Study protocol: development and randomized controlled trial of a preventive blended care parenting intervention for parents with PTSD.

BACKGROUND: Children of parents with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are at increased risk of adverse psychological outcomes. An important risk mechanism is impaired parental functioning, including negative parenting behavior, perceived incompetence, and lack of social support. Several parenting interventions for trauma-exposed parents and parents with psychiatric disorders exist, but none have specifically targeted parents with PTSD. Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of a blended care preventive parenting intervention for parents with PTSD. METHODS: The intervention was adapted from an existing online intervention, KopOpOuders Self-Help. In co-creation with parents with PTSD and partners, the intervention was adapted into KopOpOuders-PTSD, by adding PTSD-specific content and three in-person-sessions with a mental health prevention professional. Effectiveness will be tested in a randomized controlled trial among N = 142 parents being treated for PTSD at Arkin Mental Health Care (control condition: treatment as usual, n = 71; intervention condition: treatment as usual + intervention, n = 71). Online questionnaires at pretest, posttest, and three-month follow-up and ecological momentary assessment at pretest and posttest will be used. Intervention effects on primary (parenting behavior) and secondary outcomes (perceived parenting competence, parental social support, parenting stress, child overall psychological problems and PTSD symptoms) will be analyzed using generalized linear mixed modeling. We will also analyze possible moderation effects of parental PTSD symptoms at pretest on primary and secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: This study protocol describes the randomized controlled trial of KopOpOuders-PTSD, a blended care preventive parenting intervention for parents with PTSD. Findings can contribute to understanding of the effectiveness of parenting support in clinical practice for PTSD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol (Version 1) was registered on 11-02-2022 at ClinicalTrials.gov under identification number NCT05237999.

Predictors of hepatitis B vaccination completion among people who use drugs participating in a national program of targeted vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Targeted vaccination strategies are necessary to prevent people who use drugs (PWUD) becoming infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV). The aims of this study were to provide an overview of the activities for PWUD in a decentralised vaccination program in the Netherlands and to explore the determinants associated with completing a standard hepatitis B vaccination series. METHODS: We used data for behavioural risk groups from the register of the national vaccination program. The data concerned PWUD who were immunised against hepatitis B in the Netherlands between 2002 and 2011. A standard series of three vaccinations (at 0, 1, and 6 months) was offered at inclusion and was continued if serological markers for past or chronic HBV infection were absent. Completion of a vaccination series (at least three vaccinations, irrespective of timing) was a dependent variable in our logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The program reached 18,054 PWUD. Of the 15,746 participants eligible for vaccination (i.e. they were neither carriers of hepatitis B nor immune to hepatitis B), 9089 (58%) completed a series of three hepatitis B vaccinations. Factors associated with a higher completion rate of a vaccination series (p < 0.01) were: starting vaccination in the earlier years of the program, older age of PWUD, intravenous drug use, vaccine administration by addiction care centres, and flexibility in location of vaccine delivery. CONCLUSION: Despite using a standard HBV vaccination schedule and no financial incentives, vaccination completion among PWUD was relatively high. Our results suggest that flexibility of vaccination location and administration of vaccines by healthcare workers with sustainable contact with PWUD could improve vaccination programs for this risk group.

Differences in sociodemographic, drug use and health characteristics between never, former and current injecting, problematic hard-drug users in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Injecting drug users are at increased risk for harmful effects compared to non-injecting drug users. Some studies have focused on differences in characteristics between these two groups (e.g., housing, overall health). However, no study has investigated the specific Dutch situation which in the last years has seen a decrease in homelessness among problematic hard-drug users and an increasing focus on physical health in low-threshold addiction care. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in sociodemographic, drug use and health characteristics between never-injecting (NIDUs), former-injecting (FIDUs) and current-injecting drug users (IDUs) and describe injecting practices. METHODS: A total of 202 problematic hard-drug users (NIDU = 64; FIDU = 76; IDU = 62) were recruited from 22 low-threshold care facilities, including drug consumption rooms, methadone maintenance treatment, heroin-assisted therapy, day shelter and/or night shelter, supported housing and day activity centres. Data were collected on-site through structured face-to-face interviews. RESULTS: Results indicate that IDUs represented a separate group of problematic hard-drug users, with distinct sociodemographic and drug use characteristics. Overall, IDUs appeared to be the group with least favourable characteristics (unstable housing/homelessness, illegal activities, polydrug use) and NIDUs appeared to have the most favourable characteristics (stable housing, help with debts, less polydrug use). The FIDU group lies somewhere in between. The three groups did not differ significantly in terms of health. Regarding injecting practices, results showed that majority of IDUs had injected drugs for over 10 years and IDUs injected heroin, cocaine, amphetamine and/or methadone in the past 6 months. Sharing syringes was not common. A quarter reported public injecting. CONCLUSIONS: Unstable housing and homelessness are related to (former) injecting drug use, and stable housing is related to never-injecting drug use. Our study suggests that the number of 'new' IDUs is low. However, public injecting among IDUs is not uncommon and is associated with unstable housing. This emphasizes the potential of housing projects as a component of harm reduction measures. Therefore, prevention of (risks associated with) injecting drug use and supported housing programmes for problematic hard-drug users deserve the continuous attention of policymakers and professionals in low-threshold addiction care.