Improving recovery outcomes among MSM: The potential role of recovery housing

Abstract

Background: Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) face unique recovery challenges. Recovery housing may play an important role in improving outcomes among MSM, but little is known about their experiences in these settings. Methods: This study examined 3-month outcomes among MSM (N=22) living in a group of recovery residences in Texas, one of which is a home specifically designated for gay and bisexual men. Upon intake, adult MSM were recruited to participate in the study, which involved a baseline and 3-month phone interview and allowing study staff to access records maintained by the program about their stay. Results: At follow-up, only two (9.1%) reported used of any substances in the past 30 days. The vast majority (73%) had attended outpatient substance use treatment in the past three months, and 86% reported working for pay during the past 30 days. All participants reported attending four or more 12-step meetings in the past 30 days. Use of dysfunctional coping strategies significantly decreased, however so did scores on health-related quality of life. Conclusions: MSM have complex treatment needs. Recovery housing may help improve outcomes among MSM by bridging formal substance use treatment with community-based recovery support.

Social Rejection, Family Acceptance, Economic Recession, and Physical and Mental Health of Sexual Minorities

“…Programs to prevent and support sexual minorities' health and addiction to substances require consideration (Mericle et al, 2019;Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2016). Policy makers should explicitly address the needs of LGBT people in national health strategies.…”

A scoping review of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use treatment interventions for sexual and gender minority populations

“…Nine studies, all conducted in the United States, examined interventions targeting use of substances other than those previously described-or interventions targeting use of multiple substances (Ashford, Curtis, & Brown, 2018;Empson et al, 2017;Mericle, Carrico, Hemberg, Stall, & Polcin, 2019;Morgenstern et al, 2009;Paul, Barrett, Crosby, & Stall, 1996;Proeschold-Bell et al, 2016;Starks et al, 2019;Wong et al, 2008;Zajac, Rash, Ginley, & Heck, 2020). 2 Five studies focused on preventing SUDs or substance use-related problems (Empson et al, 2017;Morgenstern et al, 2009;Proeschold-Bell et al, 2016;Starks et al, 2019;Wong et al, 2008); the remaining studies focused on treating individuals with SUDs or supporting individuals in recovery from SUDs (Ashford et al, 2018;Mericle et al, 2019;Paul et al, 1996;Zajac et al, 2020). (Paul et al, 1996;Proeschold-Bell et al, 2016), or other components and services (e.g., HIV-risk reduction strategies, case management, recovery support services) (Ashford et al, 2018;Mericle et al, 2019;Starks et al, 2019).…”

“…2 Five studies focused on preventing SUDs or substance use-related problems (Empson et al, 2017;Morgenstern et al, 2009;Proeschold-Bell et al, 2016;Starks et al, 2019;Wong et al, 2008); the remaining studies focused on treating individuals with SUDs or supporting individuals in recovery from SUDs (Ashford et al, 2018;Mericle et al, 2019;Paul et al, 1996;Zajac et al, 2020). (Paul et al, 1996;Proeschold-Bell et al, 2016), or other components and services (e.g., HIV-risk reduction strategies, case management, recovery support services) (Ashford et al, 2018;Mericle et al, 2019;Starks et al, 2019). Five studies used single-arm study designs (Ashford et al, 2018;Empson et al, 2017;Mericle et al, 2019;Paul et al, 1996;Proeschold-Bell et al, 2016) and four were RCTs (Morgenstern et al, 2009;Starks et al, 2019;Wong et al, 2008;Zajac et al, 2020).…”

“…(Paul et al, 1996;Proeschold-Bell et al, 2016), or other components and services (e.g., HIV-risk reduction strategies, case management, recovery support services) (Ashford et al, 2018;Mericle et al, 2019;Starks et al, 2019). Five studies used single-arm study designs (Ashford et al, 2018;Empson et al, 2017;Mericle et al, 2019;Paul et al, 1996;Proeschold-Bell et al, 2016) and four were RCTs (Morgenstern et al, 2009;Starks et al, 2019;Wong et al, 2008;Zajac et al, 2020).…”

“…Bisexual participants had the highest odds of receiving naloxone for an opioid overdose. Four studies focused exclusively on SMM (Mericle et al, 2019;Morgenstern et al, 2009;Paul et al, 1996;Starks et al, 2019) and four studies included SMW (Ashford et al, 2018;Proeschold-Bell et al, 2016;Wong et al, 2008;Zajac et al, 2020), but none reported outcomes separately for SMW. One study focused on HIV-positive transgender women (Empson et al, 2017).…”