Matching consequences to behavior: Implications of failing to distinguish between noncompliance and nonresponsivity

Neither punitive nor therapeutic approaches alone are effective at addressing the dual public health and public safety concerns associated with managing criminal behavior perpetrated by people who have psychiatric and substance use disorders. The optimal solution may instead require the integration of both criminal justice supervision and treatment. Using problem-solving courts (PSCs) as a model, we focus on one dimension of this integrated approach, distinguishing between behavior that stems from willful noncompliance with supervision and behavior that results from nonresponsivity to treatment. First, we discuss the public health and public safety consequences of using singular approaches to address the criminal behavior of this population. We then present lessons learned from PSCs that distinguish between noncompliant and nonresponsive behaviors in making treatment and supervision decisions. Finally, we consider how the concepts of nonresponsivity and noncompliance may be extended, via policy, to probation and parole settings as well as mental health and substance abuse treatment services outside the criminal justice setting in order to enhance public health and safety. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd

Prize-based contingency management for the treatment of substance abusers: a meta-analysis

AIM: To review randomized controlled trials to assess efficacy of a prize-based contingency management procedure in reducing substance use (where a drug-free breath or urine sample provides a chance of winning a prize).; METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted on papers published from January 2000 to February 2013 to determine the effect size of studies comparing prize-based contingency management to a treatment-as-usual control condition (k = 19 studies). Parallel analyses evaluated the efficacy of both short- (k = nine studies) and long-term outcomes (k = six studies) of prize-based contingency management.; RESULTS: The average end-of-treatment effect size (Cohen\u27s d) was 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.37, 0.54]. This effect size decreased at the short-term (≤3-month) post-intervention follow-up to 0.33 (95% CI = 0.12, 0.54) and at the 6-month follow-up time-point there was no detectable effect [d = -0.09 (95% CI = -0.28, 0.10)].; CONCLUSION: Adding prize-based contingency management to behavioral support for substance use disorders can increase short-term abstinence, but the effect does not appear to persist to 6 months

Restoring balance: a consensus statement on the protection of vulnerable research participants.

A diverse panel convened in June 2011 to explore a dilemma in human research: some traits may make individuals or communities particularly vulnerable to a variety of harms in research; however, well-intended efforts to protect these vulnerable individuals and communities from harm may actually generate a series of new harms. We have presented a consensus statement forged by the panel through discussion during a 2-day meeting and the article-writing process. We have identified practical problems that sometimes arise in connection with providing additional safeguards for groups labeled as vulnerable and offered recommendations on how we might better balance concerns for protection with concerns for justice and participant autonomy

Nonopioid Substance Use among Patients Who Recently Initiated Office-based Buprenorphine Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) like buprenorphine are a first-line treatment for individuals who have opioid use disorder (OUD); however, these medications are not designed to impact the use of other classes of drugs. This descriptive study provides up-to-date information about nonopioid substance use among patients who recently initiated office-based buprenorphine treatment for OUD using data from 2 ongoing clinical trials. METHODS: The study sample was composed of 257 patients from 6 federally qualified health centers in the mid-Atlantic region who recently (i.e., within the past 28 days) initiated office-based buprenorphine treatment between July 2020 and May 2022. After the screening and informed consent processes, participants completed a urine drug screen and psychosocial interview as a part of the study baseline assessment. Descriptive analyses were performed on urine drug screen results to identify the prevalence and types of substances detected. RESULTS: More than half of participants provided urine specimens that were positive for nonopioid substances, with marijuana (37%, n = 95), cocaine (22%, n = 56), and benzodiazepines (11%, n = 28) detected with the highest frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of participants used nonopioid substances after initiating buprenorphine treatment, suggesting that some patients receiving MOUDs could potentially benefit from adjunctive psychosocial treatment and supports to address their nonopioid substance use