Deep brain stimulation for substance use disorders?:An exploratory qualitative study of perspectives of people currently in treatment

Objective: Although previous studies have discussed the promise of deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a possible treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) and collected researcher perspectives on possible ethical issues surrounding it, none have consulted people with SUDs themselves. We addressed this gap by interviewing people with SUDs.Methods: Participants viewed a short video introducing DBS, followed by a 1.5-hour semistructured interview on their experiences with SUDs and their perspective on DBS as a possible treatment option. Interviews were analyzed by multiple coders who iteratively identified salient themes.Results: We interviewed 20 people in 12-step–based, inpatient treatment programs (10 [50%] White/Caucasian, 7 Black/African American [35%], 2 Asian [10%], 1 Hispanic/Latino [5%], and 1 [5%] Alaska Native/American Indian; 9 women [45%], 11 men [55%]). Interviewees described a variety of barriers they currently faced through the course of their disease that mirrored barriers often associated with DBS (stigma, invasiveness, maintenance burdens, privacy risks) and thus made them more open to the possibility of DBS as a future treatment option.Conclusions: Individuals with SUDs gave relatively less weight to surgical risks and clinical burdens associated with DBS than previous surveys of provider attitudes anticipated. These differences derived largely from their experiences living with an often-fatal disease and encountering limitations of current treatment options. These findings support the study of DBS as a treatment option for SUDs, with extensive input from people with SUDs and advocates.<br/

Developing Youth Competencies: The Impact of Program Quality

As youth programs have continued to evolve over the last 100 years, the field of program evaluation has advanced significantly in an effort to differentiate which youth program components are necessary to promote positive youth development (e.g., Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lerner et al., 2013). The Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR) initiative funds a variety of sustainable community projects (SCPs) that aim to support at-risk youth and families and help them become healthy, positive, and contributing members of society (U.S. Department of Agriculture, n.d.). To ensure these programs are meeting CYFAR’s goals, a required collection of common measures began in 2011 (University of Minnesota, 2017b). This study used CYFAR evaluation data to explore how specific program quality components (e.g. physical and psychological safety and relationship building) influence change in youth competencies. It was hypothesized that higher program quality ratings would be significantly associated with higher pretest to posttest change in youth competencies. Results indicated differential associations between the qualities of youth programs, particularly positive social norms and skill building, and changes in youth competencies. Implications for positive youth development programs are discussed

The Impact of Family Therapy Participation on Youths and Young Adult Engagement and Retention in a Telehealth Intensive Outpatient Program: Quality Improvement Analysis

Background Early treatment dropout among youths and young adults (28%-75%) puts them at risk for poorer outcomes. Family engagement in treatment is linked to lower dropout and better attendance in outpatient, in-person treatment. However, this has not been studied in intensive or telehealth settings. Objective We aimed to examine whether family members’ participation in telehealth intensive outpatient (IOP) therapy for mental health disorders in youths and young adults is associated with patient’s treatment engagement. A secondary aim was to assess demographic factors associated with family engagement in treatment. Methods Data were collected from intake surveys, discharge outcome surveys, and administrative data for patients who attended a remote IOP for youths and young adults, nationwide. Data included 1487 patients who completed both intake and discharge surveys and either completed or disengaged from treatment between December 2020 and September 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample’s baseline differences in demographics, engagement, and participation in family therapy. Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were used to explore differences in engagement and treatment completion between patients with and those without family therapy. Binomial regression was used to explore significant demographic predictors of family therapy participation and treatment completion. Results Patients with family therapy had significantly better engagement and treatment completion outcomes than clients with no family therapy. Youths and young adults with ≥1 family therapy session were significantly more likely to stay in treatment an average of 2 weeks longer (median 11 weeks vs 9 weeks) and to attend a higher percentage of IOP sessions (median 84.38% vs 75.00%). Patients with family therapy were more likely to complete treatment than clients with no family therapy (608/731, 83.2% vs 445/752, 59.2%; P<.001). Different demographic variables were associated with an increased likelihood of participating in family therapy, including younger age (odds ratio 1.3) and identifying as heterosexual (odds ratio 1.4). After controlling for demographic factors, family therapy remained a significant predictor of treatment completion, such that each family therapy session attended was associated with a 1.4-fold increase in the odds of completing treatment (95% CI 1.3-1.4). Conclusions Youths and young adults whose families participate in any family therapy have lower dropout, greater length of stay, and higher treatment completion than those whose families do not participate in services in a remote IOP program. The findings of this quality improvement analysis are the first to establish a relationship between participation in family therapy and an increased engagement and retention in remote treatment for youths and young patients in IOP programing. Given the established importance of obtaining an adequate dosage of treatment, bolstering family therapy offerings is another tool that could contribute to the provision of care that better meets the needs of youths, young adults, and their families

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, and Other Minoritized Gender and Sexual Identities–Adapted Telehealth Intensive Outpatient Program for Youth and Young Adults: Subgroup Analysis of Acuity and Improvement Following Treatment

BackgroundLesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other minoritized gender and sexual identities (LGBTQIA+) youth have disproportionately high levels of depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. In addition, LGBTQIA+ youth frequently report lower levels of satisfaction or comfort with their health care providers because of stigmatization, which may prevent continuation of care, yet there is a lack of mental health treatment and outcome research addressing these disparities. However, there is some indication that LGBTQIA+ individuals feel more comfortable with web-based formats, indicating that telehealth services may be beneficial for this population. ObjectiveThis program evaluation explored the effectiveness of a remote intensive outpatient program with a curriculum tailored specifically to LGBTQIA+ youth with high-acuity depression, anxiety, and suicidality. This study sought to understand baseline acuity differences between LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ youth and young adult patients and to determine if there were differences in clinically significant improvement by subtypes within the LGBTQIA+ population following participation in LGBTQIA+-specific programming. MethodsData were collected from intake and discharge outcome surveys measuring depression, suicidality, and nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) in 878 patients who attended at least six sessions of a remote intensive outpatient program for youth and young adults. Of these 878 clients, 551 (62.8%) were identified as having at least one LGBTQIA+ identity; they participated in an LGBTQIA+-adapted program of the general curriculum. ResultsLGBTQIA+ patients had more clinically severe intake for depression, NSSI, and suicidal ideation. Nonbinary clients had greater NSSI within the LGBTQIA+ sample at intake than their binary counterparts, and transgender clients had significantly higher depressive scores at intake than their nontransgender counterparts. LGBTQIA+ patients demonstrated improvements in all outcomes from intake to discharge. The Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents depression scores improved from 18.15 at intake to 10.83 at discharge, representing a 41.5% reduction in depressive symptoms. Overall, 50.5% (149/295) of the LGBTQIA+ youth who endorsed passive suicidal ideation at intake no longer reported it at discharge, 72.1% (160/222) who endorsed active suicidal ideation at intake no longer reported it at discharge, and 55.1% (109/198) of patients who met the criteria for clinical NSSI no longer met the criteria at discharge. In the subgroup analysis, transgender patients were still 2 times more likely to report clinical NSSI at discharge. ConclusionsThis program evaluation found substantial differences in rates of depression, NSSI, and suicidal ideation between LGBTQIA+ clients compared with their non-LGBTQIA+ counterparts. In addition, this evaluation showed a considerable decrease in symptoms when clients attended LGBTQIA+-affirming care. The findings provide support for the role of LGBTQIA+-specific programming to meet the elevated mental health needs of these youth and that more research is needed to understand barriers that may negatively affect transgender clients, specifically

Mental Health Outcomes for Youths With Public Versus Private Health Insurance Attending a Telehealth Intensive Outpatient Program: Quality Improvement Analysis

BackgroundCOVID-19 exacerbated a growing mental health crisis among youths and young adults, worsened by a lack of existing in-person options for high-acuity care. The emergence and growth of remote intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) is a solution to overcome geographic limitations to care. However, it remains unclear whether remote IOPs engender equivalent clinical outcomes among youths with public insurance (eg, Medicaid) versus private insurance (eg, commercial) given the disparities found in previous research on place-based treatment in both clinical and engagement outcomes. ObjectiveThis analysis sought to establish, as part of ongoing quality improvement efforts, whether engagement and clinical outcomes among adolescents and young adults attending remote IOP treatment differed between youths with public and those with private insurance. The identification of disparities by payer type was used to inform programmatic decisions within the remote IOP system for which this quality improvement analysis was conducted. MethodsPearson chi-square analyses and independent 2-tailed t tests were used to establish that the 2 groups defined by insurance type were equivalent on clinical outcomes (depression, suicidal ideation, and nonsuicidal self-injury [NSSI]) at intake and compare changes in clinical outcomes. McNemar chi-square analyses and repeated-measure 2-tailed t tests were used to assess changes in clinical outcomes between intake and discharge in the sample overall. In total, 495 clients who attended the remote IOP for youths and young adults in 14 states participated in ≥7 treatment sessions, and completed intake and discharge surveys between July 2021 and April 2022 were included in the analysis. ResultsOverall, the youths and young adults in the remote IOP attended a median of 91% of their scheduled group sessions (mean 85.9%, SD 16.48%) and reported significantly fewer depressive symptoms at discharge (t447=12.51; P<.001). McNemar chi-square tests of change indicated significant reductions from intake to discharge in suicidal ideation (N=470, χ21=104.4; P<.001), with nearly three-quarters of youths who reported active suicidal ideation at intake (200/468, 42.7%) no longer reporting it at discharge (142/200, 71%), and in NSSI (N=430, χ21=40.7; P<.001), with more than half of youths who reported NSSI at intake (205/428, 47.9%) reporting lower self-harm at discharge (119/205, 58%). No significant differences emerged by insurance type in attendance (median public 89%, median private 92%; P=.10), length of stay (t416=−0.35; P=.73), or reductions in clinical outcomes (depressive symptom severity: t444=−0.87 and P=.38; active suicidal ideation: N=200, χ21=0.6 and P=.49; NSSI frequency: t426=−0.98 and P=.33). ConclusionsOur findings suggest that youths and young adults who participated in remote IOP had significant reductions in depression, suicidal ideation, and NSSI. Given access to the same remote high-acuity care, youths and young adults on both public and private insurance engaged in programming at comparable rates and achieved similar improvements in clinical outcomes

Predicting Youth and Young Adult Treatment Engagement in a Transdiagnostic Remote Intensive Outpatient Program: Latent Profile Analysis

BackgroundThe youth mental health crisis in the United States continues to worsen, and research has shown poor mental health treatment engagement. Despite the need for personalized engagement strategies, there is a lack of research involving youth. Due to complex youth developmental milestones, there is a need to better understand clinical presentation and factors associated with treatment engagement to effectively identify and tailor beneficial treatments. ObjectiveThis quality improvement investigation sought to identify subgroups of clients attending a remote intensive outpatient program (IOP) based on clinical acuity data at intake, to determine the factors associated with engagement outcomes for clients who present in complex developmental periods and with cooccurring conditions. The identification of these subgroups was used to inform programmatic decisions within this remote IOP system. MethodsData were collected as part of ongoing quality improvement initiatives at a remote IOP for youth and young adults. Participants included clients (N=2924) discharged between July 2021 and February 2023. A latent profile analysis was conducted using 5 indicators of clinical acuity at treatment entry, and the resulting profiles were assessed for associations with demographic factors and treatment engagement outcomes. ResultsAmong the 2924 participants, 4 profiles of clinical acuity were identified: a low-acuity profile (n=943, 32.25%), characterized by minimal anxiety, depression, and self-harm, and 3 high-acuity profiles defined by moderately severe depression and anxiety but differentiated by rates of self-harm (high acuity+low self-harm: n=1452, 49.66%; high acuity+moderate self-harm: n=203, 6.94%; high acuity+high self-harm: n=326, 11.15%). Age, gender, transgender identity, and sexual orientation were significantly associated with profile membership. Clients identified as sexually and gender-marginalized populations were more likely to be classified into high-acuity profiles than into the low-acuity profile (eg, for clients who identified as transgender, high acuity+low self-harm: odds ratio [OR] 2.07, 95% CI 1.35-3.18; P<.001; high acuity+moderate self-harm: OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.66-4.90; P<.001; high acuity+high self-harm: OR 3.67, 95% CI 2.45-5.51; P<.001). Race was unrelated to the profile membership. Profile membership was significantly associated with treatment engagement: youth and young adults in the low-acuity and high-acuity+low–self-harm profiles attended an average of 4 fewer treatment sessions compared with youth in the high-acuity+moderate–self-harm and high-acuity+high–self-harm profiles (ꭓ23=27.6, P<.001). Individuals in the high-acuity+low–self-harm profile completed treatment at a significantly lower rate relative to the other 2 high-acuity profiles (ꭓ23=13.4, P=.004). Finally, those in the high-acuity+high–self-harm profile were significantly less likely to disengage early relative to youth in all other profiles (ꭓ23=71.12, P<.001). ConclusionsThis investigation represents a novel application for identifying subgroups of adolescents and young adults based on clinical acuity data at intake to identify patterns in treatment engagement outcomes. Identifying subgroups that differentially engage in treatment is a critical first step toward targeting engagement strategies for complex populations

In-Person Versus Telehealth Setting for the Delivery of Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Ecologically Valid Comparison Study

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly transformed substance use disorder (SUD) treatment in the United States, with many web-based treatment services being used for this purpose. However, little is known about the long-term treatment effectiveness of SUD interventions delivered through digital technologies compared with in-person treatment, and even less is known about how patients, clinicians, and clinical characteristics may predict treatment outcomes. ObjectiveThis study aims to analyze baseline differences in patient demographics and clinical characteristics across traditional and telehealth settings in a sample of participants (N=3642) who received intensive outpatient program (IOP) substance use treatment from January 2020 to March 2021. MethodsThe virtual IOP (VIOP) study is a prospective longitudinal cohort design that follows adult (aged ≥18 years) patients who were discharged from IOP care for alcohol and substance use–related treatment at a large national SUD treatment provider between January 2020 and March 2021. Data were collected at baseline and up to 1 year after discharge from both in-person and VIOP services through phone- and web-based surveys to assess recent substance use and general functioning across several domains. ResultsInitial baseline descriptive data were collected on patient demographics and clinical inventories. No differences in IOP setting were detected by race (χ22=0.1; P=.96), ethnicity (χ22=0.8; P=.66), employment status (χ22=2.5; P=.29), education level (χ24=7.9; P=.10), or whether participants presented with multiple SUDs (χ28=11.4; P=.18). Significant differences emerged for biological sex (χ22=8.5; P=.05), age (χ26=26.8; P<.001), marital status (χ24=20.5; P<.001), length of stay (F2,3639=148.67; P<.001), and discharge against staff advice (χ22=10.6; P<.01). More differences emerged by developmental stage, with emerging adults more likely to be women (χ23=40.5; P<.001), non-White (χ23=15.8; P<.001), have multiple SUDs (χ23=453.6; P<.001), have longer lengths of stay (F3,3638=13.51; P<.001), and more likely to be discharged against staff advice (χ23=13.3; P<.01). ConclusionsThe findings aim to deepen our understanding of SUD treatment efficacy across traditional and telehealth settings and its associated correlates and predictors of patient-centered outcomes. The results of this study will inform the effective development of data-driven benchmarks and protocols for routine outcome data practices in treatment settings