Preliminary results from Brazil's first recovery housing program

Community-based psychosocial substance use disorder interventions in low-and-middle-income countries: a narrative literature review

BACKGROUND

Mental health and substance use disorders (SUDs) are the world's leading cause of years lived with disability; in low-and-middle income countries (LIMCs), the treatment gap for SUDs is at least 75%. LMICs face significant structural, resource, political, and sociocultural barriers to scale-up SUD services in community settings.

AIM

This article aims to identify and describe the different types and characteristics of psychosocial community-based SUD interventions in LMICs, and describe what context-specific factors (policy, resource, sociocultural) may influence such interventions in their design, implementation, and/or outcomes.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was conducted to identify and discuss community-based SUD intervention studies from LMICs. Articles were identified via a search for abstracts on the MEDLINE, Academic Search Complete, and PsycINFO databases. A preliminary synthesis of findings was developed, which included a description of the study characteristics (such as setting, intervention, population, target SUD, etc.); thereafter, a thematic analysis was conducted to describe the themes related to the aims of this review.

RESULTS

Fifteen intervention studies were included out of 908 abstracts screened. The characteristics of the included interventions varied considerably. Most of the psychosocial interventions were brief interventions. Approximately two thirds of the interventions were delivered by trained lay healthcare workers. Nearly half of the interventions targeted SUDs in addition to other health priorities (HIV, tuberculosis, intimate partner violence). All of the interventions were implemented in middle income countries (i.e. none in low-income countries). The political, resource, and/or sociocultural factors that influenced the interventions are discussed, although findings were significantly limited across studies.

CONCLUSION

Despite this review's limitations, its findings present relevant considerations for future SUD intervention developers, researchers, and decision-makers with regards to planning, implementing and adapting community-based SUD interventions.

The effectiveness of residential treatment services for individuals with substance use disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Residential treatment is a standard treatment for individuals with severe and complex substance use problems. However, there is limited evidence on best practice approaches to treatment in these settings. This review provides a comprehensive update on the evidence base for residential treatment, and directions for future research and clinical practice.

METHOD

A systematic review of all studies published between January 2013 and December 2018 was conducted. Public health and psychology databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsycARTICLES and PsycINFO) were systematically searched, and forward and backward snowballing were used to identify additional studies. Studies were included if they were quantitative, assessed the effectiveness of residential substance treatment programs for adults, were published in the English language and in peer-reviewed journals. The Effective Public Health Practice Project's Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to assess methodological quality.

RESULTS

Our search identified 23 studies. Eight were rated as methodologically strong, five as moderate and ten rated as weak. Quality ratings were impacted by attrition at follow-up and research design. Despite limitations, results provide moderate quality evidence for the effectiveness of residential treatment in improving outcomes across a number of substance use and life domains.

CONCLUSION

With caution, results suggest that best practice rehabilitation treatment integrates mental health treatment and provides continuity of care post-discharge. Future research and practice should focus on better collection of outcome data and conducting data linkage of key health, welfare and justice agency administrative data to enhance understanding of risk and recovery trajectories.