American counselors' acceptance of non-abstinence outcome goals for clients diagnosed with co-occurring substance use and other psychiatric disorders

Preference for Abstinence-Based Recovery and Public Stigma Toward Substance Use

The present study drew from an AmeriSpeak® national survey (n = 6,515) to examine public stigma toward different substances and the relationship between preferences for abstinence-based recovery and stigma toward each substance. It also explored whether perceived dangerousness of substances moderates the relationship between preferences for abstinence-based recovery and public stigma.

RESULTS

The results indicate that the general public has greater stigmatizing attitudes toward methamphetamine use disorder than it does toward cocaine use disorder, opioid use disorder, and alcohol use disorder. Furthermore, a preference for abstinence-based recovery was associated with greater stigmatizing attitudes toward all SUDs. The perceived dangerousness of a substance did not moderate the relationship between preference for abstinence-based recovery and stigmatizing attitudes toward SUDs.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE

Results have implications for creating public stigma interventions for the general public, which can be adapted for abstinence-based settings.

An exploration of desired abstinent and non-abstinent recovery outcomes among people who use methamphetamine

BACKGROUND

In the United States, complete abstinence persists as the standard for demonstrating recovery success from substance use disorders (SUDs), apart from alcohol use disorder (AUD). Although the FDA has recently indicated openness for non-abstinence outcomes as treatment targets, the traditional benchmark of complete abstinence for new medications to treat SUDs remains a hurdle and overshadows other non-abstinent outcomes desired by people with SUDs (e.g., improved sleep, employment, family reunification). This study sought to expand the definition of recovery to include non-abstinent pathways by exploring non-abstinence-based outcomes desired by people who use methamphetamine (PWUM).

METHODS

Participants (n = 100) were recruited from existing National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) projects including a treatment-seeking sample of people recently released from prison (all of whom endorsed recent methamphetamine use) and a sample of people using syringe service programs. In a convergent survey design, participants responded to closed-ended questions regarding recovery outcomes, followed by open-ended items to gain a better understanding of PWUM and their conception of recovery. The importance of non-abstinent outcomes was measured in five categories (substance use, physical health, cognitive functioning, mental health, and financial/social/relationships).

RESULTS

Participants were primarily White (88%), male (67%), and an average age of 40. Approximately two-thirds of participants agreed that people need to stop all mood- or mind-altering substances to be in recovery (64%). Nevertheless, participants indicated a variety of desired non-abstinent recovery outcomes, both substance-related (e.g. reductions in methamphetamine use) and non-substance-related (e.g. improved economic stability). Specific non-abstinent outcomes endorsed as "absolutely essential" by PWUM included: preventing legal trouble (92%), employment stability (82%), improved quality of life (80%), housing stability (78%), improved coping skills (78%), improved relationships (75%), economic/income stability (74%), ability to think clearly (73%), less impulsivity (73%), less depression (71%), less stress (70%), improved hopefulness (70%), and improved sleep (70%). Open-ended responses emphasized employment stability, economic/income stability, improved coping skills, improved relationships, as well as improved energy, appetite, and sleep.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate the importance of non-abstinent recovery outcomes among PWUM, suggesting high acceptability of non-abstinent recovery targets by people with lived experience. Further, the essential importance of non-abstinent outcomes, especially in the financial/social/relationship and mental health domains, were highlighted, providing novel targets for delivering SUD treatment/recovery.

Facilitators of and obstacles to practitioners' adoption of harm reduction in cannabis use: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use can generate potential avoidable harms, hence the need for effective preventive measures and treatment. Studies show the efficacy of harm reduction (HR) in minimizing undesirable consequences associated with this use. Despite its proven efficacy, HR in cannabis use remains poorly applied by many health and social services (HSS) practitioners, especially with young people. However, knowledge regarding the underlying reasons for this is limited. To fill this gap, we aimed to identify facilitators of and obstacles to HSS practitioners' adoption of HR in cannabis use across OECD countries.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review, guided by Arksey and O'Malley's model. The search strategy, executed on health databases and in the grey literature, captured 1804 studies, of which 35 were retained. Data from these studies were extracted in summary sheets for qualitative and numerical analysis.

RESULTS

Facilitators and obstacles were grouped into four themes: stakeholders' characteristics (e.g., education, practice experience); clients' characteristics (e.g., personal, medical); factors related to HR (e.g., perceived efficacy, misconceptions); factors related to the workplace (e.g., type of workplace). Data were also extracted to describe the populations recruited in the selected studies: type of population, clientele, workplace.

CONCLUSION

Several factors might facilitate or hinder HSS practitioners' adoption of HR in cannabis use. Taking these into consideration when translating knowledge about HR can improve its acceptability and applicability. Future research and action should focus on this when addressing practitioners' adoption of HR.

Reductions in WHO risk drinking levels correlate with alcohol craving among individuals with alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Abstinence has historically been considered the preferred goal of alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment. However, most individuals with AUD do not want to abstain and many are able to reduce their drinking successfully. Craving is often a target of pharmacological and behavioral interventions for AUD, and reductions in craving may signal recovery. Whether reductions in drinking during AUD treatment are associated with reductions in craving has not been well examined.

METHODS

We conducted secondary analyses of data from three AUD clinical trials (N's= 1327, 346, and 200). Drinking reductions from baseline to the end of treatment were measured as changes in World Health Organization (WHO) risk drinking levels; alcohol craving was measured using validated self-report measures. Regression analyses tested whether drinking reductions were associated with end-of-treatment craving reductions; moderation analyses tested whether associations between drinking reduction and end-of-treatment craving differed across AUD severity.

RESULTS

Reductions of at least 1 or at least 2 WHO risk drinking levels were associated with lower craving (all p's < 0.05). Results were substantively similar after removing abstainers at the end-of-treatment. Associations between drinking reductions and craving were generally not moderated by AUD severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with WHO risk drinking level reductions reported significantly lower craving, as compared to those who did not achieve meaningful reductions in drinking. The results demonstrate the utility of WHO risk drinking levels as AUD clinical trial endpoints and provide evidence that drinking reductions mitigate craving.

Guiding Principles for Managing Co-occurring Alcohol/Other Drug and Mental Health Conditions: a Scoping Review

This scoping review aimed to synthesise the published literature on guiding principles for managing co-occurring alcohol/other drug (AOD) and mental health conditions in AOD treatment settings. Systematic search of key electronic databases (January 1, 2010, to February 17, 2021) produced 4583 articles, and independent title/abstract and full text screening left 43 articles for inclusion. Fifteen guiding principles were identified, most commonly: build a strong therapeutic relationship (n = 24 articles), provide holistic care (n = 12), involve peer support (n = 7), ensure continuity of care (n = 6), support the professional development and competence of workers (n = 6), and provide trauma-informed care (n = 5). Remaining principles were identified in < 5 articles. Limited empirical literature examined the impact of guiding principles on patient- and treatment-related outcomes. This review provides the first comprehensive synthesis of the international literature to derive guiding principles for managing co-occurring AOD and mental health conditions in AOD treatment. Further empirical research is needed to determine the effectiveness of principles at improving outcomes.

Can Individuals With Alcohol Use Disorder Sustain Non-abstinent Recovery? Non-abstinent Outcomes 10 Years After Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Four decades ago, the "controlled drinking" controversy roiled the alcohol field. Data have subsequently accumulated indicating that nonabstinent alcohol use disorder (AUD) recovery is achievable, but questions remain whether it is sustainable long-term. This study examined whether nonabstinent recovery at 3 years after AUD treatment is associated with better functioning at 10 years after treatment.

METHODS

Data were from the 10-year follow-up of Project MATCH (New Mexico site only, n  = 146; 30.1% female, 58.6% non-White). Recovery was defined by latent profile analyses based on psychosocial functioning and alcohol consumption 3 years after treatment. Drinking practices and consequences, depression, purpose in life, and anger were assessed 10 years after treatment. Distal outcome analyses examined differences in drinking and functional outcomes at 10 years as a function of the 3-year latent profiles. Analyses were preregistered at https://osf.io/3hbxr.

RESULTS

Four latent profiles identified at 3 years after treatment (ie, low functioning frequent heavy drinkers, low functioning infrequent heavy drinkers, high functioning heavy drinkers, and high functioning infrequent nonheavy drinkers) were significantly associated with outcomes 10 years after treatment. The 2 high functioning profiles at 3 years had the highest level of psychological functioning at 10 years posttreatment, regardless of alcohol consumption level. Abstinence at 3 years did not predict better psychological functioning at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonabstinent AUD recovery is possible and is sustainable for up to 10 years after treatment. The current findings align with recent proposals to move beyond relying on alcohol consumption as a central defining feature of AUD recovery.

Can Alcohol Use Disorder Recovery Include Some Heavy Drinking? A Replication and Extension up to 9 Years Following Treatment

BACKGROUND

Recent research indicates some individuals who engage in heavy drinking following treatment for alcohol use disorder fare as well as those who abstain with respect to psychosocial functioning, employment, life satisfaction, and mental health. The current study evaluated whether these findings replicated in an independent sample and examined associations between recovery profiles and functioning up to 6 years later.

METHODS

Data were from the 3-year and 7- to 9-year follow-ups of subsamples initially recruited for the COMBINE study (3-year follow-up: n = 694; 30.1% female, 21.0% non-White; 7- to 9-year follow-up: n = 127; 38.9% female, 27.8% non-White). Recovery at 3 years was defined by latent profile analyses including measures of health functioning, quality of life, employment, alcohol consumption, and cannabis and other drug use. Functioning at the 7- to 9-year follow-up was assessed using single items of self-rated general health, hospitalizations, and alcohol consumption.

RESULTS

We identified 4 profiles at the 3-year follow-up: (i) low-functioning frequent heavy drinkers (13.9%), (ii) low-functioning infrequent heavy drinkers (15.8%), (iii) high-functioning heavy drinkers (19.4%), and (iv) high-functioning infrequent drinkers (50.9%). At the 7- to 9-year follow-up, the 2 high-functioning profiles had the best self-rated health, and the high-functioning heavy drinking profile had significantly fewer hospitalizations than the low-functioning frequent heavy drinking profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous findings showing heterogeneity in recovery outcomes were replicated. Most treatment recipients functioned well for years after treatment, and a subset who achieved stable recovery engaged in heavy drinking and reported good health outcomes up to 9 years after treatment. Results question the long-standing emphasis on drinking practices as a primary outcome, as well as abstinence as a recovery criterion in epidemiologic and treatment outcome research and among stakeholder groups and funding/regulatory agencies. Findings support an expanded recovery research agenda that considers drinking patterns, health, life satisfaction, and functioning.

Acceptability of nonabstinent treatment outcome goals among addiction treatment providers in Ukraine

We examined whether acceptability of nonabstinence treatment outcome goals varied as a function of a patient's severity of diagnosis (ICD-10 harmful use vs. dependence syndrome; World Health Organization, 1992), finality of outcome goal (intermediate vs. final), and type of substance (e.g., tobacco, alcohol, cannabis), among addiction treatment providers in Ukraine. We surveyed 44% of Ukrainian treatment providers (n = 446/1023; Mage = 40.4, SD = 8.6; Male = 67%; MYears Of Experience = 10.2, SD = 7.2). For tobacco use, most respondents (78%-93%) rated nonabstinence as acceptable, regardless of diagnostic severity or finality of outcome goal (i.e., intermediate, final). Most respondents also rated nonabstinence as acceptable as an intermediate or final goal for patients with harmful use of alcohol (70% to 86%) or cannabis (71% to 93%); however, nonabstinence was less commonly indicated by respondents as an intermediate goal for patients with a dependence syndrome (alcohol = 52%; cannabis = 68%). Regarding other drug use, although most rated nonabstinence acceptable as an intermediate goal for patients with harmful use of opioids (68%) or sedatives (64%), fewer rated nonabstinence acceptable as a final goal (26% to 33%), particularly for patients with a dependence syndrome (10% to 27%). Very few providers (5% to 15%) rated nonabstinence acceptable for other substances. Patients in Ukraine who wish to moderate cannabis or tobacco use will find that their provider is typically accepting of this goal; however, providers are mixed regarding whether alcohol and opioid moderation is appropriate, particularly for those with dependence. Findings support education and research efforts to better understand how provider and patient alignment regarding goals impact patient outcomes following substance use treatment in Ukraine. (PsycINFO Database Record