Disparities in Alcoholics Anonymous Participation from 2000 to 2020 Among U.S. Residents With an Alcohol Use Disorder in the National Alcohol Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Mutual-help groups (MHGs) like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) are effective for resolving alcohol use disorders (AUDs), but few studies have examined disparities in MHG participation, particularly recently. We used five waves of National Alcohol Survey data to investigate whether prevalence of AA attendance among those with a lifetime AUD differed by race/ethnicity, age, and sex, directly testing whether these associations varied with time. METHOD: Analyses pooled weighted data from 2000 to 2020, including only participants with a lifetime AUD and identifying as non-Hispanic White, Latinx/Hispanic, or non-Hispanic Black/African American (N = 8,876). Logistic regression models examined associations between lifetime AA attendance and survey year, race/ethnicity, age, and sex; models also tested for differences in demographic effects across survey year using interaction terms. RESULTS: In bivariate models, AA attendance was significantly less prevalent among participants identifying as Latinx/Hispanic (vs. White); ages 18-29 (vs. 30-64); and female (vs. male). Survey year was unrelated to AA attendance, and all interactions involving survey year were nonsignificant. In the final multivariate model (which controlled for severity and other help-seeking), disparities persisted for those identifying as Latinx/Hispanic (vs. White; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.63) and ages 18-29 (vs. 30-64; aOR = 0.35); AA attendance was also less prevalent among Black/African American (vs. White) participants (aOR = 0.59), but sex became nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Results replicate and extend sparse findings regarding disparities in MHG attendance and suggest a stagnation in AA's growth and reach to underserved populations. Findings highlight the need to more effectively facilitate MHG attendance (and perhaps broader social network change) among racial/ethnic minorities and emerging adults.

Assessing a pilot scheme of intensive support and assertive linkage in levels of engagement, retention, and recovery capital for people in recovery housing using quasi-experimental methods.

INTRODUCTION: Strong and ever-growing evidence highlights the effectiveness of recovery housing in supporting and sustaining substance use disorder (SUD) recovery, especially when augmented by intensive support that includes assertive linkages to community services. This study aims to evaluate a pilot intensive recovery support (IRS) intervention for individuals (n = 175) entering certified Level II and III recovery residences. These individuals met at least three out of five conditions (no health insurance; no driving license; substance use in the last 14 days; current unemployment; possession of less than $75 capital). The study assesses the impact of the IRS on engagement, retention, and changes in recovery capital, compared to the business-as-usual Standard Recovery Support (SRS) approach (n = 1758). METHODS: The study employed quasi-experimental techniques to create weighted and balanced counterfactual groups. These groups, derived from the Recovery Capital assessment tool (REC-CAP), enabled comparison of outcomes between people receiving IRS and those undergoing SRS. RESULTS: After reweighting for resident demographics, service needs, and barriers to recovery, those receiving IRS exhibited improved retention rates, reduced likelihood of disengagement, and growth in recovery capital after living in the residence for 6-9 months. CONCLUSION: The results from this pilot intervention indicate that intensive recovery support, which integrates assertive community linkages and enhanced recovery coaching, outperforms a balanced counterfactual group in engagement, length of stay, and recovery capital growth. We suggest that this model may be particularly beneficial to those entering Level II and Level III recovery housing with lower levels of recovery capital at admission.

Substance use and misuse patterns and disability status in the 2020 US National Alcohol Survey: A contributing role for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Evidence about substance use and misuse among adults with disabilities is still emerging, despite increased risk of chronic pain and mental health problems, which are in turn risk factors for substance use and misuse. OBJECTIVE: We examined substance use and misuse among adults with selected self-reported disability (versus without), controlling for sociodemographics, depression/anxiety, physical health, and chronic pain, and assessed whether associations could be attributed to chronic pain. METHODS: Data are from the nationally representative 2020 US National Alcohol Survey. Disability indicators included sensory or mobility impairment, receiving Medicare before age 65, and/or unemployment due to disability. Regression analyses determined associations of disability with past-year substance use and misuse. Mediation analyses examined the role of chronic pain. RESULTS: Approximately 18% met 1+ disability criterion, representing 42.8 million adults. Disability was associated with reduced odds of current drinking (OR = 0.77, p < 0.01), but greater odds of daily nicotine use (OR = 1.43, p < 0.01), any drug use (OR = 1.32 p < 0.01), prescription drug misuse (OR = 1.99, p < 0.001), and other drug use (OR = 2.02, p < 0.001). Disability was not associated with high-intensity drinking or marijuana use. Chronic pain accounted for 17-38% of the association between disability and nicotine use, any drug use, prescription drug misuse, and other drug use. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicated higher rates of substance use and misuse among people with disabilities, accounting for depression/anxiety, physical health, and chronic pain, with pain being a significant mediator. Substance use screening, brief intervention, and treatment should include appropriate accommodations for disabilities, inclusive of comprehensive pain management options.

Recovery in context: Sober living houses and the ecology of recovery.

Sober living houses (SLHs) are an increasingly common element of the recovery support services landscape, yet little is known about their neighborhood context. This study describes neighborhoods in which SLHs are located and examines differences by house characteristics. SLHs in Los Angeles County (N = 297) were geocoded and linked with U.S. Census, alcohol outlet, recovery resources, and accessibility data. Regression analyses tested differences by house characteristics. Co-ed houses were in neighborhoods that were less ethnically diverse and farther away from recovery resources. Larger house capacity was associated with increased density of off-premise alcohol outlets but also increased proximity to treatment. Higher fees were associated with lower neighborhood disadvantage and off-premise alcohol outlet density but the greater distance from treatment programs and other recovery resources. House characteristics are associated with neighborhood factors that both support recovery and place residents at risk.

Randomized Trial of an Innovative Electronic Screening and Brief Intervention for Reducing Drinking Among Women of Childbearing Age.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of an innovative, self-administered, electronic Screening and Brief Intervention (e-SBI) in English and Spanish, "DrinkWise," for reducing drinking among nonpregnant women of childbearing age. METHODS: A parallel design, phase 1 trial included 185 nonpregnant women reporting risky drinking (8 or more drinks in a week or 3 or more drinks in a day) who were recruited from 2 publicly funded Nutritional Assistance for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program sites in the United States from 2016 to 2017. Participants were 18 to 44 years in age, 75% of Hispanic ethnicity, 44% Spanish speakers, 30% had not completed high school, and 15% were currently breastfeeding. Participants were randomized to receive (intervention condition, n = 99) or not receive (control condition, no intervention, n = 86) DrinkWise and followed at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Women receiving DrinkWise had greater reductions in the odds of self-reported weekly alcohol use (odds ratio [OR] = 0.22, SE = 0.12, P < 0.01) and heavy alcohol use (OR = 0.23, SE = 0.14, P < 0.05) at 6-month follow-up than controls, with no group differences at 3-month follow-up. Compared with heavy drinking controls, heavy drinkers receiving DrinkWise showed a trend (P = 0.06) for greater reductions in drink (pour) size from 3- to 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: DrinkWise may be efficacious in reducing drinking among low-income women of childbearing age and provides a low-cost tool for increasing access to recommended SBI among childbearing-age women. Studies should continue to build DrinkWise's evidence base. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02337361.

State Policies Targeting Alcohol Use during Pregnancy and Alcohol Use among Pregnant Women 1985-2016: Evidence from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

BACKGROUND: Most states have at least one policy targeting alcohol use during pregnancy. The public health impact of these policies has not been examined. We sought to examine the relationship between state-level policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy and alcohol use among pregnant women. METHODS: Data include state-level alcohol and pregnancy policy data and individual-level U.S. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data about pregnant women's alcohol use from 1985 to 2016 (N = 57,194). Supportive policies include mandatory warning signs, priority substance abuse treatment, reporting requirements for data and treatment purposes, and prohibitions on criminal prosecution. Punitive policies include civil commitment, Child Protective Services reporting requirements, and child abuse/neglect. Analyses include logistic regression models that adjust for individual- and state-level controls, include fixed effects for state and year, account for clustering by state, and weight by probability of selection. RESULTS: Relative to having no policies, supportive policy environments were associated with more any drinking, but not binge or heavy drinking. Of individual supportive policies, only the following relationships were statistically significant: mandatory warning signs was associated with lower odds of binge drinking, and priority treatment for pregnant women and women with children was associated with higher odds of any drinking. Relative to no policies, punitive policy environments were also associated with more drinking, but not with binge or heavy drinking. Of individual punitive policies, only child abuse/neglect was associated with lower odds of binge and heavy drinking. Mixed policy environments were not associated with any alcohol outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Most policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy do not seem to be associated with less alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

Recovery Housing: Evolving Models to Address Resident Needs.

Recovery housing is a service delivery modality that simultaneously addresses the social support and housing needs of those in recovery from substance use disorders. This article describes a group of recovery homes in Texas (N = 10) representing a lesser-studied type of recovery housing, one which explicitly bridges treatment and peer support by providing a variety of recovery support services. All residents meet with a recovery coach, undergo regular drug screening, and have access to intensive outpatient treatment-a program that was developed specifically to support the needs of residents in the homes. Unlike the Oxford HouseTM model and California sober living houses, which are primarily financed through resident fees, these homes are supported through a mix of resident fees as well as private and public insurance. While adhering to some aspects of the social model of recovery, none of these homes would meet criteria to be considered a true social model program, largely because residents have a limited role in the governance of the homes. Residences like the ones in this study are not well-represented in the literature and more research is needed.

Distribution and Neighborhood Correlates of Sober Living House Locations in Los Angeles.

Sober living houses (SLHs) are alcohol and drug-free living environments for individuals in recovery. The goal of this study was to map the distribution of SLHs in Los Angeles (LA) County, California (N = 260) and examine neighborhood correlates of SLH density. Locations of SLHs were geocoded and linked to tract-level Census data as well as to publicly available information on alcohol outlets and recovery resources. Neighborhoods with SLHs differed from neighborhoods without them on measures of socioeconomic disadvantage and accessibility of recovery resources. In multivariate, spatially lagged hurdle models stratified by monthly fees charged (less than $1400/month vs. $1400/month or greater), minority composition, and accessibility of treatment were associated with the presence of affordable SLHs. Accessibility of treatment was also associated with the number of affordable SLHs in those neighborhoods. Higher median housing value and accessibility of treatment were associated with whether a neighborhood had high-cost SLHs, and lower population density was associated with the number of high-cost SLHs in those neighborhoods. Neighborhood factors are associated with the availability of SLHs, and research is needed to better understand how these factors affect resident outcomes, as well as how SLHs may affect neighborhoods over time.