Emphasize personal health benefits to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates.

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines is a tremendous scientific response to the current global pandemic. However, vaccines per se do not save lives and restart economies. Their success depends on the number of people getting vaccinated. We used a survey experiment to examine the impact on vaccine intentions of a variety of public health messages identified as particularly promising: three messages that emphasize different benefits from the vaccines (personal health, the health of others, and the recovery of local and national economies) and one message that emphasizes vaccine safety. Because people will likely be exposed to multiple messages in the real world, we also examined the effect of these messages in combination. Based on a nationally quota representative sample of 3,048 adults in the United States, our findings suggest that several forms of public messages can increase vaccine intentions, but messaging that emphasizes personal health benefits had the largest impact.

Establishing Quality and Outcome Measures for Recovery Housing: A Tiered Approach Supporting Service Evolution.

With over one-hundred thousand drug overdose deaths in 2021, substance use disorder (SUD) is a public health crisis in the United States. Medical stabilization has been the predominant focus of SUD interventions despite low levels of retention. Consequently, national quality measures for SUD care outside the clinical continuity of care are limited. The expansion of recovery support services addressing social drivers of health outside clinical settings is needed. The current SUD quality measures are not applicable nor feasible for recovery support service providers with limited resource capacities, like the estimated 17,900 recovery housing providers nationwide. Despite widespread support for recovery housing and its documented effectiveness, no universal set of measures has been developed for widespread adoption. In this brief, a matrix of quality measures are proposed to meet the needs of recovery housing providers with various capacities to support service evolution and improve equitable SUD treatment and recovery care.

Psychometric properties of the Fletcher Recovery Housing Alliance Measure (FRHAM-12).

Background: Recovery Housing (RH), an important resource for substance use disorder (SUD) recovery, centers on shared lived experience. Program evaluation considers the contribution of environmental factors to outcomes, yet most research on outcomes has focused on patient factors and fidelity to protocols. Investigations of process measures reflecting the dynamic interplay between patient factors and the treatment program are limited. Alliance, one's perceived connection with others, is a process measure associated with mental health outcomes and includes domains "tasks," "goals," and "bonds." We posit that alliance serves as a proxy construct to measure the impact of shared experience in RH.Objectives: Develop and assess the psychometric properties of the Fletcher Recovery Housing Alliance Measure (FRHAM-12) for RH.Methods: A cross-sectional survey with the 12-item FRHAM-12 was administered to 271 individuals (60% men, 39% women, 1% other) within six RH centers in Kentucky. Item-total correlations, internal consistency reliability, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted.Results: The FRHAM-12 was found to have a strong internal consistency (0.924 alpha coefficient) and the EFA yielded a single component (56.38% of cumulative scale variance). CFA indicated acceptable levels of absolute and relative fit of a unidimensional scale with values of 0.67 and 0.976 for the standardized root mean square residual and relative fit index.Conclusion: This study aimed to construct and validate an initial measure for RH alliance resulted in the brief, FRHAM-12; a tool with strong internal and factor validity. Future research should examine the measure's predictive and concurrent validity.

Effects of Physical Distancing to Control COVID-19 on Public Health, the Economy, and the Environment.

Physical distancing measures are important tools to control disease spread, especially in the absence of treatments and vaccines. While distancing measures can safeguard public health, they also can profoundly impact the economy and may have important indirect effects on the environment. The extent to which physical distancing measures should be applied therefore depends on the trade-offs between their health benefits and their economic costs. We develop an epidemiological-economic model to examine the optimal duration and intensity of physical distancing measures aimed to control the spread of COVID-19. In an application to the United States, our model considers the trade-off between the lives saved by physical distancing-both directly from stemming the spread of the virus and indirectly from reductions in air pollution during the period of physical distancing-and the short- and long-run economic costs that ensue from such measures. We examine the effect of air pollution co-benefits on the optimal physical distancing policy and conduct sensitivity analyses to gauge the influence of several key parameters and uncertain model assumptions. Using recent estimates of the association between airborne particulate matter and the virulence of COVID-19, we find that accounting for air pollution co-benefits can significantly increase the intensity and duration of the optimal physical distancing policy. To conclude, we broaden our discussion to consider the possibility of durable changes in peoples' behavior that could alter local markets, the global economy, and our relationship to nature for years to come.

Addressing rural and non-rural substance use disorder stigma: Evidence from a national randomized controlled trial.

Background: Individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) and recovery support services often face significant social stigma, especially in rural areas. One method of addressing stigma is through education and personal recovery stories. It is unclear if such messages will work similarly across rural and non-rural areas. Methods: We conduct an exploratory analysis of data from a national randomized controlled trial (N = 2,721) to determine if there are differences in the effectiveness of messages at reducing stigma across rurality. Specifically, we test four interventions to reduce stigma: education about the effectiveness of recovery housing and three versions of a personal recovery story that varied social distance and delivery medium (identified written story, anonymous written story, and video). Results: We find that messages may not have the same effect across rurality, with non-rural participants in the identified and anonymous written recovery story groups having lower stigma scores and only rural participants exposed to the anonymous written story having lower stigma scores compared to their counterparts in the control group. Further, non-rural participants exposed to both written story treatments had higher positive feelings towards those in recovery compared to the control group, but only rural participants in the anonymous written story group had higher positive feelings compared to the control group. Conclusion: Our results suggest that messages may have different effects on stigma across rurality and that rural participants' beliefs may be particularly hard to change. Future research should examine what types of stigma reduction interventions are most effective in rural areas.

Physical distancing versus testing with self-isolation for controlling an emerging epidemic.

Two distinct strategies for controlling an emerging epidemic are physical distancing and regular testing with self-isolation. These strategies are especially important before effective vaccines or treatments become widely available. The testing strategy has been promoted frequently but used less often than physical distancing to mitigate COVID-19. We compared the performance of these strategies in an integrated epidemiological and economic model that includes a simple representation of transmission by "superspreading," wherein a relatively small fraction of infected individuals cause a large share of infections. We examined the economic benefits of distancing and testing over a wide range of conditions, including variations in the transmissibility and lethality of the disease meant to encompass the most prominent variants of COVID-19 encountered so far. In a head-to-head comparison using our primary parameter values, both with and without superspreading and a declining marginal value of mortality risk reductions, an optimized testing strategy outperformed an optimized distancing strategy. In a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis, an optimized policy that combined the two strategies performed better than either one alone in more than 25% of random parameter draws. Insofar as diagnostic tests are sensitive to viral loads, and individuals with high viral loads are more likely to contribute to superspreading events, superspreading enhances the relative performance of testing over distancing in our model. Both strategies performed best at moderate levels of transmissibility, somewhat lower than the transmissibility of the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2.

State-Level Support for Recovery Housing: Results from a National Collaborative Study of U.S. Single State Agencies.

Single State Agencies (SSAs) are responsible for managing the publicly funded alcohol and other drug prevention, treatment, and recovery service system. Recovery housing (RH) is an important recovery support service (RSS) for individuals experiencing substance use disorder (SUD). Despite its effectiveness, information on state utilization and support is limited. To assess state-level support for RH and its incorporation within the SSA-managed SUD service systems, we administered a survey with SSAs in the 50 United States and the District of Columbia. In total, 48 out of the 51 SSAs responded, yielding a 94% response rate. Findings indicate strong state-level support for RH in terms of it being an integral RSS (98%), part of state-level strategic plans (73%) and prioritized for funding (87.5%). States are making progress to formalize RH with 68% reporting RH had been defined formally or within their agency. However, activities around understanding the capacity and need for RH are limited, with 44% indicating a needs assessment had not been conducted. At the same time, states perceive RH as a priority RSS, with growing recognition of its positive impact on long-term SUD recovery. This research identifies the opportunities for stakeholders to further evolve and expand RH at the federal, state, and local levels.

Financial landscape of recovery housing in the United States.

Recovery housing provides substance-free living environments that use peer-support to empower individuals in recovery from substance use disorder. This study estimated the total revenue of the recovery housing industry from recovery houses, nationwide.Using survey data collected in June and July of 2020, we calculate the total revenue of the recovery housing industry and determine the share of revenue that comes from different sources for rural and nonrural houses.We find that individual recovery houses operate with an annual revenue of $250,000 and the whole industry accounts for $4.5 billion annually. COVID-19 has reduced industry revenue by 4%. Rural and nonrural houses differ significantly in their sources of revenue.Our results suggest that COVID-19 reduced the size of the recovery housing industry. Houses in nonrural regions may need more federal support due to the relatively high reliance on resident fees, which may be unreliable during COVID-19.

Hesitancy Toward a COVID-19 Vaccine.

The scientific community has come together in a mass mobilization to combat the public health risks of COVID-19, including efforts to develop a vaccine. However, the success of any vaccine depends on the share of the population that gets vaccinated. We designed a survey experiment in which a nationally representative sample of 3,133 adults in the USA stated their intentions to vaccinate themselves and their children for COVID-19. The factors that we varied across treatments were: the stated severity and infectiousness of COVID-19 and the stated source of the risk information (White House or the Centers for Disease Control). We find that 20% of people in the USA intend to decline the vaccine. We find no statistically significant effect on vaccine intentions from the severity of COVID-19. In contrast, we find that the degree of infectiousness of the coronavirus influences vaccine intentions and that inconsistent risk messages from public health experts and elected officials may reduce vaccine uptake. However, the most important determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy seem to be distrust of the vaccine safety (including uncertainty due to vaccine novelty), as well as general vaccine avoidance, as implied by not having had a flu shot in the last two years.