Search

BACKGROUND: Financial barriers in substance use disorder service systems have limited the widespread adoption-i.e., provider-level reach-of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for youth substance use disorders. Reach is essential to maximizing the population-level impact of EBPs. One promising, but rarely studied, type of implementation strategy for overcoming barriers to EBP reach is financing strategies, which direct financial resources in various ways to support implementation. We evaluated financing strategies for the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) EBP by comparing two US federal grant mechanisms, organization-focused and state-focused grants, on organization-level A-CRA reach outcomes. METHOD: A-CRA implementation took place through organization-focused and state-focused grantee cohorts from 2006 to 2021. We used a quasi-experimental, mixed-method design to compare reach between treatment organizations funded by organization-focused versus state-focused grants (164 organizations, 35 states). Using administrative training records, we calculated reach as the per-organization proportion of trained individuals who received certification in A-CRA clinical delivery and/or supervision by the end of grant funding. We tested differences in certification rate by grant type using multivariable linear regression models that controlled for key covariates (e.g., time), and tested threats to internal validity from our quasi-experimental design through a series of sensitivity analyses. We also drew on interviews and surveys collected from the treatment organizations and (when relevant) interviews with state administrators to identify factors that influenced reach. RESULTS: The overall certification rates were 27 percentage points lower in state-focused versus organization-focused grants (p = .01). Sensitivity analyses suggested these findings were not explained by confounding temporal trends nor by organizational or state characteristics. We did not identify significant quantitative moderators of reach outcomes, but qualitative findings suggested certain facilitating factors were more influential for organization-focused grants (e.g., strategic planning) and certain barrier factors were more impactful for state-focused grants (e.g., states finding it difficult to execute grant activities). DISCUSSION: As the first published comparison of EBP reach outcomes between financing strategies, our findings can help guide state and federal policy related to financing strategies for implementing EBPs that reduce youth substance use. Future work should explore contextual conditions under which different financing strategies can support the widespread implementation of EBPs for substance use disorder treatment.

Most people with co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD) and mental illness do not receive effective medications for treating OUD. To investigate perspectives of adults in a publicly-funded mental health system regarding medications for OUD (MOUD), we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 13 adults with OUD (current or previous diagnosis) receiving mental health treatment. Themes that emerged included: perceiving or using MOUDs as a substitute for opioids or a temporary solution to prevent withdrawal symptoms; negative perceptions about methadone/methadone clinics; and viewing MOUD use as "cheating". Readiness to quit was important for patients to consider MOUDs. All participants were receptive to discussing MOUDs with their mental health providers and welcomed the convenience of receiving care for their mental health and OUD at the same location. In conclusion, clients at publicly-funded mental health clinics support MOUD treatment, signaling a need to expand access and build awareness of MOUDs in these settings.

ObjectiveThe authors examined the prevalence of co-occurring opioid use disorder and willingness to engage in treatment among clients of eight Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health outpatient clinics.MethodsAdults presenting for an appointment over a 2-week period were invited to complete a voluntary, anonymous health survey. Clients who indicated opioid use in the past year were offered a longer survey assessing probable opioid use disorder. Willingness to take medication and receive treatment also was assessed.ResultsIn total, 3,090 clients completed screening. Among these, 8% had a probable prescription (Rx) opioid use disorder and 2% a probable heroin use disorder. Of the clients with probable Rx opioid use or heroin use disorder, 49% and 25% were female, respectively. Among those with probable Rx opioid use disorder, 43% were Black, 33% were Hispanic, and 12% were White, and among those with probable heroin use disorder, 24% were Black, 22% were Hispanic, and 39% were White. Seventy-eight percent of those with Rx opioid use disorder had never received any treatment, and 82% had never taken a medication for this disorder; 39% of those with heroin use disorder had never received any treatment, and 39% had never received a medication. The strongest predictor of willingness to take a medication was believing that it would help stop opioid use (buprenorphine, β=13.54, p=0.003, and naltrexone long-acting injection, β=15.83, p