Search

Aims: The study aim is to determinewhether risk behaviors and mental health history differ by family history of drug problems. Methods:N=3253participantswere recruited from thewaiting room of a hospital-based primary care clinic as part of a larger drug and alcohol Screening Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) study. Using a small tablet computer in the clinic waiting room participants completed an interactive, computer-delivered screening and assessment, including questions about demographics,mental health history, partner violence exposure, substanceuse behaviors and family history of substance use. Participants were classified into 4 groups based on their report of family members’ history of problems with drugs: (1) no family history; (2) second degree only (grandparents); (3) first degree only (parents and siblings); and (4) first and second degree. Logistic regression analyses were used to compare the four groups on multiple risk factors, with no family history as the reference group. Age, gender, and race were added as covariates in adjusted models. Results: Participants were predominantly mid 40’s (mean 46.6, SD 12.25), women (73%), and Black (72%). Family history of drug problems was associated with current smoking [1◦ AOR 1.8 (1.54, 2.11)], positive alcohol CAGE [1◦ AOR 2.6 (2.02, 3.36); 1◦ & 2◦ AOR 7.5 (3.72, 15.21)], positive drug CAGE [1◦ AOR 4.2 (3.06, 5.76); 1◦ & 2◦ AOR 7.0 (3.04, 15.99)], past year violence victimization [1◦ AOR 1.8 (1.37, 2.28); 1◦ & 2◦ AOR 5.5 (2.99, 10.08)], and previous diagnoses of anxiety [1◦ AOR 1.8 (1.37, 2.28); 1◦ & 2◦ AOR 5.5 (2.99, 10.08)] and depression [1◦ AOR 1.8 (1.37, 2.28); 1◦ & 2◦ AOR 5.5 (2.99, 10.08)]. Conclusions: Family history of drugproblems is associatedwith increased odds for substance use, violence exposure, and mental healthdiagnoses inprimary carepatients. This risk appears additive as high density family history of drug problems (first and second degree relatives) was associated with the highest risk. Financial support: RO1 DA026091, 5K23AA020316-02.

s / Drug and Alcohol Dependence 146 (2015) e202–e284 e267 Inhibitory control in patients with cocaine abuse is equally disrupted by generic and personally salient cocaine images Gregory J. DiGirolamo1,2, David Smelson2, Nathan Guevremont2, Gerardo Gonzalez2 1 Psychology, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, United States 2 Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts, Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States Aims: Todetermine the extent that salient cocaine cues increase breakdown of control in patients with cocaine abuse, wemeasured control over behavior in a task where patients must inhibit an impulsive action and instead look away from a suddenly appearing image. Cueswere personally salient cocaine or neutral stimuli (participants handled them and rated their craving; photos of them touching the cues were used during the task) and generic cocaine (photos of cocaine-related cues) and neutral stimuli. Methods: Twenty-five treatment-seeking patients (M=37.2 yrs; 19males)with a history of cocaine abuse (M=14.6 yrs) and use of cocaine within the last month (16.2 days of use) were inducted into the study. Initial assessments included Voris cocaine craving measures and anti-saccade performance. Results: Voris craving scores were significantly higher (t=5.82, p< .0001) after handling the cocaine cues (M=27.3) than after handling the neutral cues (M=13.3). Inhibitory control was significantly worse (t=2.1, p< .05) for the salient cocaine cues (M=37%) than the salient neutral cues (M=33%). Likewise, errorswere significantly higher (t=2.8, p< .01) for the generic cocaine cues (M=34%) than the generic neutral cues (M=29%). Importantly, there was no hint of a statistical (t

Aims: Motivational interviewing (MI) has been shown to be effective as a short-term therapeutic intervention for alcohol abuse. However, the researchon theeffectivenessofMI forotherdrugpopulations is mixed. The inconsistent findings may, in part, be due to the severity of problems experienced by these populations and the relative brevity of the 1–3 sessions typical of an MI intervention. The current study is a Stage 2 clinical trial that addresses these gaps in the literature by studying a methamphetamine (MA) dependent population and extending MI therapy to 9 sessions. Methods: Participants were randomized to (1) a 9-session intensive MI intervention (n=111) or (2) one session of standard MI with a time equivalence activity (n=106). All participants were followed at 2, 4, and 6months. Data collection included days of MA use, ASI drug, and ASI psychiatric severity. Results: Longitudinal analyses were estimated via the use of random intercept models assessing averaged treatment effects from baseline. Both conditions had significant decreases in MA use and ASI drug scores though significant differences between MI conditions were not observed. However, ASI psychiatric severity scores significantly declined for the intensive MI condition but not for the standard MI condition. Further examination of psychiatric symptoms showed significant decreases in the number of days of psychological problems compared to the standardMI condition and significant decreases in the number of days of depression for the intensive MI condition. Conclusions: This clinical trial focused on MA dependent individuals, a population that frequently presentswith serious psychiatric symptomatology at treatment entry, thereby complicating treatment efforts. Our findings demonstrate that standard MI may be equally beneficial in helpingMA clients reduce theirMA use and problem severity but intensive MI may help alleviate psychological problems not adequately addressed in shorterMI interventions. Future study should include long-term follow-up and examine the elements of MI therapy that may work as moderators to successful recovery. Financial support: NIDA R01 DA024714.