Testing a Matching Hypothesis for Emerging Adults in Project MATCH: During-Treatment and One-Year Outcomes

Disparities in Alcoholics Anonymous Participation from 2000 to 2020 Among U.S. Residents With an Alcohol Use Disorder in the National Alcohol Survey

OBJECTIVE

Mutual-help groups (MHGs) like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) are effective for resolving alcohol use disorders (AUDs), but few studies have examined disparities in MHG participation, particularly recently. We used five waves of National Alcohol Survey data to investigate whether prevalence of AA attendance among those with a lifetime AUD differed by race/ethnicity, age, and sex, directly testing whether these associations varied with time.

METHOD

Analyses pooled weighted data from 2000 to 2020, including only participants with a lifetime AUD and identifying as non-Hispanic White, Latinx/Hispanic, or non-Hispanic Black/African American (N = 8,876). Logistic regression models examined associations between lifetime AA attendance and survey year, race/ethnicity, age, and sex; models also tested for differences in demographic effects across survey year using interaction terms.

RESULTS

In bivariate models, AA attendance was significantly less prevalent among participants identifying as Latinx/Hispanic (vs. White); ages 18-29 (vs. 30-64); and female (vs. male). Survey year was unrelated to AA attendance, and all interactions involving survey year were nonsignificant. In the final multivariate model (which controlled for severity and other help-seeking), disparities persisted for those identifying as Latinx/Hispanic (vs. White; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.63) and ages 18-29 (vs. 30-64; aOR = 0.35); AA attendance was also less prevalent among Black/African American (vs. White) participants (aOR = 0.59), but sex became nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Results replicate and extend sparse findings regarding disparities in MHG attendance and suggest a stagnation in AA's growth and reach to underserved populations. Findings highlight the need to more effectively facilitate MHG attendance (and perhaps broader social network change) among racial/ethnic minorities and emerging adults.

Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction

BACKGROUND

Substance use is a global issue, with around 30 to 35 million individuals estimated to have a substance-use disorder. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method that aims to strengthen a person's motivation and commitment to a specific goal by exploring their reasons for change and resolving ambivalence, in an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion. This review updates the 2011 version by Smedslund and colleagues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance use on the extent of substance use, readiness to change, and retention in treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 18 electronic databases, six websites, four mailing lists, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. The last search dates were in February 2021 and November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with individuals using drugs, alcohol, or both. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), delivered individually and face to face. Eligible control interventions were no intervention, treatment as usual, assessment and feedback, or other active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We conducted meta-analyses for the three outcomes (extent of substance use, readiness to change, retention in treatment) at four time points (post-intervention, short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 93 studies with 22,776 participants. MI was delivered in one to nine sessions. Session durations varied, from as little as 10 minutes to as long as 148 minutes per session, across included studies. Study settings included inpatient and outpatient clinics, universities, army recruitment centres, veterans' health centres, and prisons. We judged 69 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain and 24 studies to be at low or unclear risk. Comparing MI to no intervention revealed a small to moderate effect of MI in substance use post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.89; I2 = 75%; 6 studies, 471 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect was weaker at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.28; 19 studies, 3351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This comparison revealed a difference in favour of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20; 16 studies, 3137 participants; low-certainty evidence) and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.25; 9 studies, 1525 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.22; 5 studies, 1495 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Retention in treatment was slightly higher with MI (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.52; 2 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparing MI to treatment as usual revealed a very small negative effect in substance use post-intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; 5 studies, 976 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; 14 studies, 3066 participants), a very small benefit of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; 9 studies, 1624 participants), and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; 8 studies, 1449 participants), all with low-certainty evidence. There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39; 2 studies, 150 participants) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16; 5 studies, 1295 participants), both with very low-certainty evidence. Comparing MI to assessment and feedback revealed no difference in substance use at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; 7 studies, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence). A small benefit for MI was shown at medium-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; 6 studies, 688 participants) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 3 studies, 448 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. None of the studies in this comparison measured substance use at the post-intervention time point, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. Comparing MI to another active intervention revealed no difference in substance use at any follow-up time point, all with low-certainty evidence: post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.29; 3 studies, 338 participants); short-term (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; 18 studies, 2795 participants); medium-term (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 15 studies, 2352 participants); and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 10 studies, 1908 participants). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.30; 5 studies, 988 participants; low-certainty evidence) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 12 studies, 1945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to inconsistency, study limitations, publication bias, and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may reduce substance use compared with no intervention up to a short follow-up period. MI probably reduces substance use slightly compared with assessment and feedback over medium- and long-term periods. MI may make little to no difference to substance use compared to treatment as usual and another active intervention. It is unclear if MI has an effect on readiness to change and retention in treatment. The studies included in this review were heterogeneous in many respects, including the characteristics of participants, substance(s) used, and interventions. Given the widespread use of MI and the many studies examining MI, it is very important that counsellors adhere to and report quality conditions so that only studies in which the intervention implemented was actually MI are included in evidence syntheses and systematic reviews. Overall, we have moderate to no confidence in the evidence, which forces us to be careful about our conclusions. Consequently, future studies are likely to change the findings and conclusions of this review.

Evaluating substance use treatment efficacy for younger and older adults

The purpose of this study was to examine the differential efficacy of aftercare substance use treatments for younger (below 40, n = 107) versus older (40+, n = 114) adults (N = 221), using data from a randomized controlled trial in a community-based substance abuse treatment center. The younger adult sample had a mean age of 28.9 while the older adult sample had a mean age of 48.1. Primary outcomes were rates of abstinence and percent use days at 1-year follow-up. Outcomes were compared between standard cognitive behavioral relapse prevention (RP), Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention (MBRP), and 12-step-based treatment as usual (TAU). Results showed significant differences by treatment in the older, but not in younger, subsample of participants. Specifically, the older participants in MBRP had significantly higher abstinence rates compared with those in TAU. Further, the older individuals in MBRP had a significantly lower percent of days on which they used compared with those in TAU and RP. Overall, findings suggest that age group may impact aftercare treatment substance use outcomes.

Substance Use and Mental Health in Emerging Adult Vs Older Adult Men and Women With Opioid Use Disorder

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We examined age differences across genders in clinical characteristics in emerging adult (≤25 years) vs older adult patients (26+ years) with opioid use disorder (OUD).

METHODS

Participants (N = 570; 30% female) entering a comparative effectiveness medication trial of buprenorphine vs extended-release naltrexone.

RESULTS

Differences in clinical characteristics in emerging adult vs older participants were similar across genders. However, women 26+ years reported more mental health problems compared with women ≤25, while men ≤25 years reported more mental health problems compared with men 26+ years.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Different strategies for emerging adult and older patients seeking OUD treatment may be necessary to address psychiatric comorbidities that differ across genders in this population.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Comprehensive psychiatric assessment should be systematically included in OUD treatment for all genders. Treatment should focus on the emerging adult developmental phase when appropriate, with psychiatric treatment tailored for women and men, separately, across the lifespan. (Am J Addict 2020;29:536-542).

Age differences in outcomes among patients in the "Stimulant Abuser Groups to Engage in 12-Step" (STAGE-12) intervention

Emerging adults (roughly 18-29years) with substance use disorders can benefit from participation in twelve-step mutual-help organizations (TSMHO), however their attendance and participation in such groups is relatively low. Twelve-step facilitation therapies, such as the Stimulant Abuser Groups to Engage in 12-Step (STAGE-12), may increase attendance and involvement, and lead to decreased substance use.

AIMS

Analyses examined whether age moderated the STAGE-12 effects on substance use and TSMHO meeting attendance and participation.

DESIGN

We utilized data from a multisite randomized controlled trial, with assessments at baseline, mid-treatment (week 4), end-of-treatment (week 8), and 3- and 6- months post-randomization.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were adults with DSM-IV diagnosed stimulant abuse or dependence (N=450) enrolling in 10 intensive outpatient substance use treatment programs across the U.S.

ANALYSIS

A zero-inflated negative binomial random-effects regression model was utilized to examine age-by-treatment interactions on substance use and meeting attendance and involvement.

FINDINGS

Younger age was associated with larger treatment effects for stimulant use. Specifically, younger age was associated with greater odds of remaining abstinent from stimulants in STAGE-12 versus Treatment-as-Usual; however, among those who were not abstinent during treatment, younger age was related to greater rates of stimulant use at follow-up for those in STAGE-12 compared to TAU. There was no main effect of age on stimulant use. Younger age was also related to somewhat greater active involvement in different types of TSMHO activities among those in STAGE-12 versus TAU. There were no age-by-treatment interactions for other types of substance use or for treatment attendance, however, in contrast to stimulant use; younger age was associated with lower odds of abstinence from non-stimulant drugs at follow-up, regardless of treatment condition. These results suggest that STAGE-12 can be beneficial for some emerging adults with stimulant use disorder, and ongoing assessment of continued use is of particular importance.

Associated factors of readiness to change in young adult risky drinkers

BACKGROUND

Readiness to change alcohol use has been associated with a number of predictors including emotional distress, drinking severity, and consequence severity, as well as with static demographic factors such as gender and race/ethnicity.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationships among these variables and readiness to change alcohol use in young adults.

METHODS

Structural equation modeling was used to test pathways of readiness to change in 1,256 young adult patients (78% male/22% female) ages 18-29 who were provided screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) as part of a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Treatment Capacity Expansion Project.

RESULTS

The strongest relationships were between emotional distress, drinking severity, and consequence severity with readiness to change. Results indicated that participants with more severe alcohol problems demonstrated higher levels of readiness to change alcohol use and therefore, may be more amenable to behavior change. Additionally, females, Hispanic/Latino, and Black non-Hispanic (Black) participants demonstrated higher levels of readiness to change when compared to other groups.

CONCLUSION

These results lend support to the concept that young adults are using alcohol to modulate their emotions. Furthermore, resultant severity of consequences from drinking may play an important role in their readiness to change risky drinking. This may be especially true for females, who reported greater emotional distress, and for Hispanic/Latinos and Blacks, who reported greater drinking severity with greater emotional distress. Caregivers may be better equipped to address young adult alcohol use with this added understanding.