Drug treatment courts are an increasingly important tool in reducing the census of those incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses; medication assisted treatment (MAT) is proven to be an effective treatment for opioid addiction. However, little is known about the availability of and barriers to MAT provision for opioid-addicted people under drug court jurisdiction. Using an online survey, we assessed availability, barriers, and need for MAT (especially agonist medication) for opioid addiction in drug courts. Ninety-eight percent reported opioid-addicted participants, 47% offered agonist medication (56% for all MAT including naltrexone). Barriers included cost and court policy. Responses revealed significant uncertainty, especially among non-MAT providing courts. Political, judicial and administrative opposition appear to affect MAT’s inconsistent use and availability in drug court settings. These data suggest that a substantial, targeted educational initiative is needed to increase awareness of the treatment and criminal justice benefits of MAT in the drug courts.

No abstract

Drug treatment courts are an increasingly important tool in reducing the census of those incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses; medication assisted treatment (MAT) is proven to be an effective treatment for opioid addiction. However, little is known about the availability of and barriers to MAT provision for opioid-addicted people under drug court jurisdiction. Using an online survey, we assessed availability, barriers, and need for MAT (especially agonist medication) for opioid addiction in drug courts. Ninety-eight percent reported opioid-addicted participants, 47% offered agonist medication (56% for all MAT including naltrexone). Barriers included cost and court policy. Responses revealed significant uncertainty, especially among non-MAT providing courts. Political, judicial and administrative opposition appear to affect MAT's © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. inconsistent use and availability in drug court settings. These data suggest that a substantial, targeted educational initiative is needed to increase awareness of the treatment and criminal justice benefits of MAT in the drug courts. NIH Public Access

Background Previous studies have indicated that persons with co-occurring mental health and substance use problems can benefit by attending dual-focus mutual aid groups. However, to date, a trial to test the efficacy of these groups has not been published. Method This study randomly assigned 203 substance misusing clients attending a mental health or dual-diagnosis facility to either a dual-focus 12-step group (Double Trouble in Recovery; DTR) or a waiting list control group. Participants were followed for 3–6 months. The primary outcome was substance use (days used in the past 30 with saliva testing to detect under-reporting); secondary outcomes included psychiatric medication adherence, attendance at traditional (single-focus) 12-step meetings (e.g., AA/NA); and improvement in mental health and substance use problems (quality of life). Multilevel model (MLM) regression was used to analyze the nested effect of participants within 8 facilities (7 in New York City and 1 in Michigan). Regression imputation was used to adjust for drug use under-reporting. Results At follow-up 79% of the subjects were interviewed. In intent to treat analysis, DTR subjects compared with control subjects used alcohol (p=.03) and any substances (p=.02) on fewer days. DTR compared with control subjects were also more likely to rate themselves as experiencing better mental health and fewer substance use problems (p=.001). There were no effects for DTR on drug use only, medication adherence or NA/AA attendance. Conclusion Findings reported in previous studies on the association between exposure to DTR and reductions in substance use were partially supported in this efficacy trial.

Over 300,000 patients with an opioid use disorder (OUD) receive methadone maintenance therapy from opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in the United States. Large numbers of these attend OTPs located in New York and New Jersey, areas (largely but not exclusively coastal) impacted by Hurricane Sandy (Sandy) on October 29th, 2012. Disruption of methadone dispensing and other services can have severe consequences to patients (and treatment seekers) such as relapse, dropping out of treatment and resumption or increase in HIV/HCV injection risk behaviors. To facilitate OTP preparedness and response, we developed recommendations for OTPs for future emergencies. Using both qualitative and quantitative measures, we obtained data from OTP directors, staff, patients and out-of-treatment persons to learn how OTPs prepared for the impending hurricane, whether recovery efforts were successful, and what impact the hurricane has had. We observed a wide range of preparation and recovery efforts among participating programs. Director, staff, and patient perspectives on programs' responses and storm impact often differed. Triangulated data suggest that program responses were adequate for a majority of patients. For a sizeable minority of patients, program responses were very successful; for at least 20% of the clinics, program planning and responses were inadequate to meet the needs of patients. Among the recommendations made for sustaining continuity of care in future emergencies are: a focus on improving communication, procuring transportation, guest dosing, and take home provisions.