Motivational Interviewing Case Management (MICM) for Persons on Probation or Parole Entering Sober Living Houses

Community-based substance use treatment programs for reentering justice-involved adults: A scoping review

Introduction

For adults involved with the criminal justice system who are reentering their communities post-incarceration, there is a large need for community-based substance use treatment. Little is known, however, about the types, availability, and benefits of programs targeting the reentry population in community settings that operate independently from the criminal justice system.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of community-based treatment programs for substance use among reentering justice-involved adults to examine the contemporary state of literature and identify research gaps. We searched four databases for peer-reviewed articles conducted in the United States and published between 2017 and 2021.

Results

The final sample included 58 articles. Interventions varied, but the two most prominent were medications for opioid use disorder (35%) and peer support or social support interventions (22.4%). Studies were more likely to show positive impact on substance use outcomes than criminal justice outcomes. Themes were identified around participant characteristics, treatment delivery, and treatment benefits.

Conclusions

Findings from this scoping review suggest that the range of evidence-based strategies for substance use treatment targeting the reentry population is growing, but there is a need for additional research that examines implementation, cost effectiveness, and racial/ethnic disparities.

Assessing a pilot scheme of intensive support and assertive linkage in levels of engagement, retention, and recovery capital for people in recovery housing using quasi-experimental methods

INTRODUCTION

Strong and ever-growing evidence highlights the effectiveness of recovery housing in supporting and sustaining substance use disorder (SUD) recovery, especially when augmented by intensive support that includes assertive linkages to community services. This study aims to evaluate a pilot intensive recovery support (IRS) intervention for individuals (n = 175) entering certified Level II and III recovery residences. These individuals met at least three out of five conditions (no health insurance; no driving license; substance use in the last 14 days; current unemployment; possession of less than $75 capital). The study assesses the impact of the IRS on engagement, retention, and changes in recovery capital, compared to the business-as-usual Standard Recovery Support (SRS) approach (n = 1758).

METHODS

The study employed quasi-experimental techniques to create weighted and balanced counterfactual groups. These groups, derived from the Recovery Capital assessment tool (REC-CAP), enabled comparison of outcomes between people receiving IRS and those undergoing SRS.

RESULTS

After reweighting for resident demographics, service needs, and barriers to recovery, those receiving IRS exhibited improved retention rates, reduced likelihood of disengagement, and growth in recovery capital after living in the residence for 6-9 months.

CONCLUSION

The results from this pilot intervention indicate that intensive recovery support, which integrates assertive community linkages and enhanced recovery coaching, outperforms a balanced counterfactual group in engagement, length of stay, and recovery capital growth. We suggest that this model may be particularly beneficial to those entering Level II and Level III recovery housing with lower levels of recovery capital at admission.

Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Linkage at Strategic Touchpoints Using Buprenorphine (OUTLAST-B): Rationale, Design, and Evolution of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Despite the effectiveness and growing availability of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine, many people with OUD do not access treatment services. This article describes the rationale, methodological design, evolution, and progress of an ongoing clinical trial of treatment linkage strategies for people with untreated OUD.

Methods

The study, titled Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Linkage at Strategic Touchpoints using Buprenorphine (OUTLAST-B), uses "strategic touchpoints", initially sexual health clinics and subsequently broadened to other service venues and participant social networks, for recruitment and screening. Adults with untreated OUD (target N = 360) are randomized to one of the three arms: Usual Care (UC, enhanced with overdose education and naloxone distribution), Patient Navigation (PN), or Patient Navigation with an immediate short-term bridge prescription for buprenorphine (PN + BUP). In the PN and PN + BUP arms, the Patient Navigator works with participants for 2 months to facilitate treatment entry and early retention, resolve barriers (e.g., ID cards, transportation), and provide motivational support.

Results

The primary outcome is OUD treatment entry within 30 days of enrollment. Participants are assessed at baseline and followed at 3- and 6-months post-enrollment on measures of healthcare utilization, substance use, and general functioning. Challenges and recruitment adaptations pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed.

Conclusions

This study could provide insights on how to reach people with untreated OUD and link them to care through non-traditional routes.

Trial Registration

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04991974).

Multilevel Effects of Environmental and Neighborhood Factors on Sober Living House Resident 12-Month Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Sober living houses (SLHs) are abstinence-based environments designed for individuals in recovery to live with others in recovery. Research shows that SLHs help some individuals maintain recovery and that certain SLH-related factors may be particularly protective. Here we assess how SLH housing and neighborhood characteristics are related to abstinence and psychiatric symptoms over time.

METHOD

Baseline, 6-month, and 12-month data were collected from 557 SLH residents. Multilevel mixed models tested associations between house and neighborhood characteristics and individual-level percent days abstinent (PDA) and the number of psychiatric symptoms (measured with the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire [PDSQ]) as outcomes. Final models adjusted for sex, age, and race/ethnicity; ratings of house characteristics; and objective measurements of neighborhood-level exposures.

RESULTS

Both PDA and PDSQ improved significantly (ps ≤ .05) over time in both unadjusted and adjusted models. More self-help groups and fewer alcohol outlets within one mile were significantly protective for PDA, whereas walkability was significantly related to worse PDA and PDSQ (ps ≤ .05). For house-level factors, better ratings of house maintenance were related to significantly fewer psychiatric symptoms, whereas higher scores on SLH's safety measures and personal or residence identity were related to more psychiatric symptoms (ps ≤ .05). No house-level factor was significantly related to PDA.

CONCLUSIONS

Neighborhood-level factors such as increased availability of self-help groups and fewer nearby alcohol outlets may increase abstinence among individuals living in SLHs. House-level factors related to better maintenance may also facilitate improved mental health.

Giving and Receiving Help among Persons Entering Sober Living Houses

Giving and receiving help are integral to creating the social environments necessary to support recovery. However, studies assessing the effects of helping behaviors have focused primarily on the benefits derived from giving help to others in 12-step programs and treatment. The current study examined the frequency of giving and receiving help among 188 persons entering sober living houses (SLHs), a type of recovery home that is common in California. Helping was assessed in three contexts: the SLH, 12-step meetings they attended, and interactions with their family and friends. Residents who gave help to others in one of these contexts tended to also receive help in that context. Residents who reported giving or receiving help in one context tended to report giving and receiving help in other contexts. Study findings suggest helping in recovery occurs in a broader, more reciprocal manner than currently conceptualized. Studies should address how giving and receiving help in different contexts affects recovery outcomes. Research is also needed to describe the determinants of giving and receiving help. Considerations for facilitating help among SLH residents are described.

Outcomes Among Sober Living House Residents Who Relapse: Role of Recovery Capital

Studies show individuals living in residential recovery homes on average make significant improvements in multiple areas of functioning. Residents who achieve and maintain complete abstinence have particularly good outcomes. Residents who relapse after entering the houses have been studied minimally. The current study examined outcomes for 197 residents who relapsed within six months after entering sober living houses (SLHs), which is one type of residential recovery home that is common in California. Despite having relapsed, these residents made significant improvements between entry into the house and 6-month follow-up on measures of percent days abstinent from alcohol and drugs (PDA), psychiatric symptoms, severity of employment problems, and stable housing. Higher recovery capital predicted higher PDA (coefficient = 0.28, SE = 0.09, p = .001) and lower severity of employment problems (coefficient = -0.00, SE = 0.00, p = .007). Recovery capital showed a significant decrease between baseline and 6-month follow-up among persons who relapsed and were no longer living in the house. SLH providers can draw upon social model recovery principles to enhance recovery capital. However, residents should also seek other sources of recovery capital outside the SLH, which may be particularly important for individuals who leave the home.

Effectiveness of interventions to improve employment for people released from prison: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

People released from prison experience complex health challenges in addition to challenges resettling into the community. Consequently, employment rates are low. Participating in good quality employment can support good health and is protective against future reoffending. Multiple interventions are provided to support people into employment on release. The effectiveness of interventions for improving employment outcomes has not previously been evaluated in a meta-analysis.

AIM

Our objective was to examine the effectiveness of interventions to improve employment following release from prison.

METHOD

We searched seven databases and three trial registries for peer reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published since 2010, that included adults and measured an employment outcome(s). We conducted meta-analysis using random effects models with sub-group and sensitivity analyses. We appraised bias risk per outcome, and incorporated this into an assessment of the certainty estimates for each outcome. A group of people with experience of imprisonment met with us throughout the project to inform our search strategy and interpretation of results.

RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs (2,875 participants) which were all conducted in the USA. Few outcomes were of low risk of bias. Intervention participants were 2.5 times more likely to work at least one day (95% CI:1.82-3.43) and worked more days over 12 months (MD = 59.07, 95% CI:15.83-102.32) compared to controls. There was no effect on average employment status or employment at study end. There is moderate certainty in these estimates.

CONCLUSION

Interventions can improve some employment outcomes for people released from prison. More evidence is required to establish effective interventions for sustaining quality employment, particularly outside the USA, and which consider outcomes for different groups of people released, such as women or those with health or substance use needs.

Social Model Recovery and Recovery Housing

Recovery housing is an important resource for many in their recovery from alcohol and other drug use disorders. Yet providers of recovery housing face a number of challenges. Many of these challenges are rooted in stigma and bias about recovery housing. The ability to describe the service and purported mechanisms of action vis-a-vis an overarching framework, approach, or orientation could also go a long way in adding credence to recovery housing as a service delivery mechanism. Several aspects of social model recovery are often explicitly built or organically reflected in how recovery housing operates, yet describing recovery housing in these terms often does little to demystify key features of recovery housing. To more fully cement social model recovery as the organizing framework for recovery housing this article aims to: review the history, current status, and evidence base for social model recovery; comment on challenges to implementing the social model in recovery housing; and delineate steps to overcome these challenges and establish an evidence base for social model recovery housing.

Moving Social Model Recovery Forward: Recent Research on Sober Living Houses

Social model recovery is a peer centered approach to alcohol and drug problems that is gaining increased attention. This approach is well-suited to services in residential settings and typically includes living in a shared alcohol- and drug-free living environment where residents give and receive personal and recovery support. Sober Living Houses (SLHs) are recovery residences that explicitly use a social model approach. This paper describes recent research on SLHs, including new measures designed to assess their social and physical environments. We conclude that our understanding of social model is rapidly evolving to include broader, more complex factors associated with outcomes.

Do neighborhood characteristics of sober living houses impact recovery outcomes? A multilevel analysis of observational data from Los Angeles County

OBJECTIVE

To identify neighborhood factors associated with recovery outcomes for sober living house (SLH) residents.

METHODS

Six-month longitudinal data for new SLH residents (n = 557) was linked with census tract data, services available, alcohol outlets, and Walk Scores® (0-100 score indicating access to neighborhood resources) for 48 SLHs in 44 neighborhoods in Los Angeles County.

RESULTS

Non-significant neighborhood characteristics in separate regressions for all outcomes were residents' ratings of perceived risk, percentage of residences with access to a car, percentage of homes over $500,000, percentage of renter-occupied units, percentage with income less than $25,000, percentage that were non-white, the density of substance inpatient within 10 miles, and transit scores from Walk Score®. Multilevel regressions found outpatient substance abuse treatment and density of AA groups were positively associated with more abstinent days. No neighborhood variables were associated with psychiatric symptoms. Higher perceived neighborhood cohesion, lower crime ratings, and better transportation ratings were associated with higher recovery capital.

CONCLUSION

Greater neighborhood densities of substance abuse services and AA groups may help residents achieve more days abstinent. While residents may achieve better substance use outcomes even with negative perceptions of the neighborhood, positive perceptions of the neighborhoods may help them acquire more recovery capital.

Measuring Architecture in Recovery Homes: Recovery Home Architecture Scale

Background: The settings where we live shape our daily experiences and interactions. Social environment and physical setting characteristics may be particularly important in communal living services, such as recovery homes for alcohol and drug disorders. Objectives: This paper describes the measurement and mobilization of architectural characteristics in one type of recovery home, sober living houses (SLHs). The Recovery Home Architecture Scale (RHAS) is a 25-item measure comprised of six subscales designed to assess architecture in SLHs. Results: Using a sample of 528 individuals residing in 41 houses, we found the RHAS had good interrater reliability, factor structure, and internal consistency. The measure also showed modest construct validity. The RHAS was not associated with length of stay (LOS) but did interact with a measure of the social environment that predicted LOS, the Recovery Home Environment Scale (RHES). Conclusions: Future studies should include a more diverse sample of SLHs and assess how house management, recovery capital, and other factors work in concert with architecture.

Utilizing the Probation Office as an Opportunity to Screen for Cardiometabolic Outcomes: A Feasibility Study

This cross-sectional study examined whether the probation office setting was feasible to screen adults on probation for cardiometabolic risk factors, measure risk profiles, and estimate the prevalence of obesity, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes. During June and August 2019, screening included blood pressure, anthropometrics, total and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and glucose. A survey included demographics, medical history, and current medication. The participation rate was 36% (N = 202). The screening identified 5% had hypercholesterolemia, 38% of men and 50% of women had low HDL cholesterol, 70% had overweight/obesity, 31% of men and 55% of women had elevated waist circumferences, and 26.7% had Stage 1 hypertension. Of individuals with a history of hypertension (n = 74), 77% had elevated blood pressure. Of those with a history of diabetes (n = 27), 22% had hyperglycemia, independent of whether they reported being prescribed medication. The screening identified 11% with Stage 2 hypertension, 27% with Stage 1 hypertension, 22% with elevated blood pressure, and 5% with hyperglycemia. Our findings suggest it is feasible to identify individuals at high risk for cardiometabolic disorders during routine probation office visits. These data can then be used to provide referrals for treatment to improve long-term health outcomes.

The role of recovery housing during outpatient substance use treatment

BACKGROUND

Recovery housing generally refers to alcohol- and drug-free living environments that provide peer support for those wanting to initiate and sustain recovery from alcohol and other drug (AOD) disorders. Despite a growing evidence base for recovery housing, relatively little research has focused on how recovery housing may benefit individuals accessing outpatient substance use treatment.

METHODS

Using administrative and qualitative data from individuals attending an outpatient substance use treatment program in the Midwestern United States that provides recovery housing in a structured sober living environment, this mixed methods study sought to: (1) determine whether individuals who opted to live in structured sober living during outpatient treatment (N = 138) differed from those who did not (N = 842) on demographic, clinical, or service use characteristics; (2) examine whether living in structured sober living was associated with greater likelihood of satisfactory discharge and longer lengths of stay in outpatient treatment; and (3) explore what individuals (N = 7) who used the structured sober living during outpatient treatment were hoping to gain from the experience.

RESULTS

Factors associated with the use of recovery housing during outpatient treatment in multivariate models included gender, age, and receiving more services across episodes of care. Living in structured sober housing was associated with greater likelihood of satisfactory discharge and longer length of stays in outpatient treatment. Focus group participants reported needing additional structure and recovery support, with many noting that structure and accountability, learning and practicing life, coping, and other recovery skills, as well as receiving social and emotional support from others were particularly beneficial aspects of the sober living environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings underscore the importance of safe and supportive housing during outpatient substance use treatment as well as the need for future research on how housing environments may affect engagement, retention, and outcomes among individuals accessing outpatient substance use treatment.

Identifying the availability of recovery housing in the U.S.: The NSTARR project

BACKGROUND

Home is essential to recovery, and recovery housing can play an important role for individuals seeking a supportive environment. The National Study of Treatment and Addiction Recovery Residences (NSTARR) Project constitutes the largest and most diverse study of recovery housing to date. We describe the development of a national sampling frame to study recovery housing, as well as findings on availability and distribution of recovery housing across the U.S.

METHODS

Data from publicly available sources and lists maintained by entities tracking recovery housing were compiled. Residences for which locating information was available were geocoded and linked with U.S. Census data and drug and alcohol mortality data. We used hot spot analysis and multilevel models to describe the geographic distribution of recovery residences and assess whether residences are located in areas of high need.

RESULTS

The NSTARR database contains information on 10,358 residences operated by 3628 providers in all 50 states. Residences were more likely (p < 0.05) to be in urban areas and in counties with higher substance use mortality; they were less likely to be in economically disadvantaged areas. Recovery housing density also was greater in urban areas and areas with a greater proportion of non-White residents, but lower in economically disadvantaged areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a wealth of research on some types of recovery housing, critical gaps in the field's understanding about the nature of recovery housing remain. The NSTARR Project represents an important first step to expand research on recovery housing across the country.

Characteristics of women with alcohol use disorders who benefit from intensive motivational interviewing

BACKGROUND

Women with alcohol disorders have more severe problems related to their drinking than men. They have higher mortality from alcohol-related accidents and enter treatment with more serious medical, psychiatric, and social consequences.

Objective: This study assessed the effects of Intensive Motivational Interviewing (IMI), a new, 9-session counseling intervention for women with drinking problems.

Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 215 women. Most were white (83%), college educated (61%), and older (mean age 51). Half received IMI and half a standard single session of MI (SMI) along with an attention control (nutritional education).

Results: Generalized estimating equations models showed women who were heavy drinkers at baseline in the IMI condition reduced heavy drinking more than those in the SMI condition at 2-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. Analyses of disaggregated subgroups showed IMI was most effective for women with low psychiatric severity, more severe physical and impulse control consequences associated with drinking, and higher motivation. However, formal 3-way interaction models (condition by moderator by time) showed significant effects primarily at 2 months.

Conclusions: Improvements associated with IMI were limited to heavy drinking and varied among subgroups of women. Studies of women with more diverse characteristics are needed.

A Systematic Review of Motivational Interviewing to Address Substance Use with Justice-Involved Adults

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is widely used in substance abuse treatment, possibly due to the short sessions and the treatment's cost-effectiveness. Previous research has established the efficacy of MI among a broad range of populations and outcomes. However, there is a lack of a review of the knowledge about if MI works with justice-involved individuals who have substance use issues. Purpose: This review aimed to examine the extent of the literature on MI as a treatment to decrease rates of substance use for justice-involved individuals. Methods: The databases utilized for the review include Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), PsycINFO, and ProQuest. The dates for the literature inclusion were from 2008 to March 2020. The literature search was initiated in February and was completed in March 2020. Results: Five RCT studies were identified. Studies were conducted using populations during incarceration in prison, prior to release from jail, through probation, and those with DWI charges. However, all of the populations included were actively being monitored for substance use. All five studies found no difference between groups at the latest point in the study, which for most included the follow-up measure. Consideration for potential moderators such as severity and type of substance use, and length of treatment and follow up data are discussed. Conclusion: The results of the review indicated that more standardized and rigorous research is needed for exploring MI with individuals involved with the justice system with the focus of decreasing substance use.

Psychometric Properties of the Recovery Home Environment Scale

BACKGROUND

Recovery homes for persons with alcohol and drug problems provide an abstinent living environment and social support for recovery. Research shows residents in these homes make significant, sustained improvements. However, descriptions of recovery environments within the homes have been limited.

PURPOSE

The current study assessed psychometric properties for the Recovery Home Environment Scale (RHES), which assessed social environments within one type of recovery home, sober living houses (SLHs).

METHODS

373 residents were interviewed at entry into the house, 1-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up. Measures included the RHES, other measures of the social environment, days of substance use, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Principal components analysis suggested the RHES was largely unidimensional. Exploratory factor analysis suggested items could be grouped into recovery support (3 items) and recovery skills (5 items). Cronbach's alphas for the full scale and the recovery support and recovery skills subscales were 0.91, 0.89, and 0.87, respectively. As hypothesized, construct validity of the RHES was supported by correlations with other measures of the social environment and predictive validity was supported by associations with length of stay and substance use.

CONCLUSIONS

SLHs have been described as "the setting is the service." However, the field has lacked a way to capture characteristics of the social environment. The RHES represents a new way to measure the recovery environment by focusing on social interactions among residents within SLHs and shared activities in the community.

Recovery in context: Sober living houses and the ecology of recovery

Sober living houses (SLHs) are an increasingly common element of the recovery support services landscape, yet little is known about their neighborhood context. This study describes neighborhoods in which SLHs are located and examines differences by house characteristics. SLHs in Los Angeles County (N = 297) were geocoded and linked with U.S. Census, alcohol outlet, recovery resources, and accessibility data. Regression analyses tested differences by house characteristics. Co-ed houses were in neighborhoods that were less ethnically diverse and farther away from recovery resources. Larger house capacity was associated with increased density of off-premise alcohol outlets but also increased proximity to treatment. Higher fees were associated with lower neighborhood disadvantage and off-premise alcohol outlet density but the greater distance from treatment programs and other recovery resources. House characteristics are associated with neighborhood factors that both support recovery and place residents at risk.

House Manager Roles in Sober Living Houses

Background

Alcohol and drug treatment providers are increasingly emphasizing the role of long-term, community-based systems of care. A good example is Sober Living Houses (SLHs), which are peer operated alcohol- and drug-free living environments. Studies show residents of SLHs make significant improvements in multiple areas. However, little attention has been devoted to describing the critically important role of SLH managers who oversee these homes.

Methods

Thirty-five SLH managers completed interviews about the characteristics and operations of their houses, their activities as managers, and ways their own recovery was affected by their work.

Results

Managers reported widespread use of some but not all principles of social model recovery. Manager roles varied dramatically in terms of time spent managing houses, activities related to their roles, and training they received. Some reported extensive amounts of time proving support to residents, while others viewed their role as primarily administrative.

Conclusions

Research is needed to understand reasons for manager differences, optimal manager functioning, and manager training needs. Research is also needed to assess whether different house characteristics require different manager roles.

Recovery Home Environment Characteristics Associated with Recovery Capital

Background

Recovery capital refers to internal and external resources that facilitate recovery from alcohol and drug disorders. Examples include support from friends and family, access to health and other services, stable housing and finances, and internal assets, such as self-esteem and motivation. Recovery capital is receiving increased emphasis as an integral component of addiction services. However, there are a limited number of studies assessing recovery capital in different settings.

Methods

The current study assessed recovery capital among 363 individuals entering sober living recovery homes (SLHs) and showed how recovery capital was associated with individual and social environment characteristics of the houses. Individual characteristics were assessed shortly after residents entered the house (mean=17 days, sd=9.0). Approximately one month later, individuals were interviewed about their perceptions of the social environment within the household. We hypothesized residents' perceptions of social model characteristics within the household would be associated with higher recovery capital.

Results

Study findings showed individual characteristics associated with recovery capital included motivation, support from friends and family, and 12-step involvement. Perceptions of the social environment assessed by four subscales on the Community Oriented Program Evaluation Scale and a measure of social model characteristics were correlated with recovery capital. Regression analyses controlling for individual characteristics showed modest, but consistent associations with recovery capital.

Conclusion

Even after relatively short periods of time in SLHs, resident perceptions of the social environment show associations with recovery capital. Additional research is needed to understand causal dynamics of this relationship and associations with outcome.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low-certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low-certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low-certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug-related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow-up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low-certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty-evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low-certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD -0.89, 95% CI -4.83 to 3.05; low certainty-evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT-CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow-up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self-reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low-certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low- to low-certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate-certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre- and post-release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post-release; low certainty-evidence. No adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence.

Beneficial effects of motivational interviewing case management: A latent class analysis of recovery capital among sober living residents with criminal justice involvement

BACKGROUND

This secondary analysis uses data from a recent clinical trial conducted with probationers and parolees with substance use disorders (N = 330) residing in Sober Living Houses (SLHs). The treatment condition received Motivational Interviewing Case Management (MICM), while controls received usual care SLH residency. Both conditions improved on multiple domains, though residents randomized to MICM improved significantly more than usual care controls on criminal justice outcomes. Because MICM is designed to help ex-offenders attain more recovery capital (RC) in multiple domains, we hypothesized MICM participants that already possessed higher RC would show significantly greater improvement at follow-up than usual SLH residents with higher RC. Moreover, MICM and usual SLH residents with low RC would show no differences at 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

A latent class analysis (LCA) grouped participants into two patterns of RC: those with low RC and those with high RC. These classes were interacted with study condition to predict change on six Addiction Severity Indices (ASI) at follow-up.

RESULTS

MICM was more effective for the higher RC class, with greater improvement in drug, legal, and psychiatric outcomes for those who attended at least three MICM sessions. MICM was no more beneficial than usual care for those in a low RC class.

CONCLUSIONS

SLH operators should consider implementation of MICM for residents with more RC resources. Those with fewer recovery resources, such as a history of psychiatric problems or physical/sexual abuse, would benefit from a more intensive intervention to assist them with improving the amount and quality of their RC.

Sober living house characteristics: A multilevel analyses of factors associated with improved outcomes

Safe and stable housing is integral to addiction recovery. Across numerous studies, recovery housing has been found to be associated with improvements in a variety of domains. Although procedures for operating some types of recovery housing have been manualized and national standards established, there are few empirical findings identifying which recovery residence characteristics may lead to improved outcomes. Using data from 330 newly admitted residents recruited from 49 sober living houses in California and re-contacted for 6- and 12-month follow-up interviews, this study examines the effects of organizational, operational, and programming characteristics on substance use, criminal justice, and employment outcomes. Results from multilevel analyses adjusting for resident demographics and length of stay indicate that organizational characteristics were associated with outcomes. Residents recruited from houses that were part of a larger organization or group of houses had increased odds of total abstinence (aOR = 3.98, p < 0.001) and drug abstinence (aOR = 3.19, p < 0.001). Residents recruited from houses that were affiliated with a treatment program had increased odds of employment (aOR = 2.92, p = 0.003). Operational characteristics such as where the house was located and whether the house required incoming residents to be sober for at least 30 days prior to entry were also related to improved outcomes, but additional work is needed to develop tools to assess and measure recovery housing characteristics and to better understand how these factors contribute to improved outcomes.