Dataset Information

State criminal justice policy context and opioid agonist treatment delivery among opioid treatment admissions, 2015.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Criminal justice referral to treatment is associated with reduced odds of receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT), the gold-standard treatment for opioid use disorder. States vary substantially in the extent of criminal justice system involvement in opioid treatment; however, the effects on treatment provision are not clear. We examined whether state-level criminal justice involvement in the substance use treatment system modified the association between criminal justice referral to treatment and OAT provision among opioid treatment admissions.

Methods

We conducted a random effects logistic regression to investigate how the effects of criminal justice referral to treatment on OAT provision differed in states with high vs. low state-level criminal justice involvement in opioid treatment, adjusting for individual and state-level covariates, among 22 states in the 2015 Treatment Episode Dataset-Admissions.

Results

Criminal justice referral to treatment was associated with an 85% reduction in the odds of receiving OAT, compared to other sources of treatment referral (OR?=?0.15; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.16). Among opioid treatment admissions resulting from criminal justice referral in 2015, receiving treatment in high criminal justice involvement states was associated with a 63% reduction in the odds of OAT provision, compared to opioid treatment received in low criminal justice involvement states (interaction OR?=?0.37, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.89).

Conclusion

The effects of criminal justice referral to treatment on OAT provision varied by criminal justice involvement in opioid treatment at the state level. Targeted interventions should increase access to OAT in states that rely on the criminal justice system for opioid treatment referrals.

SUBMITTER: Mantha S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7377924 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

State criminal justice policy context and opioid agonist treatment delivery among opioid treatment admissions, 2015.

Mantha Shivani S Mauro Pia M PM Mauro Christine M CM Martins Silvia S SS

Drug and alcohol dependence 20191102

<h4>Background</h4>Criminal justice referral to treatment is associated with reduced odds of receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT), the gold-standard treatment for opioid use disorder. States vary substantially in the extent of criminal justice system involvement in opioid treatment; however, the effects on treatment provision are not clear. We examined whether state-level criminal justice involvement in the substance use treatment system modified the association between criminal justice refe ...[more]

PMID: 31735533

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvidence on the effectiveness of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) in reducing crime is mixed. We aimed to assess the effect of OAT on crime in terms of delaying time to first charge and reducing overall charge rates, as well as the relationship between OAT retention and overall charge rates.MethodsWe did a retrospective cohort study of opioid-dependent people who entered OAT for the first time between Jan 1, 2004, and Dec 30, 2010, in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. We used three linked NSW and national administrative datasets. Data on OAT were obtained from the Pharmaceutical Drugs of Addiction System, data on charges were obtained from the Reoffending Database, and data on mortality were obtained from the National Death Index. The cohort was followed up until Dec 31, 2011. Time-dependent OAT exposure was modelled using Cox proportional hazards models (time to first charge) and Andersen-Gill intensity models (total charge-days). Retention in OAT was modelled using two features of treatment engagement, number of OAT episodes and proportion of follow-up time in OAT (presented in quartile groupings: lowest, low-mid, low-high, highest) using zero-inflated negative binomial regression (total charges). All models were adjusted for sociodemographic, criminographic, and treatment-related variables.Findings10 744 new OAT entrants were included in the study. 5751 (53·5%) people were charged with an offence. In adjusted analyses, OAT was associated with an initial benefit in delaying the time to first charge (hazard ratio 0·43, 95% CI 0·33-0·55) and reducing total charge-days (0·39, 95% CI 0·30-0·52); however, these protective effects reduced over time. Total charge rates were higher as the number of OAT episodes increased (incident rate ratio [IRR] 1·13, 95% CI 1·11-1·15), and when relatively lower proportions of time were spent in OAT (IRR among the lowest three quartiles ranged from 1·11 [95% CI 1·02-1·21] to 1·22 [95% CI 1·12-1·33]).InterpretationOAT was associated with a reduction in overall charge rates and was more protective as treatment engagement increased. Maximising treatment retention is crucial to achieving long-term health and social benefits of OAT.FundingAustralian National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Australian Government Department of Health, UNSW Sydney.

Project description:BackgroundExtended-release naltrexone, a sustained-release monthly injectable formulation of the full mu-opioid receptor antagonist, is effective for the prevention of relapse to opioid dependence. Data supporting its effectiveness in U.S. criminal justice populations are limited.MethodsIn this five-site, open-label, randomized trial, we compared a 24-week course of extended-release naltrexone (Vivitrol) with usual treatment, consisting of brief counseling and referrals for community treatment programs, for the prevention of opioid relapse among adult criminal justice offenders (i.e., persons involved in the U.S. criminal justice system) who had a history of opioid dependence and a preference for opioid-free rather than opioid maintenance treatments and who were abstinent from opioids at the time of randomization. The primary outcome was the time to an opioid-relapse event, which was defined as 10 or more days of opioid use in a 28-day period as assessed by self-report or by testing of urine samples obtained every 2 weeks; a positive or missing sample was computed as 5 days of opioid use. Post-treatment follow-up occurred at weeks 27, 52, and 78.ResultsA total of 153 participants were assigned to extended-release naltrexone and 155 to usual treatment. During the 24-week treatment phase, participants assigned to extended-release naltrexone had a longer median time to relapse than did those assigned to usual treatment (10.5 vs. 5.0 weeks, P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.68), a lower rate of relapse (43% vs. 64% of participants, P<0.001; odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.65), and a higher rate of opioid-negative urine samples (74% vs. 56%, P<0.001; odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48 to 3.54). At week 78 (approximately 1 year after the end of the treatment phase), rates of opioid-negative urine samples were equal (46% in each group, P=0.91). The rates of other prespecified secondary outcome measures--self-reported cocaine, alcohol, and intravenous drug use, unsafe sex, and reincarceration--were not significantly lower with extended-release naltrexone than with usual treatment. Over the total 78 weeks observed, there were no overdose events in the extended-release naltrexone group and seven in the usual-treatment group (P=0.02).ConclusionsIn this trial involving criminal justice offenders, extended-release naltrexone was associated with a rate of opioid relapse that was lower than that with usual treatment. Opioid-use prevention effects waned after treatment discontinuation. (Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781898.).

Project description:AIMS:To compare long-term criminal justice outcomes among opioid-dependent individuals randomized to receive buprenorphine or methadone. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:A 5-year follow-up was conducted in 2011-14 of 303 opioid-dependent participants entering three opioid treatment programs in California, USA in 2006-09 and randomized to receive either buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR:Participants received buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP; n = 179) or methadone (MET; n = 124) for 24 weeks and then were tapered off their treatment over ≤ 8 weeks or referred for ongoing clinical treatment. Midway through the study, the randomization scheme was switched from 1 : 1 BUP : MET to 2 : 1 because of higher dropout in the BUP arm. MEASUREMENTS:Study outcomes included arrests and self-reported incarceration. Predictors included randomization condition (buprenorphine versus methadone), age, gender, race/ethnicity, use of cocaine, drug injection in the 30 days prior to baseline and study site. Treatment status (buprenorphine, methadone, none) during follow-up was included as a time-varying covariate. FINDINGS:There was no significant difference by randomization condition in the proportion arrested (buprenorphine: 55.3%, methadone: 54.0%) or incarcerated (40.9%, 47.3%) during follow-up. Among methadone-randomized individuals, arrest was less likely with methadone treatment (0.50, 0.35-0.72) during follow-up (relative to no treatment) and switching to buprenorphine had a lower likelihood of arrest than those receiving no treatment (0.39, 0.18-0.87). Among buprenorphine-randomized individuals, arrest was less likely with receipt of buprenorphine (0.49, 0.33-0.75) during follow-up and switching to methadone had a similar likelihood of arrest as methadone-randomized individuals receiving no treatment. Likelihood of arrest was also negatively associated with older age (0.98, 0.96-1.00); it was positively associated with Hispanic ethnicity (1.63, 1.04-2.56), cocaine use (2.00, 1.33-3.03), injection drug use (2.19, 1.26-3.83), and study site. CONCLUSIONS:In a US sample of people treated for opioid use disorder, continued treatment with either buprenorphine or methadone was associated with a reduction in arrests relative to no treatment. Cocaine use, injection drug use, Hispanic ethnicity and younger age were associated with higher likelihood of arrest.

Project description:ImportanceResponding to the opioid crisis requires tools to identify individuals at risk of overdose. Given the expansion of illicit opioid deaths, it is essential to consider risk factors across multiple service systems.ObjectiveTo develop a predictive risk model to identify opioid overdose using linked clinical and criminal justice data.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional sample was created using 2015 data from 4 Maryland databases: all-payer hospital discharges, the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP), public-sector specialty behavioral treatment, and criminal justice records for property or drug-associated offenses. Maryland adults aged 18 to 80 years with records in any of 4 databases were included, excluding individuals who died in 2015 or had a non-Maryland zip code. Logistic regression models were estimated separately for risk of fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose in 2016. Model performance was assessed using bootstrapping. Data analysis took place from February 2018 to November 2019.ExposuresControlled substance prescription fills and hospital, specialty behavioral health, or criminal justice encounters.Main outcomes and measuresFatal opioid overdose defined by the state medical examiner and 1 or more nonfatal overdoses treated in Maryland hospitals during 2016.ResultsThere were 2 294 707 total individuals in the sample, of whom 42.3% were male (n = 970 019) and 53.0% were younger than 50 years (647 083 [28.2%] aged 18-34 years and 568 160 [24.8%] aged 35-49 years). In 2016, 1204 individuals (0.05%) in the sample experienced fatal opioid overdose and 8430 (0.37%) experienced nonfatal opioid overdose. In adjusted analysis, the factors mostly strongly associated with fatal overdose were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.40 [95% CI, 2.08-2.76]), diagnosis of opioid use disorder in a hospital (OR, 2.93 [95% CI, 2.17-3.80]), release from prison in 2015 (OR, 4.23 [95% CI, 2.10-7.11]), and receiving opioid addiction treatment with medication (OR, 2.81 [95% CI, 2.20-3.86]). Similar associations were found for nonfatal overdose. The area under the curve for fatal overdose was 0.82 for a model with hospital variables, 0.86 for a model with both PDMP and hospital variables, and 0.89 for a model that further added behavioral health and criminal justice variables. For nonfatal overdose, the area under the curve using all variables was 0.85.Conclusions and relevanceIn this analysis, fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose could be accurately predicted with linked administrative databases. Hospital encounter data had higher predictive utility than PDMP data. Model performance was meaningfully improved by adding PDMP records. Predictive models using linked databases can be used to target large-scale public health programs.

Project description:BackgroundCriminal justice involvement is common among pregnant women with opioid use disorder (OUD). Medications for OUD improve pregnancy-related outcomes, but trends in treatment data among justice-involved pregnant women are limited. We sought to examine trends in medications for OUD among pregnant women referred to treatment by criminal justice agencies and other sources before and after the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion.Methods and findingsWe conducted a serial, cross-sectional analysis using 1992-2017 data from pregnant women admitted to treatment facilities for OUD using a national survey of substance use treatment facilities in the United States (N = 131,838). We used multiple logistic regression and difference-in-differences methods to assess trends in medications for OUD by referral source. Women in the sample were predominantly aged 18-29 (63.3%), white non-Hispanic, high school graduates, and not employed. Over the study period, 26.3% (95% CI 25.7-27.0) of pregnant women referred by criminal justice agencies received medications for OUD, which was significantly less than those with individual referrals (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] 0.45, 95% CI 0.43-0.46; P < 0.001) or those referred from other sources (ARR 0.51, 95% CI 0.50-0.53; P < 0.001). Among pregnant women referred by criminal justice agencies, receipt of medications for OUD increased significantly more in states that expanded Medicaid (n = 32) compared with nonexpansion states (n = 18) (adjusted difference-in-differences: 12.0 percentage points, 95% CI 1.0-23.0; P = 0.03). Limitations of this study include encounters that are at treatment centers only and that do not encompass buprenorphine prescribed in ambulatory care settings, prisons, or jails.ConclusionsPregnant women with OUD referred by criminal justice agencies received evidence-based treatment at lower rates than women referred through other sources. Improving access to medications for OUD for pregnant women referred by criminal justice agencies could provide public health benefits to mothers, infants, and communities. Medicaid expansion is a potential mechanism for expanding access to evidence-based treatment for pregnant women in the US.

Project description:Abstract Background The overlap between justice system involvement and drug use is well‐documented. Justice‐involved people who misuse opioids are at high risk for relapse and criminal recidivism. Criminal justice policymakers consider opioid‐specific medication‐assisted therapies (MATs) one approach for improving outcomes for this population. More research is needed that explores the impacts of opioid‐specific MATs for justice‐involved people. Objectives This study sought to assess the effects of opioid‐specific MAT for reducing the frequency and likelihood of criminal justice and overdose outcomes for current or formerly justice‐involved individuals. Search Methods Records were searched between May 7, 2021 and June 23, 2021. We searched a total of sixteen proprietary and open access databases that included access to gray literature and conference proceedings. The bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched. Selection Criteria Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they: (a) assessed the effects of opioid‐specific MATs on individual‐level criminal justice or overdose outcomes; included (b) a current or formerly justice‐involved sample; and (c) a randomized or strong quasi‐experimental design; and c) were published in English between January 1, 1960 and October 31, 2020. Data Collection and Analysis We used the standard methodological procedures as expected by The Campbell Collaboration. Main Results Twenty studies were included, representing 30,119 participants. The overall risk of bias for the experimental studies ranged from “some” to “high” and for quasi‐experimental studies ranged from “moderate” to “serious.” As such, findings must be interpreted against the backdrop of less‐than‐ideal methodological contexts. Of the 20 included studies, 16 included outcomes that were meta‐analyzed using mean log odds ratios (which were reported as mean odds ratios). Mean effects were nonsignificant for reincarceration (odds ratio [OR] = 0.93 [0.68, 1.26], SE = .16), rearrest (OR = 1.47 [0.70, 3.07], SE = 0.38), and fatal overdose (OR = 0.82 [0.56, 1.21], SE = 0.20). For nonfatal overdose, the average effect was significant (OR = 0.41 [0.18, 0.91], SE = 0.41, p < 0.05), suggesting that those receiving MAT had nearly 60% reduced odds of a nonfatal overdose. Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research The current review supports some utility for adopting MAT for the treatment of justice‐involved people with opioid addiction, however, more studies that employ rigorous methodologies are needed. Researchers should work with agencies to improve adherence to medication regimens, study design, and collect more detailed information on participants, their criminal and substance use histories, onset, and severity. This would help clarify whether treatment and control groups are indeed comparable and provide better insight into the potential reasons for participant dropout, treatment failure, and the occurrence of recidivism or overdose. Outcomes should be assessed in multiple ways, if possible (e.g., self‐report and official record), as reliance on official data alone may undercount participants' degree of criminal involvement.

Dataset Information

State criminal justice policy context and opioid agonist treatment delivery among opioid treatment admissions, 2015.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

State criminal justice policy context and opioid agonist treatment delivery among opioid treatment admissions, 2015.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets