RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Roughly 24-36% of people who are incarcerated in the U.S. are formally diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD). Once released, individuals involved with the criminal legal system (CLS) face increased risks of return to use and fatality and are 129 times more likely to die from an overdose within the first two weeks of release compared to those without CLS involvement. People who are CLS-involved and who are seeking a recovery living environment can access temporary stable housing through recovery homes. However, entering a recovery home can be difficult due to fragmentation among recovery housing organizations and their non-uniform application and screening procedures. A navigation pilot program was implemented to provide clients with recovery home placement advice, pre-screening, and referrals in Cook County, IL. Existing research on recovery homes has rarely examined the importance of recovery housing navigation for enhancing service engagement among CLS-involved individuals receiving medications for OUD. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 clients and three recovery housing navigators as part of a program evaluation of the navigation program pilot. Qualitative software was used to organize and qualitatively analyze transcripts through several rounds of coding producing emergent themes, which were then triangulated, and expanded using navigator data. RESULTS: Clients seeking recovery home services reported multiple prior challenges securing safe and supportive recovery living environments. Despite low initial expectations, clients described their interactions with housing navigators in favorable terms and felt navigators worked with them effectively to identify and meet their housing and substance use needs in a timely manner. Clients also commented on their partnerships with the navigator throughout the process. Interactions with navigators also calmed fears of rejection many clients had previously experienced and still harbored about the process, which bolstered client-navigator relationships and client motivation to engage with additional services. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this study suggests recovery home navigation can improve the speed and efficiency with which clients are connected to appropriate services that are tailored to their specific needs as well as increase client motivation to engage with a myriad of recovery services.

RESUMEN

Background: Rural areas in the United States have been severely impacted by recent rises in substance use related mortality and psychosocial consequences. There is a dearth of treatment resources to address substance use disorder (SUD). Rural recovery houses (RRH) are important services that provide individuals with SUD with an environment where they can engage in recovery-oriented activities, but dropout rates are unacceptably high, and evidence-based interventions such as contingency management (CM) may reduce dropout and improve outcomes for RRH residents. In this paper, we describe the results of a national convening of experts that addressed important issues concerning the implementation of CM within the context of RRHs.Methods: Twelve experts (five female) in the areas of CM, RRH and rural health participated in a one-day facilitated meeting that used nominal group technique to identify expert consensus in three areas as they pertain to RRH: (a) facilitators and barriers to CM implementation, (b) elements necessary for successful program building based on group feedback, and (c) recommendations for future implementation of CM.Results: Several RRH- and system-level barriers and facilitators to implementing CM were identified by the panel, and these were categorized based on the level of importance for and ease of implementation. CM funding, staff and resident buy-in, set policies, education on CM, and consistent fidelity to CM procedures and tracking were identified as important requirements for implementing CM in RRH.Conclusions: We provide recommendations for the implementation of CM in RRH that may be useful in this context, as well as more broadly.

RESUMEN

Background and Aims: No recovery related surveillance system exists but given the evidence of effectiveness and growing supply, a house- and resident- level recovery house (RH) surveillance system could be beneficial for data collection on recovery support service (RSS) engagement, and retention; for improved standardization of RH programs and services; and for identification of outcomes associated with long-term recovery. Methods: This study aimed to explore current data collection practices at the resident- and house- level through qualitative focus interviews of RH representatives. The 13 RH interviews were scheduled with 16 RH representative respondents. Results: The most frequently collected resident data was at entry (92%) and departure (85%) and included demographics (n = 5), substance use history (n = 6), treatment and recovery history (n = 5), legal and correctional history (n = 6) and mental health information (n = 7). Recovery support data was collected by 85% of houses. Post-stay data was only collected by four RHs (31%). Conclusion: These results indicate that there is a lack of standardized systematic collection, analysis, and reporting of recovery related data in the RH field. A recovery related surveillance system has the potential to fill this gap and inform and improve standard of resident care to support long-term recovery from substance use disorder.

RESUMEN

Background: Individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) and recovery support services often face significant social stigma, especially in rural areas. One method of addressing stigma is through education and personal recovery stories. It is unclear if such messages will work similarly across rural and non-rural areas. Methods: We conduct an exploratory analysis of data from a national randomized controlled trial (N = 2,721) to determine if there are differences in the effectiveness of messages at reducing stigma across rurality. Specifically, we test four interventions to reduce stigma: education about the effectiveness of recovery housing and three versions of a personal recovery story that varied social distance and delivery medium (identified written story, anonymous written story, and video). Results: We find that messages may not have the same effect across rurality, with non-rural participants in the identified and anonymous written recovery story groups having lower stigma scores and only rural participants exposed to the anonymous written story having lower stigma scores compared to their counterparts in the control group. Further, non-rural participants exposed to both written story treatments had higher positive feelings towards those in recovery compared to the control group, but only rural participants in the anonymous written story group had higher positive feelings compared to the control group. Conclusion: Our results suggest that messages may have different effects on stigma across rurality and that rural participants' beliefs may be particularly hard to change. Future research should examine what types of stigma reduction interventions are most effective in rural areas.

RESUMEN

With over one-hundred thousand drug overdose deaths in 2021, substance use disorder (SUD) is a public health crisis in the United States. Medical stabilization has been the predominant focus of SUD interventions despite low levels of retention. Consequently, national quality measures for SUD care outside the clinical continuity of care are limited. The expansion of recovery support services addressing social drivers of health outside clinical settings is needed. The current SUD quality measures are not applicable nor feasible for recovery support service providers with limited resource capacities, like the estimated 17,900 recovery housing providers nationwide. Despite widespread support for recovery housing and its documented effectiveness, no universal set of measures has been developed for widespread adoption. In this brief, a matrix of quality measures are proposed to meet the needs of recovery housing providers with various capacities to support service evolution and improve equitable SUD treatment and recovery care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Recovery housing is an important resource for those in recovery from substance use disorders. Unfortunately, we know little about its relationship to key community health risk and protective factors, potentially limiting the role it could play as a broader health resource. Leveraging county-level data on recovery residences from the National Study of Treatment and Addiction Recovery Residences (NSTARR), this study used multilevel modeling to examine Community COVID Vulnerability Index (CCVI) scores as well as availability of COVID testing and vaccination sites in relation to recovery housing. CCVI composite scores were positively associated with recovery housing availability. Analyses using CCVI thematic sub-scores found that population density and number of churches were positively associated with recovery housing availability, while epidemiological factors and healthcare system factors were negatively associated with recovery housing availability. In counties with recovery housing, there also was a positive association between CCVI and both COVID testing and vaccination availability. Recovery residences tend to be located in areas of high COVID vulnerability, reflecting effective targeting in areas with higher population density, more housing risk factors, and other high-risk environments and signaling a key point of contact to address broader health issues among those in recovery from substance use disorders.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Recovery housing is an important resource for many in their recovery from alcohol and other drug use disorders. Yet providers of recovery housing face a number of challenges. Many of these challenges are rooted in stigma and bias about recovery housing. The ability to describe the service and purported mechanisms of action vis-a-vis an overarching framework, approach, or orientation could also go a long way in adding credence to recovery housing as a service delivery mechanism. Several aspects of social model recovery are often explicitly built or organically reflected in how recovery housing operates, yet describing recovery housing in these terms often does little to demystify key features of recovery housing. To more fully cement social model recovery as the organizing framework for recovery housing this article aims to: review the history, current status, and evidence base for social model recovery; comment on challenges to implementing the social model in recovery housing; and delineate steps to overcome these challenges and establish an evidence base for social model recovery housing.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Central City Concern (CCC) operates several recovery housing sites in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan region, including the Blackburn Center (Blackburn) and the Richard L. Harris Building (Harris). This retrospective, observational study was designed to assess recovery housing's impact on inpatient detoxification readmission rates and healthcare utilization patterns. Methods: Our study population consisted of individuals discharged from CCC's Hooper Detox Stabilization Center from June 2019 to September 2020. A total of 75 clients housed at Blackburn, 63 clients housed at Harris, and 57 clients discharged as unhoused were included in the study sample. Using logistic regression for each of the two recovery housing groups relative to the unhoused group, we examined differences in readmissions to inpatient detoxification after their qualifying discharge. We then used Difference-In-Difference model to compare the per member per year (PMPY) use of different domains of health care before and after their qualifying discharge. Results: Compared to clients discharged as unhoused, Blackburn and Harris residents had lower risk of readmissions to inpatient detoxification treatment at 90- and 180-days post-discharge. Additionally, while the mean number of PMPY emergency department visits increased for clients discharged as unhoused in the post period, the average number of emergency department visits decreased for clients who obtained recovery housing at Blackburn (DiD=-3.65 PMPY, p-value=0.02) and at Harris (DiD=-3.87 PMPY, p-value=0.01). Conclusion: Findings highlight the impact and importance of recovery housing for individuals managing a substance use disorder and the value of healthcare system and public sector investment housing like Blackburn and Harris.

RESUMEN

Single State Agencies (SSAs) are responsible for managing the publicly funded alcohol and other drug prevention, treatment, and recovery service system. Recovery housing (RH) is an important recovery support service (RSS) for individuals experiencing substance use disorder (SUD). Despite its effectiveness, information on state utilization and support is limited. To assess state-level support for RH and its incorporation within the SSA-managed SUD service systems, we administered a survey with SSAs in the 50 United States and the District of Columbia. In total, 48 out of the 51 SSAs responded, yielding a 94% response rate. Findings indicate strong state-level support for RH in terms of it being an integral RSS (98%), part of state-level strategic plans (73%) and prioritized for funding (87.5%). States are making progress to formalize RH with 68% reporting RH had been defined formally or within their agency. However, activities around understanding the capacity and need for RH are limited, with 44% indicating a needs assessment had not been conducted. At the same time, states perceive RH as a priority RSS, with growing recognition of its positive impact on long-term SUD recovery. This research identifies the opportunities for stakeholders to further evolve and expand RH at the federal, state, and local levels.

RESUMEN

Qualitative studies have examined the recovery experiences of individuals prescribed medication-assisted treatment (MAT), including their experiences within treatment facilities. However, the literature lacks qualitative studies exploring the recovery process of individuals prescribed MAT while living in recovery housing, such as Oxford House (OH). The purpose of this study was to explore how OH residents, who are prescribed MAT, make sense of recovery. The fact that OHs are drug-free recovery housing is what makes the issue of using MATs potentially contentious in these settings. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to document the lived experiences of individuals prescribed MAT in OH. The sample included: five women and three men, prescribed either methadone or Suboxone, that were living in an OH in the United States. Participants were interviewed on four topics: their recovery process, their transition to OH, and their experience living in and outside of an OH. Analysis of results followed the recommendations for IPA from Smith, Flowers, and Larkin. Four general themes emerged from the data: Recovery Process, Managing Logistics of MAT Utilization, Personal Development, and Familial Values. In conclusion, individuals prescribed MAT did benefit from living in an OH to manage their recovery as well as stay compliant with their medication.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Recovery Housing (RH), an important resource for substance use disorder (SUD) recovery, centers on shared lived experience. Program evaluation considers the contribution of environmental factors to outcomes, yet most research on outcomes has focused on patient factors and fidelity to protocols. Investigations of process measures reflecting the dynamic interplay between patient factors and the treatment program are limited. Alliance, one's perceived connection with others, is a process measure associated with mental health outcomes and includes domains "tasks," "goals," and "bonds." We posit that alliance serves as a proxy construct to measure the impact of shared experience in RH.Objectives: Develop and assess the psychometric properties of the Fletcher Recovery Housing Alliance Measure (FRHAM-12) for RH.Methods: A cross-sectional survey with the 12-item FRHAM-12 was administered to 271 individuals (60% men, 39% women, 1% other) within six RH centers in Kentucky. Item-total correlations, internal consistency reliability, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted.Results: The FRHAM-12 was found to have a strong internal consistency (0.924 alpha coefficient) and the EFA yielded a single component (56.38% of cumulative scale variance). CFA indicated acceptable levels of absolute and relative fit of a unidimensional scale with values of 0.67 and 0.976 for the standardized root mean square residual and relative fit index.Conclusion: This study aimed to construct and validate an initial measure for RH alliance resulted in the brief, FRHAM-12; a tool with strong internal and factor validity. Future research should examine the measure's predictive and concurrent validity.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Recovery housing plays an important role in supporting individuals in their recovery by building recovery capital and providing stable living environments; however, the extent to which medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), the gold standard for OUD treatment, are accepted in recovery housing settings is unclear. The purpose of this study, as part of a larger statewide evaluation of Missouri recovery homes, was to identify the extent to which Missouri recovery houses were accepting of methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone as well as the extent to which the acceptance of each medication was linked to whether the recovery home encouraged tapering off MOUDs. METHODS: Sixty-four recovery housing managers and/or staff, out of 66 eligible recovery homes in Missouri completed the survey. RESULTS: Results indicated that methadone was the least accepted medication for long-term use followed by buprenorphine and then naltrexone. Recovery houses that had significantly lower overall acceptance of methadone encouraged tapering; however, the overall acceptance for buprenorphine and naltrexone was not significantly related to the encouragement of tapering off MOUDs. CONCLUSION: This work highlights the need to develop reliable instruments to measure and assess MOUD-capable recovery homes and to increase knowledge and acceptance of MOUD within recovery home settings.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Recovery housing provides substance-free living environments that use peer-support to empower individuals in recovery from substance use disorder. This study estimated the total revenue of the recovery housing industry from recovery houses, nationwide.Using survey data collected in June and July of 2020, we calculate the total revenue of the recovery housing industry and determine the share of revenue that comes from different sources for rural and nonrural houses.We find that individual recovery houses operate with an annual revenue of $250,000 and the whole industry accounts for $4.5 billion annually. COVID-19 has reduced industry revenue by 4%. Rural and nonrural houses differ significantly in their sources of revenue.Our results suggest that COVID-19 reduced the size of the recovery housing industry. Houses in nonrural regions may need more federal support due to the relatively high reliance on resident fees, which may be unreliable during COVID-19.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Recovery housing generally refers to alcohol- and drug-free living environments that provide peer support for those wanting to initiate and sustain recovery from alcohol and other drug (AOD) disorders. Despite a growing evidence base for recovery housing, relatively little research has focused on how recovery housing may benefit individuals accessing outpatient substance use treatment. METHODS: Using administrative and qualitative data from individuals attending an outpatient substance use treatment program in the Midwestern United States that provides recovery housing in a structured sober living environment, this mixed methods study sought to: (1) determine whether individuals who opted to live in structured sober living during outpatient treatment (N = 138) differed from those who did not (N = 842) on demographic, clinical, or service use characteristics; (2) examine whether living in structured sober living was associated with greater likelihood of satisfactory discharge and longer lengths of stay in outpatient treatment; and (3) explore what individuals (N = 7) who used the structured sober living during outpatient treatment were hoping to gain from the experience. RESULTS: Factors associated with the use of recovery housing during outpatient treatment in multivariate models included gender, age, and receiving more services across episodes of care. Living in structured sober housing was associated with greater likelihood of satisfactory discharge and longer length of stays in outpatient treatment. Focus group participants reported needing additional structure and recovery support, with many noting that structure and accountability, learning and practicing life, coping, and other recovery skills, as well as receiving social and emotional support from others were particularly beneficial aspects of the sober living environment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore the importance of safe and supportive housing during outpatient substance use treatment as well as the need for future research on how housing environments may affect engagement, retention, and outcomes among individuals accessing outpatient substance use treatment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Home is essential to recovery, and recovery housing can play an important role for individuals seeking a supportive environment. The National Study of Treatment and Addiction Recovery Residences (NSTARR) Project constitutes the largest and most diverse study of recovery housing to date. We describe the development of a national sampling frame to study recovery housing, as well as findings on availability and distribution of recovery housing across the U.S. METHODS: Data from publicly available sources and lists maintained by entities tracking recovery housing were compiled. Residences for which locating information was available were geocoded and linked with U.S. Census data and drug and alcohol mortality data. We used hot spot analysis and multilevel models to describe the geographic distribution of recovery residences and assess whether residences are located in areas of high need. RESULTS: The NSTARR database contains information on 10,358 residences operated by 3628 providers in all 50 states. Residences were more likely (p < 0.05) to be in urban areas and in counties with higher substance use mortality; they were less likely to be in economically disadvantaged areas. Recovery housing density also was greater in urban areas and areas with a greater proportion of non-White residents, but lower in economically disadvantaged areas. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a wealth of research on some types of recovery housing, critical gaps in the field's understanding about the nature of recovery housing remain. The NSTARR Project represents an important first step to expand research on recovery housing across the country.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Recovery support services such as recovery housing assist individuals with increasing their access to social support, employment services, and systems of care. Lack of evidence-based practices and calls for increased oversight of these settings suggests a growing need for technical assistance and training for recovery residence owners and staff, yet little is known about their areas of greatest need for technical assistance. We developed and administered a survey to assess the technical assistance needs of recovery housing operators in the United States using a convenience sample of individuals who own or operate a recovery residence (N = 376). A total of 77 owners/operators completed the survey (20% response rate), representing urban, suburban, and rural communities. Differences were observed between number of owned residences: owners/operators of a single residence were interested in technical assistance on house-specific policies and linkage to established systems of care, whereas owners/operators of multiple residences were interested in technical assistance on building financial sustainability and incorporation of best practices into their recovery residences. As an increasing number of states move to implement voluntary certification or licensing for recovery residences, targeted training and technical assistance to owners/operators will facilitate the successful adoption of recovery residence best practices and quality standards.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Sober living houses (SLHs) are an increasingly common element of the recovery support services landscape, yet little is known about their neighborhood context. This study describes neighborhoods in which SLHs are located and examines differences by house characteristics. SLHs in Los Angeles County (N = 297) were geocoded and linked with U.S. Census, alcohol outlet, recovery resources, and accessibility data. Regression analyses tested differences by house characteristics. Co-ed houses were in neighborhoods that were less ethnically diverse and farther away from recovery resources. Larger house capacity was associated with increased density of off-premise alcohol outlets but also increased proximity to treatment. Higher fees were associated with lower neighborhood disadvantage and off-premise alcohol outlet density but the greater distance from treatment programs and other recovery resources. House characteristics are associated with neighborhood factors that both support recovery and place residents at risk.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Recovery housing is a vital service for individuals with substance use disorders who need both recovery support and safe housing. Recovery housing is a residential service, and it relies heavily on social support provided by peers both within the residence and in outside mutual help groups. As such, efforts to keep residents safe from SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes the illness COVID-19, pose a number of challenges to social distancing. Further, residents are some of the more vulnerable individuals in recovery. They are more likely to have co-occurring health conditions that place them at risk for COVID-19, and they often have risk factors such as employment in low-wage jobs that increase their potential for negative economic impacts of the pandemic. Since most recovery housing operates outside formal substance use treatment, residents who pay out-of-pocket for services largely support these residences. Comprehensive support for those using, as well as those providing and ensuring the quality of recovery housing, is needed to ensure the viability of recovery housing.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Public opinion polls have consistently shown Americans prefer treatment over arrest policies for opioid users. As the opioid epidemic remains a major health problem in the United States, it is important to determine the type of treatment policies the public would support. Theoretically, government should take into consideration the opinion of its constituents when deciding how to act. As such, the 2018 Virginia Commonwealth Public Policy Poll determined levels of support for the expansion of community-based treatment in one's community. RESULTS: Overall, the results showed 80% of Virginians (n = 788) supported the expansion of community-based treatment centers in their neighborhood, 69% supported the use of housing in their community, while less than half supported the provision of clean needles to IV drug users so they do not use dirty needles that could spread infection. Multivariate analyses revealed education, sex, and political party affiliation are significant factors in predicting support for the expansion of services. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of progress made by the government in reducing the supply and demand of drugs over the course of the war on drugs, it is time to move away from punitive policies to responsible and pragmatic approaches that include the expansion of community-based treatment.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) face unique recovery challenges. Recovery housing may play an important role in improving outcomes among MSM, but little is known about their experiences in these settings. METHODS: This study examined 3-month outcomes among MSM (N=22) living in a group of recovery residences in Texas, one of which is a home specifically designated for gay and bisexual men. Upon intake, adult MSM were recruited to participate in the study, which involved a baseline and 3-month phone interview and allowing study staff to access records maintained by the program about their stay. RESULTS: At follow-up, only two (9.1%) reported used of any substances in the past 30 days. The vast majority (73%) had attended outpatient substance use treatment in the past three months, and 86% reported working for pay during the past 30 days. All participants reported attending four or more 12-step meetings in the past 30 days. Use of dysfunctional coping strategies significantly decreased, however so did scores on health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: MSM have complex treatment needs. Recovery housing may help improve outcomes among MSM by bridging formal substance use treatment with community-based recovery support.