Literature Collection
10K+
References
9K+
Articles
1400+
Grey Literature
4500+
Opioids & SU
The Literature Collection contains over 10,000 references for published and grey literature on the integration of behavioral health and primary care. Learn More
Use the Search feature below to find references for your terms across the entire Literature Collection, or limit your searches by Authors, Keywords, or Titles and by Year, Type, or Topic. View your search results as displayed, or use the options to: Show more references per page; Sort references by Title or Date; and Refine your search criteria. Expand an individual reference to View Details. Full-text access to the literature may be available through a link to PubMed, a DOI, or a URL. References may also be exported for use in bibliographic software (e.g., EndNote, RefWorks, Zotero).
This grey literature reference is included in the Academy's Literature Collection in keeping with our mission to gather all sources of information on integration. Grey literature is comprised of materials that are not made available through traditional publishing avenues. Often, the information from unpublished resources can be limited and the risk of bias cannot be determined.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD. METHODS: A review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used. RESULTS: Seventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.
Objective: To evaluate changes in health and health care utilization outcomes for Latinx adults with substance use and mental disorders receiving integrated behavioral and primary health care.Design: Study sample included enrollees who completed baseline, 6-month and 12-month assessments (n = 107). Study outcomes were depression symptom severity, anxiety symptom severity, illicit drug use, emergency department utilization and homelessness status. Pre-post analyses were conducted using paired t-test and McNemar test to examine changes in study outcomes. Multivariable regression model estimated through generalized estimating equations explored the influence of the intervention on study outcomes. Results were presented in adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Participants were less likely to report depressive symptoms (AOR: 0.496, 95%CI: 0.296-0.832), less likely to report anxiety symptoms (AOR: 0.539, 95%CI: 0.329-0.884), and less likely to experience homelessness (AOR: 0.556, 95%CI: 0.328-0.943) at 6-month assessment compared to baseline. Participants were also less likely to report depressive symptoms (AOR: 0.378, 95%CI: 0.209-0.684), less likely to report anxiety symptoms (AOR: 0.471, 95%CI: 0.270-0.821), less likely to experience homelessness (AOR: 0.333, 95%CI: 0.189-0.587), and less likely to utilize the emergency department in the past 30 days (AOR: 0.397, 95%CI: 0.188-0.837) at 12-month assessment compared to baseline.Conclusions: Integrating culturally responsive behavioral and primary health care services is critical for addressing the needs of Latinx adults with mental and substance use disorders, and other chronic diseases. This initiative has the potential to reduce disparities in access to and engagement in care for Latinx adults.