Pathways to drug prevalence estimation: synthesizing three comments on triangulation

Associations between relative deprivation with opioid use among working-age adults during the great recession

Recessions, poverty, and unemployment have been associated with opioid use. However, these measures of financial hardship may be imprecise, limiting our ability to understand this relationship. We tested associations between relative deprivation and non-medical prescription opioid use (NMPOU) and heroin use among working-age adults (ages 18-64) during the Great Recession. Our sample included working-age adults in the 2005-2013 United States National Survey of Drug Use and Health (n = 320,186). Relative deprivation compared the lowest limit of participants' income category to the national 25th percentile individual income for people with similar socio-demographic characteristics (race and ethnicity, gender, year). We distinguished the period before (1/2005-11/2007), during (12/2007-06/2009), and after (07/2007-12/2013) the Great Recession. We estimated odds of past-year NMPOU and heroin use for each past-year exposure (i.e., relative deprivation, poverty, unemployment) using separate logistic regressions adjusting for individual-level covariates (gender, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education) and national-level annual Gini coefficient. Our results show that NMPOU was higher among people experiencing relative deprivation (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.06-1.20), poverty (aOR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.16-1.29), and unemployment (aOR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.32-1.53) between 2005 and 2013, as was heroin use (aORs = 2.54, 2.09, 3.55, respectively). The association between relative deprivation and NMPOU was modified by recession timing, and was significantly higher after the Recession (aOR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.11-1.33). Relative deprivation was associated with higher odds of NMPOU and heroin use, and higher odds of NMPOU after the Great Recession. Our findings suggest contextual-level factors may modify the relationship between relative deprivation and opioid use, and support the need for new measures of financial hardship.

Alcohol or Drug Self-Help Use Among Adults in the United States: Age, Period, and Cohort Effects Between 2002 and 2018

In the context of an ongoing and worsening drug overdose epidemic in the USA, increases in free support services like self-help groups may be expected. We estimated differences in self-help use by age, period, or cohort among people who may have needed treatment. We included N = 92,002 adults from the 2002-2018 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health who met past-year DSM-IV substance use disorder criteria or received alcohol/drug treatment in any location. We used hierarchical age-period-cohort (HAPC) modeling to estimate average age-period-cohort associations with self-help. Level-1 covariates included age, race and ethnicity, household income, and sex. We quantified level-2 variance components using the median odds ratio (MOR). We found small positive HAPC period effects for alcohol/drug self-help that were driven by alcohol-specific effects. Birth cohort differences were observed starting at age 48. Younger birth cohorts, especially among Black adults, were less likely to report self-help use than older birth cohorts. MOR was consistently elevated for cohort effects (MOR = 1.17; covariance parameter: 0.15; 95% CI [0.11, 0.23]) but not for period effects. Overall, self-help use did not increase in the context of substantial treatment needs and worsening overdose racialized disparities. Instead, cohort effects explained trends in alcohol/drug self-help. Findings could indicate that younger birth cohorts may need additional supports, especially services tailored for Black and Hispanic people.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11469-023-01012-2.

Guiding officers to deflect citizens to treatment: an examination of police department policies in Illinois

BACKGROUND

The U.S. overdose crisis has motivated police departments to enact policies allowing officers to directly deflect individuals to substance use disorder treatment and other services shown to reduce recidivism and subsequent overdose risk, as well as refer people who voluntarily present at police facilities with a desire for treatment. As a new way of operating, and one that relies on an officer's use of discretion for successful implementation, the practice benefits from guidance through written directives, training, and supervisory support. However, there is little information on the establishment, content, and execution of police department deflection policies, which hampers the implementation and dissemination of this promising practice. We analyzed 16 policies of Illinois police department deflection programs. Using content analysis methodology, we coded the policies for language and terminology, as well as program components and procedures. We aimed to examine how the policies were written, as well as the content intending to guide officers in their work.

RESULTS

We found the policies and programs had notable differences in length, detail, terminology, and reading level. Only one policy mentioned the use of any type of addiction treatment medication, many used stigmatizing language (e.g., "abuse" and "addict"), and few mentioned "harm reduction" or training in the practice of deflection. Many policies restricted participation in deflection (i.e., no minors, outstanding warrants, current withdrawal symptoms), and critically, a majority of policies allowed police officers to exclude people from participation based on their own judgment.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend police departments consider the readability of their policies and reduce barriers to deflection program participation to engage a larger pool of citizens in need of substance use disorder treatment. Since there is limited research on police policies generally, and the field of deflection is relatively new, this study offers insight into the content of different department policies and more specifically, how officers are directed to operate deflection programs.

Estimating the Prevalence of Substance Use Disorders in the US Using the Benchmark Multiplier Method

Importance

Prevalence estimates of substance use disorders in the US rely on general population surveys. However, major population groups, such as homeless individuals and institutionalized individuals, are not captured by these surveys, and participants may underreport substance use.

Objective

To estimate the prevalence of substance use disorders in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The benchmark multiplier method was used to estimate the prevalence of alcohol, cannabis, opioid, and stimulant use disorders based on data from the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) (the benchmark) and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) (the multiplier) for 2018 and 2019. T-MSIS collects administrative data on Medicaid beneficiaries 12 years and older with full or comprehensive benefits. NSDUH is a nationally representative annual cross-sectional survey of people 12 years and older. Data were analyzed from February to June 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prevalence of substance use disorders was estimated using the benchmark multiplier method based on T-MSIS and NSDUH data. Confidence intervals for the multiplier method estimates were computed using Monte Carlo simulations. Sensitivity of prevalence estimates to variations in multiplier values was assessed.

Results

This study included Medicaid beneficiaries 12 years and older accessing treatment services in the past year with diagnoses of alcohol (n = 1 017 308 in 2018; n = 1 041 357 in 2019), cannabis (n = 643 737; n = 644 780), opioid (n = 1 406 455; n = 1 575 219), and stimulant (n = 610 858; n = 657 305) use disorders and NSDUH participants with 12-month DSM-IV alcohol (n = 3390 in 2018; n = 3363 in 2019), cannabis (n = 1426; n = 1604), opioid (n = 448; n = 369), and stimulant (n = 545; n = 559) use disorders. The benchmark multiplier prevalence estimates were higher than NSDUH estimates for every type of substance use disorder in both years and in the combined 2018 to 2019 sample: 20.27% (95% CI, 17.04-24.71) vs 5.34% (95% CI, 5.10-5.58), respectively, for alcohol; 7.57% (95% CI, 5.96-9.93) vs 1.68% (95% CI, 1.59-1.79) for cannabis; 3.46% (95% CI, 2.97-4.12) vs 0.68% (0.60-0.78) for opioid; and 1.91% (95% CI, 1.63-2.30) vs 0.85% (95% CI, 0.75-0.96) for stimulant use disorders. In sensitivity analyses, the differences between the benchmark multiplier method and NSDUH estimates persisted over a wide range of potential multiplier values.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings in this study reflect a higher national prevalence of substance use disorders than that represented by NSDUH estimates, suggesting a greater burden of these conditions in the US.

Trends in cannabis or cocaine-related dependence and alcohol/drug treatment in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay

BACKGROUND

In the context of changing cannabis and other drug policy and regulation, concerns may arise regarding drug treatment access and use. We assessed cannabis/cocaine-related dependence and treatment in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.

METHODS

Nationally representative cross-sectional household surveys of people ages 15-64 in Argentina (4 surveys, 2006-2017), Chile (7 surveys, 2006-2018), and Uruguay (4 surveys, 2006-2018) were harmonized. We estimated weighted prevalences of cannabis or cocaine-related (cocaine or cocaine paste) dependence, based on meeting 3+ past-year ICD-10 dependence criteria. We estimated weighted prevalences of past-year alcohol/drug treatment use (Argentina, Chile) or use/seeking (Uruguay) among people with past-year cannabis/cocaine-related dependence. We tested model-based prevalence trends over time and described individual-level treatment correlates by country.

RESULTS

Cannabis/cocaine dependence prevalence increased in the region starting in 2010-2011, driven by cannabis dependence. Adjusted cannabis dependence prevalence increased from 0.7% in 2010 to 1.5% in 2017 in Argentina (aPD=0.8, 95% CI= 0.3, 1.2), from 0.8% in 2010 to 2.8% in 2018 in Chile (aPD=2.0, 95% CI= 1.4, 2.6), and from 1.4% in 2011 to 2.4% in 2018 in Uruguay (aPD=0.9, 95% CI= 0.2, 1.6). Cocaine-related dependence increased in Uruguay, decreased in Argentina, and remained stable in Chile. Among people with past-year cannabis/cocaine dependence, average alcohol/drug treatment use prevalence was 15.3% in Argentina and 6.0% in Chile, while treatment use/seeking was 14.7% in Uruguay. Alcohol/drug treatment prevalence was lower among people with cannabis dependence than cocaine-related dependence. Treatment correlates included older ages in all countries and male sex in Argentina only.

CONCLUSION

Alcohol/drug treatment use among people with cannabis/cocaine-related dependence remained low, signaling an ongoing treatment gap in the context of growing cannabis dependence prevalence in the region. Additional resources may be needed to increase treatment access and uptake. Future studies should assess contributors of low treatment use, including perceived need, stigma, and service availability.