Association of Bupropion, Naltrexone, and Opioid Agonist Treatment With Stimulant-Related Admissions Among People With Opioid Use Disorder: A Case-Crossover Analysis.

Background: Stimulant use has substantially increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and is associated with worse treatment outcomes. This study's objective was to compare risk of stimulant-related emergency department (ED) and hospital admissions associated with exposure to bupropion, OUD medication (buprenorphine, naltrexone, and methadone), and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; active comparator) relative to days without active prescriptions for medication.Methods: This recurrent-event, case-crossover study used insurance claims from 51,084 individuals with OUD enrolled in the IBM MarketScan (2006-2016) Databases who had at least 1 stimulant-related ED or hospital admission. Conditional logistic regression models estimated the risk of admissions between days without active prescriptions and days with prescriptions for bupropion, OUD medication, and SSRIs. Secondary analyses were conducted by stimulant subtype (cocaine; amphetamine) and event subtype (falls, injuries, or poisonings; psychotic events).Results: Compared to days without active prescriptions, days with bupropion treatment were associated with decreased odds of stimulant-related ED or hospital admissions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.82) Among OUD medications, we observed strong protective associations with decreased admissions for buprenorphine (OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.71), naltrexone (OR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.60-0.70), and methadone (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.51-0.67). The SSRI active comparator group was associated with a small protective association with decreased admissions (OR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93). These effects were sustained in secondary analyses stratifying by stimulant and event subtype.Conclusions: Bupropion and OUD medication, including both naltrexone and opioid agonists, are associated with fewer stimulant-related ED or hospital admissions in patients with OUD. Bupropion may show promise as adjunctive therapy targeting stimulant-specific poisoning risk.

Analysis of Stimulant Prescriptions and Drug-Related Poisoning Risk Among Persons Receiving Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Stimulant medication use is common among individuals receiving buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). Associations between prescription stimulant use and treatment outcomes in this population have been understudied. Objectives: To investigate whether use of prescription stimulants was associated with (1) drug-related poisoning and (2) buprenorphine treatment retention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, recurrent-event cohort study with a case-crossover design used a secondary analysis of administrative claims data from IBM MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid databases from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016. Primary analyses were conducted from March 1 through August 31, 2021. Individuals aged 12 to 64 years with an OUD diagnosis and prescribed buprenorphine who experienced at least 1 drug-related poisoning were included in the analysis. Unit of observation was the person-day. Exposures: Days of active stimulant prescriptions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were drug-related poisoning and buprenorphine treatment retention. Drug-related poisonings were defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, codes; treatment retention was defined by continuous treatment claims until a 45-day gap was observed. Results: There were 13 778 567 person-days of observation time among 22 946 individuals (mean [SD] age, 32.8 [11.8] years; 50.3% men) who experienced a drug-related poisoning. Stimulant treatment days were associated with 19% increased odds of drug-related poisoning (odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.06-1.34]) compared with nontreatment days; buprenorphine treatment days were associated with 38% decreased odds of poisoning (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.59-0.65]). There were no significant interaction effects between use of stimulants and buprenorphine. Stimulant treatment days were associated with decreased odds of attrition from buprenorphine treatment (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.59-0.70]), indicating that stimulants were associated with 36% longer mean exposure to buprenorphine and its concomitant protection. Conclusions and Relevance: Among persons with OUD, use of prescription stimulants was associated with a modest increase in per-day risk of drug-related poisoning, but this risk was offset by the association between stimulant use and improved retention to buprenorphine treatment, which is associated with protection against overdose.

Consumer access to buprenorphine and methadone in certified community behavioral health centers: A secret shopper study.

BACKGROUND: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) has invested substantial resources in Certified Community Behavioral Health Centers (CCBHCs) to integrate mental health and addiction treatment and to address the nation's epidemic of opioid-related morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Using an audit or "secret shopper" method, we surveyed 311 CCBHCs listed in SAMHSA's Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator to identify the proportion of centers that offer buprenorphine and/or methadone treatment and the proportion of these that offer a prescriber visit during patients' first visit to the center. RESULTS: We received responses from 82.6% (n = 257) of the CCBHCs that we attempted to contact. Of those contacted, 33.9% said they offered agonist therapy, 33.5% said they could refer patients to a buprenorphine or methadone provider, and 32.7% said they could neither offer nor refer patients for agonist therapy. Of the agencies contacted, only 2.7% could confirm the availability of a prescriber visit at the patient's first visit to the CCBHC. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant federal investment to integrate addiction and mental health treatment in CCBHCs, CCBHCs have not generally become providers of low-threshold buprenorphine and/or methadone treatment for opioid use disorder. Policy-makers should consider how to better incentivize low-threshold access to buprenorphine and methadone treatment in the nation's network of CCBHCs.

Comparative Effectiveness Associated With Buprenorphine and Naltrexone in Opioid Use Disorder and Cooccurring Polysubstance Use.

Importance: Despite prevalent polysubstance use, treatment patterns and outcomes for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and cooccurring substance use disorders (SUD) are understudied. Objective: To evaluate the distribution of buprenorphine and naltrexone initiation among individuals with OUD with vs without cooccurring SUD and to assess the comparative effectiveness associated with buprenorphine and naltrexone against drug-related poisonings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational comparative effectiveness study used insurance claims from 2011 to 2016 from the US IBM MarketScan databases to study initiation of medications for OUD (MOUD) among treatment-seeking individuals aged 12 to 64 years with a primary diagnosis of OUD. Cooccurring SUD was defined as SUD diagnosed concurrent with or in the 6 months prior to OUD treatment initiation. Treatment was codified as psychosocial treatment without MOUD or initiation or buprenorphine or naltrexone (including extended-release or oral). Methadone recipients were excluded from analysis. Data were analyzed from February 3, 2021, through February 26, 2022. Exposures: MOUD. Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations between cooccurring SUD diagnoses with treatment type were assessed with multivariable regression. The association of drug-related poisoning admissions with days covered with buprenorphine or naltrexone prescriptions vs days without prescriptions was assessed among MOUD initiators. Odds ratios from within-person fixed effects models were estimated as a function of MOUD and stratified by cooccurring SUDs. Results: Among 179 280 individuals with OUD (mean [SD] age, 33.2 [11.0] years; 90 196 [50.5%] men), 102 930 (57.4%) received psychosocial treatment without MOUD. Across 47 488 individuals with cooccurring SUDs, 33 449 (70.4%) did not receive MOUD, whereas across 131 792 individuals without cooccurring SUDs, 69 481 (52.7%) did not receive MOUD. Cooccurring SUD was associated with decreased odds of initiating buprenorphine (risk ratio [RR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.54-0.56]) but increased odds of initiating naltrexone (extended release: RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.05-1.20]; oral: RR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.86-2.03]). Among 12 485 individuals initiating MOUD who experienced at least 1 drug-related poisoning during insurance enrollment, buprenorphine treatment days were associated with decreased poisonings compared with days without MOUD for individuals with cooccurring SUD (odds ratio [OR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.48-0.65]) and individuals without cooccurring SUD (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.53-0.63]), with comparable associations observed for extended-release naltrexone. No protective association was observed for oral naltrexone. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that individuals with OUD and polysubstance use were less likely to initiate buprenorphine and naltrexone than individuals without polysubstance use. Among individuals initiating MOUD, polysubstance use was associated with decreased buprenorphine and increased naltrexone initiation, despite buprenorphine's protective associations against drug-related poisoning.

An examination between treatment type and treatment retention in persons with opioid and co-occurring alcohol use disorders.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) and co-occurring alcohol use disorder (AUD) are understudied. We identified whether co-occurring AUD was associated with OUD treatment type, compared associations between treatment type and six-month treatment retention and determined whether co-occurring AUD moderated these relationships. METHODS: We used an observational cohort study design to analyze insurance claims data from 2011 to 2016 from persons aged 12-64 with an opioid abuse or opioid dependence diagnosis and OUD treatment claim. Our unit of analysis was the treatment episode; we used logistic regression for analyses. RESULTS: Of 211,047 treatment episodes analyzed, 14 % had co-occurring alcohol abuse or dependence diagnoses. Among persons with opioid dependence, persons with co-occurring alcohol dependence were 25 % less likely to receive medication treatment relative to those without AUD. Further, alcohol dependence was associated with decreased likelihood of treatment with buprenorphine (AOR 0.47, 95 % CI 0.44-0.49) or methadone (AOR 0.31, 95 % CI 0.28-0.35) and increased likelihood of treatment with extended-release (AOR 1.36, 95 % CI 1.21-1.54) or oral (AOR 1.73, 95 % CI 1.57-1.90) naltrexone relative to psychosocial treatment. Buprenorphine and methadone were associated with highest retention prevalence regardless of OUD or AUD severity. Co-occurring alcohol abuse or dependence did not meaningfully change retention prevalence associated with buprenorphine or methadone. Co-occurring AUD was not associated with improved retention among persons receiving either formulation of naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine and methadone are associated with relatively high likelihood of treatment retention among persons opioid and alcohol dependence, but are disproportionately under-prescribed.

Association Between Benzodiazepine or Z-Drug Prescriptions and Drug-Related Poisonings Among Patients Receiving Buprenorphine Maintenance: A Case-Crossover Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Persons with opioid use disorder who take benzodiazepines are at high risk for overdose. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of benzodiazepine and Z-drug use with drug-related poisonings among patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance treatment. METHODS: A case-crossover study design was used to analyze prescription claims among persons ages 12-64 with opioid use disorder who had buprenorphine prescriptions and had claims data in the IBM MarketScan databases (2006-2016), encompassing 14,213,075 person-days of observation time for 23,036 individuals who experienced drug-related poisoning. The exposures were buprenorphine prescriptions and benzodiazepine or Z-drug prescriptions, standardized as daily diazepam-equivalent milligram doses and separated by pharmacologic properties (short-acting or long-acting benzodiazepines, Z-drugs). The outcome of interest was nonfatal drug-related poisoning. Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate variation in benzodiazepine or Z-drug and buprenorphine use between poisoning and nonpoisoning days. RESULTS: Buprenorphine treatment days were associated with a nearly 40% reduction in the risk of poisoning events (odds ratio=0.63, 95% CI=0.60, 0.66) compared with nontreatment days, whereas benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment days were associated with an 88% increase in the risk of such events (95% CI=1.78, 1.98). In stratified analyses by dose, we observed a 78% (95% CI=1.67, 1.88) and 122% (95% CI=2.03, 2.43) increase in poisonings associated with low-dose and high-dose benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment days, respectively. High-dose, but not low-dose, benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment was associated with increased poisonings in combination with buprenorphine cotreatment (odds ratio=1.64, 95% CI=1.39, 1.93), but this was lower than the odds risk associated with benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment in the absence of buprenorphine (low-dose: odds ratio=1.69, 95% CI=1.60, 1.79; high-dose: odds ratio=2.23, 95% CI=2.04, 2.45). CONCLUSIONS: Increased risk of nonfatal drug-related poisoning is associated with benzodiazepine or Z-drug treatment in patients with opioid use disorder, but this risk is partially mitigated by buprenorphine treatment. Dose reduction of benzodiazepines or Z-drugs while maintaining buprenorphine treatment may provide the advantage of lowering drug-related poisoning risk.

Association of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment With Alcohol-Related Acute Events.

Importance: Persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) and co-occurring alcohol use disorder (AUD) are understudied and undertreated. It is unknown whether the use of medications to treat OUD is associated with reduced risk of alcohol-related morbidity. Objective: To determine whether the use of OUD medications is associated with decreased risk for alcohol-related falls, injuries, and poisonings in persons with OUD with and without co-occurring AUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This recurrent-event, case-control, cohort study used prescription claims from IBM MarketScan insurance databases from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016. The sample included persons aged 12 to 64 years in the US with an OUD diagnosis and taking OUD medication who had at least 1 alcohol-related admission. The unit of observation was person-day. Data analysis was performed from June 26 through September 28, 2020. Exposures: Days of active OUD medication prescriptions, with either agonist (ie, buprenorphine or methadone) or antagonist (ie, oral or extended-release naltrexone) treatments compared with days without OUD prescriptions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was admission for any acute alcohol-related event defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare OUD medication use between days with and without an alcohol-related event. Stratified analyses were conducted between patients with OUD with and without a recent AUD diagnostic code. Results: There were 8 424 214 person-days of observation time among 13 335 participants who received OUD medications and experienced an alcohol-related admission (mean [SD] age, 33.1 [13.1] years; 5884 female participants [44.1%]). Agonist treatments (buprenorphine and methadone) were associated with reductions in the odds of any alcohol-related acute event compared with nontreatment days, with a 43% reduction for buprenorphine (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.52-0.61) and a 66% reduction for methadone (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.26-0.45). The antagonist treatment naltrexone was associated with reductions in alcohol-related acute events compared with nonmedication days, with a 37% reduction for extended-release naltrexone (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76) and a 16% reduction for oral naltrexone (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.93). Naltrexone use was more prevalent among patients with OUD with recent AUD claims than their peers without AUD claims. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that OUD medication is associated with fewer admissions for alcohol-related acute events in patients with OUD with co-occurring AUD.

Age disparities in six-month treatment retention for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adolescents with opioid use disorder (OUD) are an understudied and vulnerable population. We examined the association between age and six-month treatment retention, and whether any such association was moderated by medication treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used an insurance database with OUD treatment claims from 2006-2016. We examined 261,356 OUD treatment episodes in three age groups: adolescents (ages 12-17), young adults (18-25) and older adults (26-64). We used logistic regression to estimate prevalence of six-month retention before and after stratification by treatment type (buprenorphine, naltrexone, or psychosocial only). Insurance differences (commercial vs Medicaid) in medication treatment prevalence were also assessed. RESULTS: Adolescents were less likely to be retained compared to adults (17.6 %; 95 % CI 16.5-18.7 % for adolescents; 25.1 %; 95 % CI 24.7-25.4 % for young adults; 33.3 %; 95 % CI 33.0-33.5 % for older adults). This disparity was reduced after adjusting for treatment type. For all ages, buprenorphine was more strongly associated with retention than naltrexone or psychosocial treatment. Adolescents who received buprenorphine were more than four times as likely to be retained in treatment (44.8 %; 95 % CI 40.6-49.0) compared to those who received psychosocial services (9.7 %; 95 % CI 8.8-10.8). Persons with commercial insurance were more likely to receive medication than those with Medicaid (73 % vs 36 %, (χ2 = 38,042.6, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Age disparities in six-month treatment retention are strongly related to age disparities in medication treatment. Results point to need for improved implementation of medication treatment for persons with OUD, regardless of age or insurance status.

Implementation and evaluation of Missouri's Medication First treatment approach for opioid use disorder in publicly-funded substance use treatment programs.

BACKGROUND: Leaders of Missouri's State Targeted Response to the opioid crisis (STR) grant have prioritized increasing access to treatment medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) through a "Medication First" approach. This conceptual framework prioritizes rapid, sustained, low-barrier access to MOUD for optimal impact on decreased illicit drug use and mortality. Medication First principles and practices were facilitated through state-level structural changes and disseminated to participating community treatment programs via a multi-pronged, multi-disciplinary approach. In the first nine months of STR, 14 state-contracted treatment agencies operating 38 sites used STR funding to implement the Medication First model. METHODS: We utilized state billing and service data to make comparisons before and during STR on the following outcomes: MOUD utilization, timely access to MOUD, amount of psychosocial services delivered, treatment retention at 1, 3, and 6 months, and monthly price of treatment. We conducted follow-up analyses examining differences across MOUD types (no medication, methadone, buprenorphine, oral naltrexone, mixed antagonist + agonist, and extended release naltrexone). RESULTS: During STR, MOUD utilization increased (44.8% to 85.3%), timeliness of MOUD receipt improved (Median of 8 days vs. 0 days), there were fewer psychosocial services delivered, treatment retention improved at one, three, and six month timeframes, and the median cost per month was 21% lower than in the year prior to STR. All differences were driven by increased utilization of buprenorphine. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest Medication First implementation through STR was successful in all targeted domains. Though much more work is needed to further reduce logistical, financial, and cultural barriers to improved access to maintenance MOUD, the steps taken through Missouri's STR grant show significant promise at making swift and drastic transformations to a system of care in response to a growing public health emergency.

A comparison of buprenorphine and psychosocial treatment outcomes in psychosocial and medical settings.

BACKGROUND: Facing an epidemic of opioid-related mortality, many government health departments, insurers, and treatment providers have attempted to expand patient access to buprenorphine in psychosocial substance use disorder (SUD) programs and medical settings. METHODS: With Missouri Medicaid data from 2008 to 2015, we used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the relative hazards for treatment attrition and SUD-related emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations associated with buprenorphine in psychosocial SUD programs and medical settings. We also tested the association of buprenorphine with hours of psychosocial treatment during the first 30 days of psychosocial SUD treatment. The analytic sample included claims from 7606 individuals with an OUD diagnosis. RESULTS: Compared to psychosocial treatment without buprenorphine (PSY), the addition of buprenorphine (PSY-B) was associated with a significantly reduced hazard for treatment attrition (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.62-0.71). Among buprenorphine episodes, office-based (B-OBOT), outpatient hospital (B-OPH), and no documented setting (B-PHA) were associated with reduced hazards for treatment attrition when compared to the psychosocial SUD setting (B-PSY) (adjusted hazard ratios: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.24-0.31; 0.46, 95% CI: 0.39-0.54; 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61-0.81). Compared to B-PSY, B-OBOT and B-PHA were associated with significantly reduced hazards for a SUD-related ED visits or hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratios: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41-0.85; 0.53, 95% CI: 0.36-0.78). There was no significant difference between B-PSY and B-OPH or B-PSY and PSY in hazard for an SUD-related ED visit or hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the conclusion that adding buprenorphine to Medicaid-covered psychosocial SUD treatment reduces patient attrition and SUD-related ED visits or hospitalizations but that buprenorphine treatment in office-based medical settings is even more effective in reducing these negative outcomes. Policy-makers should consider ways to expand buprenorphine access in all settings, but particularly in office-based medical settings. Buprenorphine treatment in an unbilled setting was associated with an increased hazard for patient attrition when compared to treatment in billed medical settings, indicating the importance of Medicaid-covered provider visits for patient retention.

The case for a medication first approach to the treatment of opioid use disorder.

Background: The opioid addiction and overdose crisis continues to ravage communities across the U.S. Maintenance pharmacotherapy using buprenorphine or methadone is the most effective intervention for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD), yet few have immediate and sustained access to these medications. Objectives: To address lack of medication access for people with OUD, the Missouri Department of Mental Health began implementing a Medication First (Med First) treatment approach in its publicly-funded system of comprehensive substance use disorder treatment programs. Methods: This Perspective describes the four principles of Med First, which are based on evidence-based guidelines. It draws conceptual comparisons between the Housing First approach to chronic homelessness and the Med First approach to pharmacotherapy for OUD, and compares state certification standards for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment (the traditional approach) to Med First guidelines for OUD treatment. Finally, the Perspective details how Med First principles have been practically implemented. Results: Med First principles emphasize timely access to maintenance pharmacotherapy without requiring psychosocial services or discontinuation for any reason other than harm to the client. Early results regarding medication utilization and treatment retention are promising. Feedback from providers has been largely favorable, though clinical- and system-level obstacles to effective OUD treatment remain. Conclusion: Like the Housing First model, Medication First is designed to decrease human suffering and activate the strengths and capacities of people in need. It draws on decades of research and facilitates partnerships between psychosocial and medical treatment providers to offer effective and life-saving care to persons with OUD.

Parent training: equivalent improvement in externalizing behavior for children with and without familial risk.

OBJECTIVE: The Incredible Years Series intervention has demonstrated efficacy for decreasing conduct disorder (CD) symptomatology in clinically affected youth in multiple randomized controlled trials. Because children with family psychiatric histories of antisocial behavior are at markedly increased risk for enduring symptoms of antisocial behavior (compared with their counterparts with a negative family history), the authors examined whether intervention effects across studies would prevail in that subgroup or would be relatively restricted to children without genetic risk. METHOD: A reanalysis was conducted of 5 randomized controlled trials of Incredible Years involving 280 clinically affected children 3 to 8 years of age for whom a family psychiatric history of externalizing behavior in first- and second-degree relatives was ascertained from at least 1 parent. RESULTS: Incredible Years equally benefitted children with CD with and without family psychiatric histories of externalizing behavior. Family psychiatric history of externalizing behavior and parental depressive symptomatology predicted greater severity of CD symptomatology at baseline. CONCLUSION: The beneficial effects of IY are evident in children with CD, irrespective of whether their conditions are more or less attributable to inherited susceptibility to enduring antisocial syndromes. A next phase of research should address whether earlier implementation of group-based education for parents of young children at increased familial risk for antisocial behavior syndromes-before the development of disruptive patterns of behavior-would result in even more pronounced effects and thereby constitute a cost-effective, targeted, preventive intervention for CD.

Effects of child maltreatment and inherited liability on antisocial development: an official records study.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence is steadily accumulating that a preventable environmental hazard, child maltreatment, exerts causal influences on the development of long-standing patterns of antisocial behavior in humans. The relationship between child maltreatment and antisocial outcome, however, has never previously been tested in a large-scale study in which official reports (rather than family member reports) of child abuse and neglect were incorporated, and genetic influences comprehensively controlled for. METHOD: We cross-referenced official report data on child maltreatment from the Missouri Division of Social Services (DSS) with behavioral data from 4,432 epidemiologically ascertained Missouri twins from the Missouri Twin Registry (MOTWIN). We performed a similar procedure for a clinically ascertained sample of singleton children ascertained from families affected by alcohol dependence participating in the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA; n = 428) to determine whether associations observed in the general population held true in an "enriched" sample at combined inherited and environmental risk for antisocial development. RESULTS: For both the twin and clinical samples, the additive effects (not interactive effects) of maltreatment and inherited liability on antisocial development were confirmed and were highly statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Child maltreatment exhibited causal influence on antisocial outcome when controlling for inherited liability in both the general population and in a clinically ascertained sample. Official report maltreatment data represents a critical resource for resolving competing hypotheses on genetic and environmental causation of child psychopathology, and for assessing intervention outcomes in efforts to prevent antisocial development.