The TAPS-1 can identify unhealthy substance use in primary care patients with a high level of accuracy, and may have utility in primary care for rapid triage.

No abstract

Disclosure of HIV status to potential and current sex partners by HIV-positive people (HIVPP) is a complex issue that has received a significant amount of attention. Research has found that disclosure depends upon the evaluation by HIVPP of potential benefits and risks, especially of the risks stemming from the profound social stigma of HIV and AIDS. Drawing on concepts from Goffman’s classic stigma theory and Anderson’s more recently developed cultural-identity theory of drug abuse, we analyzed data from in-depth, post-intervention qualitative interviews with 116 heterosexually active, HIV-positive injection drug users enrolled in a randomized trial of a behavioral intervention to prevent HIV transmission. We explored how disclosure experiences lead to “identity impacts” defined as: (1) identity challenges (i.e. interactions that challenge an individual’s self-concept as a “normal” or non-deviant individual); and (2) identity transformations (i.e. processes whereby an individual comes to embrace a new identity and reject behaviors and values of an old one, resulting in the conscious adoption of a social and/or public identity as an HIV-positive individual). Participants engaged in several strategies to manage the identity impacts associated with disclosure. Implications of these findings for research and prevention programming are discussed.

Background There is a need for screening and brief assessment instruments to identify primary care patients with substance use problems. This study’s aim was to examine the performance of a two-step screening and brief assessment instrument, the TAPS Tool, compared to the WHO ASSIST. Methods Two thousand adult primary care patients recruited from five primary care clinics in four Eastern US states completed the TAPS Tool followed by the ASSIST. The ability of the TAPS Tool to identify moderate- and high-risk use scores on the ASSIST was examined using sensitivity and specificity analyses. Results The interviewer and self-administered computer tablet versions of the TAPS Tool generated similar results. The interviewer-administered version (at cut-off of 2), had acceptable sensitivity and specificity for high-risk tobacco (0.90 and 0.77) and alcohol (0.87 and 0.80) use. For illicit drugs, sensitivities were ≥0.82 and specificities ≥0.92. The TAPS (at a cut-off of 1) had good sensitivity and specificity for moderate-risk tobacco use (0.83 and 0.97) and alcohol (0.83 and 0.74). Among illicit drugs, sensitivity was acceptable for moderate-risk of marijuana (0.71), while it was low for all other illicit drugs and non-medical use of prescription medications. Specificities were 0.97 or higher for all illicit drugs and prescription medications. Conclusions The TAPS Tool identified adult primary care patients with high-risk ASSIST scores for all substances as well moderate-risk users of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, although it did not perform well in identifying patients with moderate-risk use of other drugs or non-medical use of prescription medications. The advantages of the TAPS Tool over the ASSIST are its more limited number of items and focus solely on substance use in the past 3 months.

This is an analysis of the odds of arrest, severity of charges, and factors predicting these outcomes in the year after methadone treatment entry using arrest records of patients (N=289) participating in two opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in Baltimore, MD as part of a previously-reported study. Baseline Addiction Severity Index data were examined along with publicly-available dates of arrest and arrest charges from the year before and after OTP entry. Severity of charges was rated independently by three researchers using a 1–7 point scale. Data were analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equations and Multiple Regression. The majority of the patients had no arrests over both time periods (61.6% and 65.7%, respectively). Of those arrested, the majority of the sample were charged with non-severe crimes in the year before and after OTP entry (82.9% and 73.7%, respectively). There were no significant differences in the odds of arrest or severity of charges in the year before versus the year after OTP admission (both p, s>0.05). Predictors of arrest following admission included an arrest in the year prior to admission (p<0.001), younger age (p<0.001), and more lifetime months of incarceration (p=0.045). Predictors of the higher severity of charges included younger age (p<0.001), African-American race (p=0.032), and more lifetime months of incarceration (p=0.018). While in this population, the odds of arrest and severity of charges did not decrease significantly in the year following OTP entry, we discuss the need to avoid generalizing findings without considering those factors that may influence the likelihood of post-OTP entry arrest.

Background: Addressing alcohol harm in prisons can potentially reduce the risk of re-offending, and costs to society, whilst tackling health inequalities. Health savings of £4.3 m and crime savings of £100 m per year can be a result of appropriate alcohol interventions. Prison therefore offers an opportunity for the identification, response and/or referral to treatment for those male remand prisoners who are consuming alcohol above recommended levels. There is however, limited evidence for the effectiveness, optimum timing of delivery, recommended length, content, implementation and economic benefit of Alcohol Brief Interventions (ABI) in the prison setting for male remand prisoners. As part of the PRISM-A study, we aimed to explore the 'elements' of an acceptable ABI for delivery, experiences of engagement with services/health professionals about alcohol use, alongside barriers and facilitators to implementation within the prison setting for male remand prisoners. Materials and methods: Twenty-four in-depth interviews were conducted with adult male remand prisoners at one Scottish prison (n = 12) and one English prison (n = 12). A focus group at each of the prison sites was held with key stakeholders (e.g. prison nurses, prison officers, voluntary alcohol/addiction services, health service managers and commissioners). Thematic analysis techniques utilizing NViVo 10 were employed. Results: A thematic content analysis of the interviews consistently highlighted that the majority of prisoners reflected about the connection between alcohol consumption and criminal offending, particularly in relation to offenses involving physical assaults. They also expressed motivation to change their alcohol consumption. Both prisoner interviews and focus groups with stakeholders (N = 2), indicated the value of continuous follow-up support outside of the prison system and also the need to address the lack of stable social environments, which is often associated with alcohol and drug consumption. Stakeholders further identified organizational barriers to the delivery of ABI, such as limited funding and manageable workloads. Conclusions: The importance of interpersonal trust indicated that intervention delivery by external organizations and nurses were favored in comparison to intervention delivery by prison staff and peer-prisoners. A2 Does perceived risk of harm mediate the effects of a primary care alcohol screening and brief advice intervention for adolescents?

Background: Many young people in England do not use services associated with delivery of alcohol IBA (also called screening and brief intervention). The project tested whether IBA can be delivered to 18-30 year-old, on busy city streets, by trained workers who were not healthcare professionals, without framing it as an 'alcohol reduction' intervention. This approach may be referred to as 'IBA Direct'. Materials and methods: Numbers of participants in the intervention were recorded on a monitoring sheet, along with the individual's gender, age and AUDIT score. The evaluator asked some participants to complete a brief, anonymous feedback form about their experience of the intervention. Results: The project was delivered over 3 days, amassing a total of 24 h across 2 Saturdays and 1 Sunday in August 2015. Four workers were present on all days. In total, 402 brief interventions were completed; however, data from 379 participants were recorded. Forty-one percent were female (21 % missing data) and 42 % were aged in their teens or twenties. A participant feedback form was completed by 61 people. Ninety-three percent (n = 57) rated the service as 'Excellent' or 'Good'. All respondents who answered the question on the suitability of the setting of the service (n = 58) said it was suitable. Nine out of ten respondents (n = 55) stated they would participate in this service in a public setting again. Conclusions: The evaluation of this project has demonstrated the feasibility and high acceptability of IBA Direct being delivered by non-health workers to the public on the streets of London. There were high levels of engagement at each location and among those aged 18-30. Important facilitators were considered to be the 'branding' of the intervention and materials, for example, framed as a 'health quiz' not 'alcohol reduction' and incentives to draw people in such as free 'mocktails' (soft drinks).

No abstract