No abstract

Integrating substance use disorder (SUD) services with primary care (PC) can improve access to SUD services for the 20.9 million Americans who need SUD treatment but do not receive it, and help prevent the onset of SUDs among the 68 million Americans who use psychoactive substances in a risky manner. We lay out the reasons for integrating SUD and PC services and then explore the models used and the experiences of providers as they have begun SUD/PC integration in California.

Further research is needed to investigate real-world acceptability of extended-release naltrexone for alcohol and opioid use disorders, and potential gender differences. This study examines treatment and clinical characteristics among men and women receiving extended-release naltrexone in a large, publicly funded substance use disorder treatment system (N = 465; 52% female). Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, and the number of extended-release naltrexone doses received were collected from administrative data and treatment program staff. Additionally, patients provided information on experiences with extended-release naltrexone in an open-ended format at 1, 2, and 3 weeks following their first injection. For a subsample of patients (N = 220), alcohol/opioid cravings and specific adverse effects were also assessed. Compared to men, women reported experiencing a higher rate and mean number of adverse effects. Overall, craving scores showed substantial reductions over time. However, among patients taking extended-release naltrexone for alcohol use, women showed a significantly greater reduction in craving scores compared to men. No gender differences were observed in the number of extended-release naltrexone doses received. Although women may have a greater need for additional support in managing early adverse effects, extended-release naltrexone as an adjunct to psychosocial treatment may be an acceptable and promising treatment approach for both men and women, and particularly for women prescribed extended-release naltrexone for alcohol use. This study contributes further information on patients' experiences during the early course of extended-release naltrexone treatment in real-world settings. Understanding these experiences may assist policy makers and treatment providers in addressing challenges of implementing this treatment into wider practice.

Objective Improved understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of treatment organizations’ dual diagnosis capability is critical in order to guide efforts to improve services. This study assesses programs’ capacity to meet the needs of clients with dual diagnosis, identifies areas where they are well equipped to serve these clients, and determines where programmatic improvement is needed. The study also undertakes an initial exploration of the potential impact that funding sources have on dual diagnosis capability. Methods We administered Dual Diagnosis Capability in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) and Dual Diagnosis Capability in Mental Health Treatment (DDCMHT) assessments at 30 treatment programs in two California counties. Seven of the programs received funding to provide both mental health and substance use disorder services, 13 received funding to provide mental health services, and 10 received funding to provide substance use disorder services. Results The mean DDCAT/DDCMHT score of programs in the sample was 2.83, and just over 43% of the sample met or exceeded DDCAT/DDCMHT criteria for dual diagnosis capability. Programs scored highest and had the highest rates of dual diagnosis capability in domains related to assessment, training, and staffing, whereas scores were weakest and rates of dual diagnosis capability were lowest in the program structure, treatment, and continuity of care domains. Programs that received funding to provide both mental health and substance use disorder services consistently scored higher than the other programs in the sample, and mental health programs scored higher than substance use disorder treatment programs both on the overall assessments and in most domains. Conclusions Findings suggest that programs in the sample are functioning at a nearly dual diagnosis capable level. However, structural barriers continue to limit providers’ capacity to serve clients with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, and many organizations have not yet translated their potential to deliver dual diagnosis capable services into practice. By enhancing their program structure, treatment services, and continuity of care services, these treatment organizations should be able to deliver fully dual diagnosis capable services. Observed differences in dual diagnosis capability based on funding source indicate a need for further research to better understand the impact that funding streams have on dual diagnosis capability.