Research News Roundup: April 22, 2021

Journal: Addictive Behaviors, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106944.

Authors: Natania A. Crane, Scott A. Langenecker, & Robin J.Mermelstein

Abstract:
Introduction: Alcohol, nicotine, and marijuana are the three most widely used substances among adolescents and young adults, with co-use of multiple substances being common. Few longitudinal studies have examined risk factors of alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine poly-substance use. We examined frequency of alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette poly-substance use over time and how key risk factors contribute to this substance use during adolescence and young adulthood.

Methods: Participants (N = 1263 9th and 10th graders) were oversampled for ever-smoking a cigarette at baseline from 16 Chicago-area high schools between 2004 and 2006. Many participants progressed to heavier cigarette use, as well as alcohol and marijuana use over time. Participants completed questionnaires assessing substance use and psychosocial factors at baseline, 6-, 15-, 24-, 33-months, and 5-, 6-, and 7-years.

Results: Longitudinal multi-level models demonstrated that at baseline and over time, more depression symptoms, more anxiety symptoms, negative mood regulation expectancies, and lower grade point average (GPA) were each associated with more poly-substance use over time. In addition, there were a number of interaction effects of gender (e.g., depression was related to substance use in males) and developmental stage moderated these relationships.

Conclusions: Depression, anxiety, negative mood regulation expectancies, and GPA all significantly influence both initial and longitudinal levels of substance use across adolescence and young adulthood. Our findings underscore the importance of identifying and treating youth with depression and anxiety symptoms, as well as providing resources early for those struggling in school in order to help with substance use prevention and intervention efforts.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.

Journal: Health Justice, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40352-021-00135-9

Authors: Ariel Hoadley, Sarah Bauerle Bass, Jesse Brujaha, Paul A. D’Avanzo & Patrick J. Kelly.

Abstract:
Objective: Women on community supervision who inject drugs have significant unmet healthcare needs. However, it remains unclear how the intersection of community supervision and injection drug use influences healthcare experiences and service setting preferences. The present study examines whether the intersection of community supervision and injection drug use is associated with differences in women’s healthcare beliefs, healthcare experiences, and service setting preferences.

Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted on a previously collected sample of women who inject drugs recruited from a syringe exchange and social service organization for a cross-sectional survey. Participants (N = 64) were mostly White (75%), and more than a quarter were currently on probation or parole (26%).

Results: Independent samples t-tests and chi-square tests revealed no significant differences on sociodemographic variables by community supervision status. There were no significant differences by community supervision status across seven indicators of healthcare confidence (ps > .05). However, results revealed significant differences in past experiences and beliefs about healthcare, health information seeking, and healthcare setting preferences by community supervision status (ps < .05), where women on community supervision less frequently sought health information and medical care outside of emergency departments.

Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary evidence about differences in the healthcare experiences and setting preferences of women who inject drugs on community supervision.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.

Journal: Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2021.10840

Authors: Aaron Hogue, Sara J. Becker, Kevin Wenzel, Craig E. Henderson, Molly Bobek, Sharon Levy, & Marc Fishman

Abstract: This article presents a narrative review and conceptual framework for research on family involvement across the continuum of substance use disorder (SUD) services for transition-age youth (ages 15–26). Though families are powerful resources for enhancing treatment and recovery success among youth with SUDs, they are not routinely included in clinical practice. This article summarizes youth SUD prevalence and service utilization rates and presents developmental and empirical rationale for increasing family involvement in services. It then describes key research issues on family involvement across the SUD services continuum: Problem Identification, Treatment Engagement, Active Treatment, Recovery Support. Within each phase, it highlights bedrock research findings and suggests promising opportunities for advancing the scientific knowledge base on family involvement. The main goals are to endorse family-oriented practices for immediate adoption in routine care and identify areas of research innovation that could significantly enhance the quality of youth SUD services.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.

Authors: Janet M. Currie, Ph.D.; Molly K. Schnell, Ph.D.; Hannes Schwandt, Ph.D.; Jonathan Zhang, Ph.D.

Journal: JAMA Netw Open, 2021, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.6147

Abstract:
Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted medical care, impacting prescribing of opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. Understanding these patterns can help address barriers to care.

Objective: To evaluate how prescribing of opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder changed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic among both new and existing patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, use of opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder from March 18 to September 1, 2020, was projected using a national database of retail prescriptions from January 1, 2018, to March 3, 2020. Actual prescribing was compared with projected levels for all, existing, and new patients.

Exposures: The data include prescriptions to patients independent of insurance status or type and cover 90% of retail prescriptions, 70% of mail-order prescriptions, and 70% of nursing home prescriptions.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Prescriptions for opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. Outcomes included total number of prescriptions, total morphine milligram equivalents, mean morphine milligram equivalents per prescription, mean dispensed units per prescription, and number of patients filling prescriptions.

Results: A total of 452 691 261 prescriptions for opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder were analyzed for 90 420 353 patients (50 921 535 female patients [56%]; mean [SD] age, 49 [20] years). From March 18 to May 19, 2020, 1877 million total morphine milligram equivalents of opioid analgesics were prescribed weekly vs 1843 million projected, a ratio of 102% (95% prediction interval [PI], 94%-111%; P = .71). The weekly number of opioid-naive patients receiving opioids was 370 051 vs 564 929 projected, or 66% of projected (95% PI, 63%-68%; P < .001). Prescribing of buprenorphine was as projected for existing patients, while the number of new patients receiving buprenorphine weekly was 9865 vs 12 008 projected, or 82% (95% PI, 76%-88%; P < .001). From May 20 to September 1, 2020, opioid prescribing for new patients returned to 100% of projected (95% PI, 96%-104%; P = .95), while the number of new patients receiving buprenorphine weekly was 10 436 vs 11 613 projected, or 90% (95% PI, 83%-97%; P = .009).

Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, existing patients receiving opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder generally maintained access to these medications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Opioid prescriptions for opioid-naive patients decreased briefly and then rebounded, while initiation of buprenorphine remained at a low rate through August 2020. Reductions in treatment entry may be associated with increased overdose deaths.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.