Study protocol paper for the multi-site feasibility evaluation of mobile and technology-assisted aftercare services for crisis stabilization units.

BACKGROUND: Law enforcement frequently responds to substance abuse and mental health crises. Crisis stabilization units (CSUs) operate as a public-receiving facility to provide short-term stabilization services for individuals experiencing these crises and offer law enforcement an important alternative to arrest. However, there is limited understanding about how and when law enforcement decides to use CSUs. There is also the challenge of retaining individuals in treatment after CSU stabilization to prevent future crises and persistent engagement with police. This study will respond to these gaps by exploring CSU procedures and examining the feasibility and acceptability of a technology-assisted mobile aftercare intervention designed for individuals brought to a CSU by law enforcement. METHODS: This study will consist of three aims. Aim 1 will include qualitative interviews with law enforcement and CSU-affiliated mental health staff (n=80) regarding CSU utilization and collaboration logistics between the groups. Findings from Aim 1 will be synthesized for the development of an implementation guide of our intervention, mobile, and technology-assisted aftercare, designed for individuals brought to a CSU by law enforcement, during Aim 2. During Aim 2, intervention services will be pilot-tested for 6 months through a small sample (n=24), randomized control trial (RCT). Control participants will receive standard services available for individuals discharging from a CSU. Treatment participants will receive the mobile aftercare intervention. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-recruitment for all study participants. Aims 1 and 2 will inform the design of a multi-site RCT to compare CSUs with and without mobile and technology-assisted aftercare (Aim 3). DISCUSSION: The study will offer decision making and procedural insight into law enforcement use of CSUs as an alternative to jail and provide opportunities to inform that process. This research will provide outcome trends for those who go through standard CSU services compared to those who receive mobile and technology-assisted aftercare services. The current study will inform a larger RCT efficacy study of CSUs with and without technology-assisted aftercare services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (reference #NCT04899934) on May 25, 2021.

Helping families heal in substance use treatment: A qualitative study about the role of peer support specialists with client families.

INTRODUCTION: Peer support specialists (PSS) are people with previous psychiatric illness or substance use disorders who use their experience to support those facing similar hardships. PSS offer a range of beneficial outcomes to both the PSS and clients. The most immediate social connections to those seeking treatment are often their families, yet no PSS studies are inclusive of family involvement. Strong theoretical and empirical support exists for family involvement in addiction treatment, but no studies to date on families in substance use treatment include PSS. This study offers a first look at PSS's experiences with client families. We aimed to describe experiences and attitudes of PSS in working with families of those seeking substance use treatment. METHODS: This qualitative study included 25 adult PSS with at least 1 year of work experience in substance use treatment and state credentialing board certification. Participants had one interview either in a focus group format or individually. The recruitment and data collection phase lasted from November 2020 to June 2021. The semi-structured interview protocol included six main questions and interviews lasted 60 to 75 min. Upon completion of each interview, the recordings were transcribed and inductively coded. Thematic analysis of the codes identified overarching themes and their implications were described with associated quotes. RESULTS: Thematic analysis generated three interrelated themes. First, participants described the various ways they often work with the families of their clients, which seemed to be dependent on the age of the client. Second, participants identified the negative aspects of working with families such as family drama, stress, and co-dependency issues. Last, the third theme identified the ways in which PSS assist families in healing from the effects of addiction. The themes identify a complicated and conflicting approach to work with families. Overall, it seemed PSS were operating on their own experiences or suggestions given by supervisors to guide them with no training on how to approach families. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights a deficit in PSS training on their role with families, family intervention, and the impact of family on substance use treatment for adults and youth. More research needs to establish the PSS role with families and with clients from marginalized backgrounds. Credentialing and national associations that support PSS should develop additional training and education opportunities related to working with families for PSS, supervisors, and organizational leadership who employ PSS for substance use treatment.

Evaluation of an occupational therapy reentry program: Achieving goals to support employment and community living after incarceration.

BACKGROUND: Individuals released from prisons to community supervision often experience unstable housing, unemployment, substance misuse, mental ill-health, and lack of support systems contributing to high rates of recidivism. Occupational therapy practitioners have distinct value in promoting engagement in new habits and routines to support "occupation," or development of daily living skills to support community reentry. OBJECTIVE: We developed an occupational therapy (OT) program within a Department of Corrections (DOC) Community Supervision Center in the Midwest United States. The purpose of this study was to determine feasibility and efficacy of an OT program for community reentry. METHODS: The program was piloted with a sample of five justice-involved men who received OT interventions. Pre- and post-test assessments included a behavioral health interview, demographic survey, five Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assessments, the Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) and Activity Card Sort-Advancing Inclusive Assessment. Descriptive analyses were performed to determine goal attainment and compare pre- and post-test scores over time and to a reference population (PROMIS). Staff of the DOC were also interviewed to assess perceived feasibility and efficacy of this pilot. RESULTS: Significant health changes were reported in participant self-efficacy, managing emotions, anxiety, and sleep disturbances (1 > SD). Moderate changes were seen in reduced feelings of social isolation (0.5 > 1SD). CONCLUSION: It was feasible to implement an OT program with tailored reentry interventions based on unique needs of criminal justice involved individuals. Initial findings suggest OT offers health promotion benefits to reduce risk of recidivism and prepare individuals for community reentry following incarceration.

The Role of Mental Health Courts in Mitigating Family Violence.

Mental health courts are one potential means to mitigate violence against family members by people with mental illness. This study identified the rate at which cases of family violence come before a mental health court and the success of defendants charged with assaulting family members. In a sample of 1,456 defendants eligible to participate in a mental health court, descriptive statistics were used to report rates of admission of defendants charged with assaulting family members and their characteristics; a static group design was used to compare post-program rearrests among defendants who assaulted family members who successfully completed the program, who did not complete the program, and who did not participate despite being eligible; and logistic regression was used to determine the effect of participation on rearrest when controlling for demographic and clinical factors. The study found that family violence occurred in 24.7% of admitted cases. Most eligible defendants who assaulted family members (75.8%) participated in the court program, and among those who did, 72.2% successfully completed the program. Defendants who assaulted family members and had a positive program termination had a much lower rate of rearrest post-program completion compared with those who did not complete the program or did not participate despite being eligible, a finding that held when controlling for other factors. This study suggests that mental health courts can be an effective option for mitigating family violence committed by people with mental illness.