d) use a consensus group to corroborate and expand on the results of the previous three stages. Each goal corresponded to a methodological phase, which included data collection and analytic approaches to identify and evaluate leadership interventions that facilitate EBP implementation in community-based addiction treatment programs.

Results

Findings show that the top-ranked strategies involved the recruitment and selection of staff members receptive to change, offering support and requesting feedback during the implementation process, and offering in vivo and hands-on training. Most strategies corresponded to emergent implementation leadership approaches that also utilize principles of transformational and transactional leadership styles. Leadership behaviors represented orientations such as being proactive to respond to implementation needs, supportive to assist staff members during the uptake of new practices, knowledgeable to properly guide the implementation process, and perseverant to address ongoing barriers that are likely to stall implementation efforts.

Conclusions

These findings emphasize how leadership approaches are leveraged to facilitate the implementation and delivery of EBPs in publicly funded addiction treatment programs. Findings have implications for the content and structure of leadership interventions needed in community-based addiction treatment programs and the development of leadership interventions in these and other service settings.

Background

Approximately 3.8% of adults worldwide have used cannabis in the past year. Understanding how cannabis use is associated with other health conditions is crucial for healthcare providers seeking to understand the needs of their patients, and for health policymakers. This paper analyzes the relationship between documented cannabis use disorders (CUD), cannabis use (CU) and other health diagnoses among primary care patients during a time when medical use of marijuana was permitted by state law in California, United States of America.

Methods

The study utilized primary care electronic health record (EHR) data from an academic health system, using a case-control design to compare diagnoses among individuals with CUD/CU to those of matched controls, and those of individuals with CUD diagnoses with individuals who had CU otherwise documented. Associations of documented CU and CUD with general medical conditions and health conditions associated with cannabis use (both medical and behavioral) were analyzed using conditional logistic regression.

Results

Of 1,047,463 patients with ambulatory encounters from 2013-2017, 729 (0.06%) had CUD diagnoses and 3,731 (0.36%) had CU documented in their EHR. Patients with documented CUD and CU patients had significantly (p < 0.01) higher odds of most medical and behavioral diagnoses analyzed. Compared to matched controls, CUD-documented patients had highest odds of other substance use disorders (OR = 21.44: 95% CI 9.43-48.73), any mental health disorder (OR = 6.99; 95% CI 5.03-9.70) social anxiety disorder (OR = 13.03; 95% CI 2.18-77.94), HIV/AIDS (OR = 7.88: 95% CI 2.58-24.08), post-traumatic stress disorder (OR = 7.74: 95% CI 2.66-22.51); depression (OR = 7.01: 95% CI 4,79-10.27), and bipolar disorder (OR = 6.49: 95% CI 2.90-14.52). Compared to matched controls, CU-documented patients had highest odds of other substance use disorders (OR = 3.64; 95% CI 2.53-5.25) and post-traumatic stress disorder (OR = 3.41; 95% CI 2.53-5.25). CUD-documented patients were significantly more likely than CU-documented patients to have HIV/AIDS (OR = 6.70; 95% CI 2.10-21.39), other substance use disorder (OR = 5.88; 95% CI 2.42-14.22), depression (OR = 2.85; 95% CI 1.90-4.26), and anxiety (OR = 2.19: 95% CI 1.57-3.05) diagnoses.

Conclusion

The prevalence of CUD and CU notation in EHR data from an academic health system was low, highlighting the need for improved screening in primary care. CUD and CU documentation were associated with increased risk for many health conditions, with the most elevated risk for behavioral health disorders and HIV/AIDS (among CUD-documented, but not CU-documented patients). Given the strong associations of CUD and CU documentation with health problems, it is important for healthcare providers to be prepared to identify CU and CUD, discuss the pros and cons of cannabis use with patients thoughtfully and empathically, and address cannabis-related comorbidities among these patients.

Objective

The study evaluated the effect of California's Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) on the structure, volume, location, and patient centeredness of Los Angeles County public mental health services.

Methods

This prospective mixed-methods study (2006-2013) was based in five Los Angeles County public mental health clinics, all with usual care and three with full-service partnerships (FSPs). FSPs are MHSA-funded programs designed to "do whatever it takes" to provide intensive, recovery-oriented, team-based, integrated services for clients with severe mental illness. FSPs were compared with usual care on outpatient services received (claims data) and on organizational climate, recovery orientation, and provider-client working alliance (surveys and semistructured interviews), with regression adjustment for client and provider characteristics.

Results

In the first year after admission, FSP clients (N=174) received significantly more outpatient services than did usual care clients (N=298) (5,238 versus 1,643 minutes, p<.001), and a larger proportion of these services were field based (22% versus 2%, p<.001). Compared with usual care clients, FSP clients reported more recovery-oriented services (p<.001) and a better provider-client working alliance (p=.01). Compared with usual care providers (N=130), FSP providers (N=42) reported more stress (p<.001) and lower morale (p<.001).

Conclusions

Los Angeles County's public mental health system was able to transform service delivery in response to well-funded policy mandates. For providers, a structure emphasizing accountability and patient centeredness was associated with greater stress, despite smaller caseloads. For clients, service structure and volume created opportunities to build stronger provider-client relationships and address their needs and goals.

There are two dominant approaches to implementing permanent supportive housing (PSH), namely place-based (PB) and scattered-site (SS). Formal guidance does not distinguish between these two models and only specifies that PSH should be reserved for those who are most vulnerable with complex health needs. To consider both system- and self-selection factors that may affect housing assignment, this study applied the Gelberg-Anderson behavioral model for vulnerable populations to compare predisposing, enabling, and need factors among people experiencing homelessness (PE) by whether they were assigned to PB-PSH (n = 272) or SS-PSH (n = 185) in Los Angeles County during the COVID-19 pandemic. This exploratory, observational study also included those who were approved but did not receive PSH (n = 94). Results show that there are notable differences between (a) those who received PSH versus those who did not, and (b) those in PB-PSH versus SS-PSH. Specifically, PEH who received PSH were more likely to be white, US-born, have any physical health condition, and have lower health activation scores. PEH who received PB- versus SS-PSH were more likely to be older, Black, have any alcohol use disorder, and have higher health activation scores. These findings suggest that homeless service systems may consider PB-PSH more appropriate for PEH with higher needs but also raises important questions about how race may be a factor in the type of PSH that PEH receive and whether PSH is received at all.

Improving health and healthcare for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) has become a national research priority. It is critical for research related to homelessness to be guided by input from PEH themselves. We are a group of researchers and individuals who have personally experienced homelessness collaborating on a study focused on homelessness and housing. In this Fresh Focus, we describe our partnership, lessons learned from our work together, what we have gained from our collaboration, and considerations for future homelessness research-lived experience partnerships.