Reducing Opioid Mortality in Illinois (ROMI): A case management/peer recovery coaching critical time intervention clinical trial protocol.

Individuals with a history of opioid use are disproportionately represented in Illinois jails and prisons and face high risks of overdose and relapse at community reentry. Case management and peer recovery coaching are established interventions that may be leveraged to improve linkage to substance use treatment and supportive services during these critical periods of transition. We present the protocol for the Reducing Opioid Mortality in Illinois (ROMI), a type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized trial of a case management, peer recovery coaching and overdose education and naloxone distribution (CM/PRC + OEND) critical time intervention (CTI) compared to OEND alone. The CM/PRC + OEND is a novel, 12-month intervention that involves linkage to substance use treatment and support for continuity of care, skills building, and navigation and engagement of social services that will be implemented using a hub-and-spoke model of training and supervision across the study sites. At least 1000 individuals released from jails and prisons spanning urban and rural settings will be enrolled. The primary outcome is engagement in medication for opioid use disorder. Secondary outcomes include health insurance enrollment, mental health service engagement, and re-arrest/recidivism, parole violation, and/or reincarceration. Mixed methods will be used to evaluate process and implementation outcomes including fidelity to, barriers to, facilitators of, and cost of the intervention. Videoconferencing and other remote processes will be leveraged to modify the protocol for safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results of the study may improve outcomes for vulnerable persons at the margin of behavioral health and the criminal legal system.

Public Perceptions of Recovery Prospects and Peer Style (Support and Confrontation) in Services for Serious Mental Illness Versus Substance Use Disorder.

Objective: Peer services have been identified as a key agent in promoting recovery (both as an outcome and as a process) for people with co-occurring disorders. We attempt to make sense of this connection here by examining public perceptions of recovery and peer services separately for serious mental illness (SMI) and substance use disorder. Two different styles may guide peers in providing SMI or substance use disorder services: support or confrontation. The goal of this preliminary study is to examine how styles differ across SMI and substance use disorder conditions and how perceptions of peer style are associated with recovery. Methods: One hundred ninety-five people representing the general public were recruited online via the Amazon MTurk platform. They were asked to complete measures of their endorsement of peer styles and recovery (overall, as-an-outcome, and as-a-process). Results: Peers-as-supportive was endorsed more than confrontational for both SMI and substance use disorder groups. Confrontation was endorsed more for substance use disorder compared to SMI. Overall recovery and recovery-as-process were positively associated with peers-as-supportive for both SMI and substance use disorder. No recovery indices were significantly associated with peers-as-confrontational. Recovery-as-outcome was also associated with peers-as-supportive for substance use disorder. Conclusions: These findings have potential implications for peers and their style in SMI and substance use disorder services as well as in the unique interventions for people with dual disorders.

How does the public understand recovery from severe mental illness versus substance use disorder?

OBJECTIVE: Recovery from severe mental illnesses (SMI) has been described as an outcome (end state where persons are symptom free) or as a process (despite symptoms, people can pursue life goals). Less clear is whether recovery as a process has credibility in the substance use disorders (SUD) community. We examined how public perceptions and expectations of outcome and process between SMI and SUD differed. A severity effect within SMI and SUD categories was also examined. METHOD: Participants (N = 195) read definitions of SMI and SUD and completed an online survey of their agreement on: perceptions of recovery from SMI and SUD as outcome and process, and expectations of recovery as outcome and process. Participants were then given more and less severe SMI (i.e., schizophrenia vs. depression) and SUD (opiate vs. alcohol use) definitions. They then responded to recovery items SMI and SUD conditions with low and high severity. RESULTS: For SMI, perceptions and expectations of recovery as process were endorsed more than outcome. Severity effect led to greater increases in perceptions and expectations about recovery as process. Specifically, differences between outcome and process for schizophrenia were significantly larger than for depression. For SUD, expectations of process were significantly lower than outcome ratings. One negative interaction was found for SUD expectations; difference scores for opiate users were smaller than for alcohol. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We discussed implications for interventions that enhance recovery for people with SMI and SUD. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The housing first technical assistance and training (HFTAT) implementation strategy: outcomes from a mixed methods study of three programs.

BACKGROUND: This paper discusses the initial testing of the Housing First Training and Technical Assistance (HFTAT) Program, a multifaceted, distance-based strategy for the implementation of the Housing First (HF) supportive housing model. HF is a complex housing intervention for serving people living with serious mental illness and a substance use disorder that requires significant individual- and structural-level changes to implement. As such, the HFTAT employs a combined training and consultation approach to target different levels of the organization. Training delivered to all organizational staff focuses on building individual knowledge and uses narrative storytelling to overcome attitudinal implementation barriers. Consultation seeks to build skills through technical assistance and fidelity audit and feedback. METHOD: We employed a mixed method design to understand both individual-level (e.g., satisfaction with the HFTAT, HF knowledge acquisition and retention, and HF acceptability and appropriateness) and structural-level (e.g., fidelity) outcomes. Quantitative data were collected at various time points, and qualitative data were collected at the end of HFTAT activities. Staff and administrators (n = 113) from three programs across three states participated in the study. RESULTS: Satisfaction with both training and consultation was high, and discussions demonstrated both activities were necessary. Flexibility of training modality and narrative storytelling were particular strengths, while digital badging and the community of practice were perceived as less valuable because of incompatibilities with the work context. HF knowledge was high post training and retained after 3-month follow-up. Participants reported training helped them better understand the model. Attitudes toward evidence-based interventions improved over 6 months, with qualitative data supporting this but demonstrating some minor concerns related to acceptability and appropriateness. Fidelity scores for all programs improved over 9 months. CONCLUSION: The HFTAT was a well-liked and generally useful implementation strategy. Results support prior research pointing to the value of both (a) multifaceted strategies and (b) combined training and consultation approaches. The study also provides evidence for narrative storytelling as an approach for changing attitudinal implementation barriers. The need for compatibility between specific elements of an implementation strategy and the work environment was also observed.

Trauma-Informed Care for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness: An Avenue for Community Psychology's Involvement in Community Mental Health.

Individuals with serious mental illness are at particularly high risk for trauma; however, service environments with which they interact may not always be trauma-informed. While community mental health and other human services settings are moving toward trauma-informed care (TIC) service delivery, a variety of TIC frameworks exist without consensus regarding operationalization, thereby leading to challenges in implementation. TIC is principle-driven and presents substantial overlap with community psychology values and competencies, including ecological frameworks, second-order change, empowerment, and citizen participation. One way to address barriers to TIC implementation is to draw on the strengths of the field of community psychology. With a particular emphasis on the applicability of TIC to individuals with serious mental illness, this paper identifies key implementation issues and recommends future directions for community psychologists in clarifying the service framework, its adaptation to specific service contexts, and improving delivery through consultation and evaluation. Community psychologists may work with various disciplines involved in the TIC field to together promote a more conscious, actionable shift in service delivery.

Housing First and harm reduction: a rapid review and document analysis of the US and Canadian open-access literature.

BACKGROUND: Housing First is an evidence-based practice intended to serve chronically homeless individuals with co-occurring serious mental illness and substance use disorders. Despite housing active substance users, harm reduction is an often-overlooked element during the Housing First implementation process in real-world settings. In this paper, we explore the representation of the Housing First model within the open-access scholarly literature as a potential contributing factor for this oversight. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of the US and Canadian open-access Housing First literature. We followed a document analysis approach, to form an interpretation of the articles' content related to our primary research questions. RESULTS: A total of 55 articles on Housing First were included in the final analysis. Only 21 of these articles (38.1%) included explicit mention of harm reduction. Of the 34 articles that did not discuss harm reduction, 22 provided a description of the Housing First model indicating it does not require abstinence from substance use; however, descriptions did not all clearly indicate abstinence was not required beyond program entry. Additional Housing First descriptions focused on the low-barrier entry criteria and/or the intervention's client-centeredness. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrated a lack of both explicit mention and informed discussion of harm reduction in the Housing First literature, which is likely contributing to the Housing First research-practice gap to some degree. Future Housing First literature should accurately explain the role of harm reduction when discussing it in the context of Housing First programming, and public agencies promoting Housing First uptake should provide resources for proper implementation and monitor program fidelity to prevent model drift.

Developing a research agenda for reducing the stigma of addictions, part II: Lessons from the mental health stigma literature.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although advocates and providers identify stigma as a major factor in confounding the recovery of people with SUDs, research on addiction stigma is lacking, especially when compared to the substantive literature examining the stigma of mental illness. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the stigma literature that yielded empirically supported concepts and methods from the mental health arena was contrasted with the much smaller and mostly descriptive findings from the addiction field. In Part I of this two part paper (American Journal of Addictions, Vol 26, pages 59-66, this issue), constructs and methods from the mental health stigma literature were used to summarize research that seeks to understand the phenomena of addiction stigma. RESULTS: In Paper II, we use this summary, as well as the extensive literature on mental illness stigma change, to outline a research program to develop and evaluate strategies meant to diminish impact on public and self-stigma (eg, education and contact). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: The paper ends with recommendations for next steps in addiction stigma research. (Am J Addict 2017;26:67-74).

Developing a research agenda for understanding the stigma of addictions Part I: Lessons from the Mental Health Stigma Literature.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although advocates and providers identify stigma as a major factor in confounding the recovery of people with SUDs, research on addiction stigma is lacking, especially when compared to the substantive literature examining the stigma of mental illness. METHODS: A review of key studies from the stigma literature that yielded empirically supported concepts and methods from the mental health arena was contrasted with the much smaller and mostly descriptive findings from the addiction field. RESULTS: Integration of this information led to Part I of this two part paper, development of a research paradigm seeking to understand phenomena of addiction stigma (eg, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination) and its different types (public, self, and label avoidance). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: In Part II paper (American Journal of Addictions, Vol 26, pages 67-74, this issue), we address how this literature informs a research program meant to develop and evaluate and stigma strategies (eg, education, contact, and protest). Both papers end with recommendations for next steps to jumpstart the addiction stigma portfolio. Here in Part I, we offer one possible list of key research issues for studies attempting to describe or explain addiction stigma. (Am J Addict 2017;26:59-66).

Development and testing of an implementation strategy for a complex housing intervention: protocol for a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of scientifically designed and tested implementation strategies. Such strategies are particularly important for highly complex interventions that require coordination between multiple parts to be successful. This paper presents a protocol for the development and testing of an implementation strategy for a complex intervention known as the Housing First model (HFM). Housing First is an evidence-based practice for chronically homeless individuals demonstrated to significantly improve a number of outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: Drawing on practices demonstrated to be useful in implementation and e-learning theory, our team is currently adapting a face-to-face implementation strategy so that it can be delivered over a distance. Research activities will be divided between Chicago and Central Indiana, two areas with significantly different barriers to HFM implementation. Ten housing providers (five from Chicago and five from Indiana) will be recruited to conduct an alpha test of each of four e-learning modules as they are developed. Providers will be requested to keep a detailed log of their experience completing the modules and participate in one of two focus groups. After refining the modules based on alpha test results, we will test the strategy among a sample of four housing organizations (two from Chicago and two from Indiana). We will collect and analyze both qualitative and quantitative data from administration and staff. Measures of interest include causal factors affecting implementation, training outcomes, and implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION: This project is an important first step in the development of an evidence-based implementation strategy to increase scalability and impact of the HFM. The project also has strong potential to increase limited scientific knowledge regarding implementation strategies in general.

The Housing First Model (HFM) fidelity index: designing and testing a tool for measuring integrity of housing programs that serve active substance users.

BACKGROUND: The Housing First Model (HFM) is an approach to serving formerly homeless individuals with dually diagnosed mental health and substance use disorders regardless of their choice to use substances or engage in other risky behaviors. The model has been widely diffused across the United States since 2000 as a result of positive findings related to consumer outcomes. However, a lack of clear fidelity guidelines has resulted in inconsistent implementation. The research team and their community partner collaborated to develop a HFM Fidelity Index. We describe the instrument development process and present results from its initial testing. METHODS: The HFM Fidelity Index was developed in two stages: (1) a qualitative case study of four HFM organizations and (2) interviews with 14 HFM "users". Reliability and validity of the index were then tested through phone interviews with staff members of permanent housing programs. The final sample consisted of 51 programs (39 Housing First and 12 abstinence-based) across 35 states. RESULTS: The results provided evidence for the overall reliability and validity of the index. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the index's ability to discriminate between housing programs that employ different service approaches. Regarding practice, the index offers a guide for organizations seeking to implement the HFM.