No abstract

Background Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are more prevalent among homeless individuals than in the general population, and homeless individuals are disproportionately affected by alcohol-related morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, abstinence-based approaches are neither desirable to nor highly effective for most members of this population. Recent research has indicated that homeless people aspire to clinically significant recovery goals beyond alcohol abstinence, including alcohol harm reduction and quality-of-life improvement. However, no research has documented this population’s preferred pathways toward self-defined recovery. Considering principles of patient-centred care, a richer understanding of this population’s desired pathways to recovery may help providers better engage and support them. Methods Participants (N = 50) had lived experience of homelessness and AUDs and participated in semi-structured interviews regarding histories of homelessness, alcohol use, and abstinence-based treatment as well as suggestions for improving alcohol treatment. Conventional content analysis was used to ascertain participants’ perceptions of abstinence-based treatment and mutual-help modalities, while it additionally revealed alternative pathways to recovery. Results Most participants reported involvement in abstinence-based modalities for reasons other than the goal of achieving long-term abstinence from alcohol (e.g., having shelter in winter months, “taking a break” from alcohol use, being among “like-minded people”). In contrast, most participants preferred alternative pathways to recovery, including fulfilling basic needs (e.g., obtaining housing), using harm reduction approaches (e.g., switching from higher to lower alcohol content beverages), engaging in meaningful activities (e.g., art, outings, spiritual/cultural activities), and making positive social connections. Conclusions Most people with the lived experience of homelessness and AUDs we interviewed were uninterested in abstinence-based modalities as a means of attaining long-term alcohol abstinence. These individuals do, however, have creative ideas about alternative pathways to recovery that treatment providers may support to reduce alcohol-related harm and enhance quality of life.

Background: People experiencing homelessness are disproportionately affected by alcohol use disorder (AUD). Abstinence-based treatment, however, does not optimally engage or treat this population. Thus, Harm Reduction Treatment for Alcohol (HaRT-A) was developed together with people with lived experience of homelessness and AUD and community-based agencies that serve them. HaRT-A is a compassionate and pragmatic approach that aims to help people reduce alcohol-related harm and improve quality of life (QoL) without requiring abstinence or use reduction. A three-month, two-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted to test the initial efficacy of HaRT-A compared to a services-as-usual control condition. Methods: People experiencing homelessness and AUD (N = 168; 24% women) were recruited in community-based clinical and social services settings. Self-reported alcohol use, alcohol-related harm, motivation, and QoL as well as urinary ethyl glucuronide were assessed over a 3-month follow-up. Participants were randomized to receive HaRT-or services as usual. Over four sessions, HaRT-A interventionists delivered three components: a) collaborative tracking of participantpreferred alcohol metrics, b) elicitation of harm-reduction and QoL goals, and c) discussion of safer-drinking strategies. Results: Compared to control participants, HaRT-A participants reported significantly greater increases in confidence to engage in harm reduction and decreases in peak alcohol use, alcoholrelated harm, AUD symptoms, and positive urinary ethyl glucuronide tests (ps < .05). Findings were inconclusive regarding group differences on QoL (ps > .12). Conclusion: A low-barrier, low-intensity, patient-driven, harm-reduction approach has at least short-term efficacy in improving AUD outcomes in this population. Future studies are needed to establish its longer-term efficacy. Keywords drinking; alcohol-related harm; alcohol treatment; harm reduction; homelessness; quality of life Based on 2017 estimates, 549,928 people in the US are homeless on any given night (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2017), and over 1.4 million people-or 1 in 230 Americans-spent at least one night in a shelter in 2017 (US Department of Housing Collins et al.

Background: Smoking prevalence and mortality is 5 times higher for the chronically homeless versus general population. Unfortunately, traditional smoking cessation treatment does not optimally engage this population. In a preliminary study, smokers experiencing chronic homelessness suggested providers avoid giving advice to quit and instead use a more compassionate, nonjudgmental style to discuss a broader menu of patient-driven options, including safer nicotine use. Most had negative perceptions of smoking cessation medications; however, 76% expressed interest in a switchover to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Methods: Using a community-based participatory research approach, we codeveloped harm-reduction treatment for smoking (HaRT-S) together with people with lived experience of chronic homelessness and smoking and a community-based agency that serves them. In HaRT-S, interventionists embody a compassionate, advocacy-oriented “heart-set” and deliver manualized components: a) participant-led tracking of smoking-related outcomes, b) elicitation of harm-reduction goals and progress made toward them, c) discussion of relative risks of nicotine delivery systems, and d) distribution and instructions on use of safer nicotine products. We then conducted a single-arm, 14-week pilot of HaRT-S ( N = 44). Results: Participants rated procedures “totally acceptable/effective,” which was reflected in 26% overrecruitment within a 4-month period and 70% retention at the 14-week follow-up. For each week in the study, participants experienced an 18% increase in odds of reporting 7-day, biochemically verified, point-prevalence abstinence. All participants reporting abstinence used ENDS. Participants evinced reductions in cigarette dependence (−45%), frequency (-29%), and intensity (−78%; ps < .05). Participants who used ENDS experienced an additional 44% reduction in smoking intensity and a 1.2-point reduction in dependence compared to participants who did not. Conclusions: Harm-reduction counseling plus ENDS shows promise for smokers experiencing chronic homelessness. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the efficacy of this approach in decreasing smoking-related harm and improving health-related quality of life for this marginalized and disproportionately affected population.