Transcript Slide 1

American Indians/Alaska Natives and
Substance Abuse Treatment Outcomes:
Positive Signs and Continuing Challenges
Daniel Dickerson, D.O., M.P.H., Inupiaq
Assistant Research Psychiatrist
UCLA, Integrated Substance Abuse Programs (ISAP)
Addiction Psychiatrist
United American Indian Involvement, Inc.
July 23, 2009
Acknowledgements
Co-Investigators (UCLA, ISAP):
• Yih-Ing Hser, Ph.D.
• Suzi Spear, M.P.H.
• Libo Li, Ph.D.
• Richard Rawson, Ph.D.
Funding:
• Funding for this study was partially supported by
National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants:
P30DA106383 and K05PA017648.
Background:
• Compared to other racial/ethnic groups in
the U.S., American Indians/Alaska Natives
(AI/AN) have the highest rates of alcohol,
marijuana, cocaine, and hallucinogen use
disorders (USDHHS, 2007).
• AI/AN have the 2nd highest with regards
to methamphetamine rates only behind
another Indigenous group, Native
Hawaiians (USDDH, 2005).
Reasons for high rates of
substance abuse among AI/AN
• Factors related to low socioeconomic status, i.e., low
insurance coverage and financial resources
• Stigma associated with substance abuse in AI/AN
communities
• High rates of traumatic exposure and stress
• Historical trauma over the past 500 years
• Some suggestions of genetic causations
• Limited funding and a shortage of culturally-relevant
comprehensive substance abuse services
Effects of substance abuse
among AI/AN
• The effects of substance abuse in this population have
been significant.
• A more frequent association between alcohol use and
suicide has been observed among AI/AN compared to
the general U.S. population (Olson, et al. 2006; May et al., 2002).
• High rates of traumatic exposure have been identified
among AI/AN with alcohol use disorders (Boyd-Ball, et al.
2006; Whitbeck et al., 2004).
• The recent rise in methamphetamine abuse in this
population over the past decade has also significantly
impacted AI/AN communities (Spear et al., 2007).
Substance abuse treatment
outcomes among AI/AN
• Studies have been limited with most studies conducted in small,
community samples and have focused primarily on alcoholism (Evans
et al., 2006; Abbott, 1998).
• Among 45 hospitalized alcoholic American Indians, only 7 improved
10-years post-treatment although improvements in employment and
relationship stability were observed (Westermeyer and Peake, 1983).
• Posttreatment outcomes among a sample of 642 American Indians
who received outpatient and residential care, found that 28%
demonstrated clear improvement (Shore and von Fumetti, 1972).
• In a study conducted among a sample of urban American Indians
composed of 39 tribes receiving both inpatient and outpatient care,
positive treatment outcomes were documented (Walker et al., 1989).
Previous study utilizing a comparison group
(Evans et al., 2006)
• To our knowledge, only one study has been conducted analyzing
treatment outcomes between AI/ANs and a matched comparison
group
• A previous study conducted by our group compared alcohol and
drug treatment outcomes between California AI and a non-AI
comparison group utilizing the California Treatment Outcome Project
(CalTOP).
• AI and non-AI demonstrated similar levels of severity before
treatment in all 7 domains measured by ASI: alcohol, drug, medical,
psychiatric, family, legal, and employment.
• AI and non-AI also demonstrated similar levels of improvement
posttreatment in all 7 ASI domains.
• AI demonstrated lower treatment retention and completion rates.
Study overview
• In the present study, we analyzed data from a sample of
279 AI/AN and 279 from a matched comparison group
utilizing data from the Treatment System Impact (TSI)
project and Methamphetamine Treatment Project (MTP).
• Our goals were to examine:
1) drug and alcohol use treatment outcomes
between AI/AN and non-AI/AN samples
2) specific services received during treatment
3) treatment retention and completion patterns, and
4) pre- and post-treatment psychosocial, medical,
and psychiatric characteristics.
Hypotheses
• AI/AN would:
1) have less successful substance abuse
treatment outcomes
2) although demonstrating more medical and
psychiatric problems, would receive less of
these services
3) demonstrate lower retention and completion
rates, and
4) have more baseline medical and psychiatric
problems.
Study samples
• Our study sample included 490 participants from the TSI study (245
AI/ANs and 245 from a comparison group) and 68 participants from
the MTP study (34 AI/ANs and 34 from a comparison group).
• AI/ANs were required to have biological/psychosocial identity as an
AI/AN based on both the subject’s self-reported tribal identity and
the judgment of the research assistants who interviewed
participants. No information was obtained on blood quantum.
• To protect the confidentiality of these tribal members, we chose not
to identify specific tribal groups (Norton and Manson, 1996).
• The Institute Review Boards at University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA) approved both studies and. In addition, the California Health
and Human Services Agency approved the TSI study.
Treatment System Impact (TSI)
• TSI is a National Institutes of Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded,
multi-site prospective treatment outcome study designed
to assess the impact of California Proposition 36 on
California’s drug treatment delivery system and evaluate
the effectiveness of services delivered (Hser et al.,
2003).
• California’s Proposition 36, enacted as the Substance
Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, allows nonviolent drug offenders to receive treatment in lieu of
incarceration or probation/parole without treatment.
Treatment System Impact (TSI)
• The TSI recruited a total of 1,134 participants from 2003-2006.
Assessments for TSI were conducted by interviewers.
• The 12-month follow-up rates for AI/ANs and the matched
comparison group combined was 18.37% combined. Intake data for
this study were collected from 36 sites in five counties (Kern,
Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco).
• Programs were community-based or county programs and offered
both individual and group counseling.
• Only programs that have been certified or licensed by the California
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs can treat Proposition 36
patients and were included in this study.
• Participants were compensated for their time at each interview.
Methamphetamine Treatment
Project (MTP)
• MTP was a multi-site randomized, controlled trial of
psychosocial treatments for methamphetamine
dependence conducted from 1999-2001 (Rawson et al.,
2004).
• The MTP recruited a total of 938 participants between
1999 and 2001.
• Assessments for MTP were conducted in-person at
baseline and for each follow-up period by trained
research staff at baseline and each follow up period.
• The 12-month follow-up rates for AI/AN and the matched
comparison group combined was 88.24% combined for
the MTP.
Methamphetamine Treatment Project
• This study was designed to compare the Matrix Model of treatment
with “Treatment As Usual” at eight outpatient treatment sites in
California, Hawaii, and Montana.
• The Matrix Model is a multi-element package of evidence-based
practices delivered in a 16-week intensive outpatient program
(Rawson, et al., 2005).
• Participants were required to meet DSM-IV criteria for
methamphetamine dependence and be current methamphetamine
users (having used methamphetamine within one month prior to
treatment admission unless in a constrained environment such as
jail).
• Most programs were community-based, hospital, and independent
organizations.
• Participants were compensated for their time at each interview.
Matrix Model: Beginnings
• Developed in Los Angeles in 1984 for cocaine and
methamphetamine abusers
• Based on a set of evidence-based practices delivered in
a structured intensive outpatient treatment program.
• Manual created to guide both clinical staff and patients.
• An AI/AN culturally adapted version of the Matrix Model
is available.
Matrix Model Components
• Substance abuse intensive
outpatient treatment for 3-4 months
• Early recovery groups
• Relapse prevention groups
• Family education groups
• 12-Step meetings
• Social support groups
• Individual Counseling
• Urinalysis and breath alcohol testing
Outpatient Treatment Strategies
Structure and expectations
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Early Recovery
Skills
Family/education
Early Recovery
Skills
Weeks1-4
Weeks 1-12
Weeks1-4
Relapse
Prevention
Social Support
Relapse
Prevention
Weeks 13-16
Weeks 1-16
Weeks 1-16
*** Weekly urine testing, breath alcohol testing and individual sessions
Instruments and Measures: Pre and posttreatment problem severity
• Pretreatment and posttreatment problem severity was assessed
utilizing the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) (McLellan et al. 1992).
• The ASI is the most commonly used instrument used in the
substance abuse field and has demonstrated validity in ethnically
diverse populations (McLellan et al., 1980, McLellan et al., 1992, Carise &
McLellan, 1999).
• The ASI assesses problem severity in seven areas: alcohol use,
drug use, employment, family and social relationships, legal,
medical, and psychological.
• A composite score was calculated for each scale with a range of 0 to
1 with higher scores indicating greater problem severity
• The ASI was administered at both intake and at 12-month follow-up
for both the TSI and MTP.
Instruments and Measures: Treatment Services
Review (TSR)
• Treatment services received were based on the TSR
(TSR; McLellan et al. 1992).
• The TSR was administered at the 3-month follow-up for
TSI and weekly for the MTP.
• The TSR documents the number of services received in
each of the seven problem areas of the ASI.
• Services included both medical services (e.g.,
medication, doctor’s appointment) and psychotherapy
(e.g., individual or group therapy, 12-step groups).
Treatment retention/completion and
Legal History
• Treatment Retention was based on treatment and
administrative records from participating clinics and was
defined as the number of days between treatment
admission and treatment discharge.
• Treatment completion was defined those who completed
their treatment program.
• Legal history was based on arrest records. Arrest
records were available among TSI participants only and
were obtained from the California Department of Justice.
Analytic Approach
•
Group differences in pretreatment characteristics and treatment
retention/completion were examined using chi-square tests for categorical
variables and t tests for continuous variables.
•
T-tests were conducted to examine group differences in service intensity.
•
In regard to outcome data, we first used paired t tests to assess whether
changes in ASI composite scores from admission to follow-up were
significantly different from zero.
•
ANCOVA was applied to examine the differences between AI/AN and
controls on ASI composite scores controlling for covariates (age, gender,
treatment modality, and baseline problem severity).
•
We applied logistic regression analysis to examine the probability of any
arrest since last interview at 12 month follow-up, the probability of any drug
use posttreatment, the probability of any psychiatric problem posttreatment,
and the probability of any arrest posttreatment.
•
In these analyses, project (or ‘study’ from which the data came) was
included as a covariate to control for potential confounding effect. Unless
otherwise indicated, the significance level (two-tailed) was set at p < .05.
Demographic Information
AI/AN
(n=279)
Comparison
Group
(n=279)
TSI
87.8
87.8
MTP
12.2
12.2
37.9 (9.7)
37.8 (9.6)
59.1
59.1
0.0
65.6
100.0
0.0
0.0
20.1
African American
0.00
11.1
Other
0.0
3.2
11.5 (1.9)
11.5 (1.7)
Employed, Full or Part-Time Employment
32.6
40.0
Receiving outpatient treatment
78.2
82.4
Study %
Age, Mean (SD)
Male, %
Race
Caucasian
AI/AN
Hispanic
Education, mean years (SD)
Drug/Alcohol Use Characteristics
AI/AN
(n=279)
Comparison
Group
(n=279)
Methamphetamine
59.5
58.7
Marijuana
13.8
14.2
Alcohol
10.2
10.6
Cocaine
5.1
5.1
Heroin
8.3
7.9
Other
3.2
3.5
Daily
37.3
36.4
Every 1-3 days
20.6
20.8
Primary Drug Type, %
Frequency of drug use
Baseline ASI Composite Scores: AI/AN vs. non-AI/AN
*Psychiatric
Medical
Legal
non-AI/AN
Family
AI/AN
Employment
Drug
Alcohol
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Baseline Medical Health and Mental Health Based on Individual ASI Scores:
AI/AN vs. non-AI/AN
**Chronic medical
problem
*Had psychiatric
problems
non-AI/AN
Had serious depression
AI/AN
Had serious anxiety
**Trouble understanding
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Baseline Social and Criminal Involvement Characteristics Based
on Individual ASI Scores: AI/AN vs. non-AI/AN
*No. mos. Incarcerated in lifetime
No. lifetime arrests
non-AI/AN
**Ever sexually abused
AI/AN
Ever physically abused
Trouble controlling violent beahvior
0
10
20
30
40
50
Tretament Services Received: AI/AN vs. non-AI/AN (%)
(P=0.08) Abuse
(P=0.06) Family
Psychiatric
non-AI/AN
AI/AN
Medical
Alcohol
Drug
0
20
40
60
80
100
Treatment retention: AI/AN vs. non-AI/AN (%)
Completed
treatment
>90 days
non-AI/AN
61-89 days
AI/AN
31-60 days
<30 days
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
12-Month Treatment Outcomes Based on ASI Scores
Alcohol
Drug
Family
non-AI/AN
Employment
AI/AN
Legal
Medical
Psychiatric
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Legal and social treatment outcomes (past 30 days): AI/AN vs. nonAI/AN (%)
Conflicts with
family
Dependent living
non-AI/AN
Homeless
AI/AN
Employed
Arrested
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
12-month psychiatric treatment outcomes (past 30 days, %)
Trouble
understanding
Took psychiatric
medication
non-AI/AN
Had serious
anxiety
AI/AN
Had serious
depression
Had psychiatric
problems
0
10
20
30
40
50
Logistic regression on the probability of any drug use in past 30
day at 12 month follow-up (TSI and MTP combined and AI/AN and
non-AI/AN combined)
Any drug use in past 30 day at 12 month
follow-up
Beta
Group (NatAm vs. Matched)
-0.1426
Employed at intake (yes vs. no)
-0.6500
Modality 1 (outpatient vs. MM)
0.1440
Modality 2 (residential vs. MM)
-0.4763
Primary drug 1 (Alcohol vs. others)
-0.2498
Primary drug 2 (Cocaine vs. others)
-1.2057
Primary drug 3 (Marijuana vs. others)
0.7311
Primary drug 4 (Heroin vs. others)
1.1060
Primary drug 5 (Meth vs. others)
0.4498
Incarceration in past 30 days at intake**
-1.3167
Psychiatric problem in past 30 days at
intake **
1.6601
Ever physical abused (yes vs. no)
-0.7793
Ever sexual abused (yes vs. no)
0.4079
Logistic regression on the probability of any psychiatric problem in past
30 day at 12 month follow-up (TSI and MTP combined)
Any drug use in past 30 day at 12 month
follow-up
Beta
Group (NatAm vs. Matched)
-0.3957
Employed at intake (yes vs. no)
0.0558
Modality 1 (outpatient vs. MM)
-0.5478
Modality 2 (residential vs. MM)
-0.9316
Primary drug 1 (Alcohol vs. others)
-2.2790
Primary drug 2 (Cocaine vs. others)
-2.1007
Primary drug 3 (Marijuana vs. others)
-2.2980
Primary drug 4 (Heroin vs. others)
-3.9869
Primary drug 5 (Meth vs. others)
-2.7980
Incarceration in past 30 days at intake**
-0.8675
Psychiatric problem in past 30 days at
intake **
1.2208
Ever physical abused (yes vs. no)
0.5436
Ever sexual abused (yes vs. no)
-0.4779
Logistic regression on the probability of any arrest since last interview at
12 month follow-up (for TSI, the last interview is 3 month follow-up; for
MTP the last interview is 6 month follow-up)
Any drug use in past 30 day at 12 month
follow-up
Group (NatAm vs. Matched)
Beta
-0.3957
Employed at intake (yes vs. no)
0.0558
Modality 1 (outpatient vs. MM)
-0.5478
Modality 2 (residential vs. MM)
-0.9316
Primary drug 1 (Alcohol vs. others)
-2.2790
Primary drug 2 (Cocaine vs. others)
-2.1007
Primary drug 3 (Marijuana vs. others)
-2.2980
Primary drug 4 (Heroin vs. others)
-3.9869
Primary drug 5 (Meth vs. others)
-2.7980
Incarceration in past 30 days at intake**
-0.8675
Psychiatric problem in past 30 days at
intake **
1.2208
Ever physical abused (yes vs. no)
0.5436
Ever sexual abused (yes vs. no)
-0.4779
Discussion: Treatment outcomes
• Contrary to our hypothesis, substance abuse treatment
outcomes between AI/ANs and a matched comparison
group were similar.
• Our results mirror the California treatment outcomes
study conducted by Evans et al. (2006) where similar
reductions were found in problem severity.
• Our current study consisted of patients from a more
geographically-diverse population covering 44 sites in 3
states (California Montana, and Hawaii) and a greater
proportion of patients with methamphetamine
dependence.
Discussion:
Treatment outcomes
• These results suggest that AI/AN can be equally
responsive to substance abuse treatment as
non-AI/AN.
• However, further studies comparing treatment
outcomes in specific treatment settings [i.e.,
rural, urban, Indian Health Service (IHS) clinics,
community clinics in the general population] and
among specific tribal groups and U.S. regions
are needed.
Addressing barriers to substance
abuse treatment for AI/AN
• Results from our study highlight the need for
improving access to substance abuse treatment
for AI/AN since receiving substance abuse
services may be effective for AI/AN.
• A need to address barriers with regard to AI/AN
receiving substance abuse treatment including
transportation barriers, low levels of insurance
coverage, stigma, and a shortage of integrated
substance abuse treatment models.
Recognizing fundamental principles of
Wellness among AI/AN
• Among AI/ANs, Wellness encompasses the mental,
emotional, spiritual, and physical.
• Among AI/ANs, treatment of substance abuse
necessitates that we embrace our AI/AN philosophies
and traditions by recognizing these connections.
• Thus, further efforts towards integrating primary care
with substance abuse and psychiatric services are
suggested.
Importance of culturally-relevant substance
abuse treatment approaches
• Many AI/AN substance abuse treatment programs incorporate
traditional methods of healing including sweat lodge ceremonies,
use of talking circles, and traditional healing services.
• White Bison approach by Don Coyhis is used by a large amount of
programs serving AI/ANs with substance abuse problems.
• Native American version of Matrix Model
• Native American Motivational Interviewing (Venner & Feldstein, 2006)
• Can culturally-tailored treatment programs assisted towards
improving treatment retention, completion, and outcomes?
Short Brief Intervention and
Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)
• Another useful strategy towards increasing access to
substance abuse treatment is utilization of the Short
Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)
protocol.
• SBIRT is a comprehensive, integrated approach to the
delivery of early intervention and treatment services for
individuals with substance abuse disorders and
individuals at risk of developing these disorders
• This approach has demonstrated efficacy in a large
sample of AI/AN (Madras et al., 2009)
Short Brief Intervention and
Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)
The vast majority of people with a diagnosable illicit drug
or alcohol problem are unaware they have a problem or
do not feel they need help.
Public Health
Challenge
Definitions of Screening,
Brief Interventions, and Brief Treatments
Screening: Brief questionnaire yields a score that identifies
and quantifies substance abuse and associated
problems.
Brief Intervention (BI): Give feedback about screening
results, inform patient about consuming substances,
advise on change, assess readiness to change,
establish goals, strategies for change, and follow-up.
Brief Treatment (BT): Enhanced level of intervention with
more than one session.
Referral (RT): Referral to treatment for substance abuse or
dependence.
Discussion:
Services received
• Unexpectedly, no statistically significant
differences were observed with regard to
specific treatment services received between
AI/ANs and the matched comparison group.
• However, AI/ANs did receive more family-related
services, abuse-related services, and psychiatric
services.
Trauma exposure within AI/AN
communities
• Within AI/AN communities, the effects of substance abuse have
been further exacerbated by historically-based trauma.
• AI/AN societies have been adversely affected by genocide, removal
from homelands, forced placement into boarding schools, and the
breakdown of traditional family systems throughout U.S. history
(Weaver & Yellow Horse Brave Heart, 1999).
• These effects associated with historically-based trauma have been
implicated as a causative factor for substance abuse among AI/ANs
(Nebelkopf and Phillps, 2004).
• Individual and group trauma-related treatments and communitybased healing strategies are needed among AI/AN in substance
abuse treatment.
Treatment retention
and completion
• Our hypothesis that AI/ANs would have decreased
treatment completion and retention rates was also not
found.
• With regards to treatment retention, our results differed
from the Evans et al. study that demonstrated
significantly shorter treatment retention among AI/ANs
receiving residential treatment.
• Further studies analyzing and comparing treatment
retention and completion, and patient satisfaction levels
in diverse treatment settings (i.e., rural, urban, triballybased clinics, etc.) are suggested.
Health-related disparities among AI/AN
with substance abuse problems
• As predicted, notable differences were observed
between AI/AN and non-AI/AN entering substance abuse
treatment as evidenced by AI/AN having significantly
more medical and psychiatric problems at baseline.
• These characteristics were expected and not surprising
since AI/ANs are known to experience significant healthrelated disparities (Jones, 2006).
• These results further highlight the need for more
culturally-tailored, comprehensive treatments addressing
medical and psychiatric comoribidites among AI/ANs
seeking substance abuse treatment.
Study Limitations
• The agencies participating in TSI and MTP were not randomly
selected. Therefore, it is therefore possible that our findings are not
generalizable to other programs that do not provide similar services.
• The reliability and validity of self-reported information is uncertain
and the cross-cultural validity and applicability to AI/AN have not
been established.
• Treatment program information was incomplete, limiting our ability to
analyze culturally-specific aspects of treatments which may have
been provided in some facilities.
• AI/ANs are a heterogeneous population with 562 federallyrecognized tribes.
• Generalizing these results to all AI/AN is not possible.
Conclusions
•
Similar substance abuse treatment outcomes were observed between a
group of AI/AN and a non-AI/AN comparison group with illicit drug and
alcohol problems.
•
These results suggest that AI/AN can be equally responsive to substance
abuse treatment as non-AI/AN.
•
A significant need exists with regard to increasing access to substance
abuse treatment services for AI/AN and addressing treatment barriers since
there may be potential for adequate substance abuse treatment outcomes
in this population.
•
Improve screening and referrals for substance abuse problems.
•
Further studies analyzing and comparing substance abuse treatment
outcomes in more diverse treatments may assist towards identifying
potentially-effective treatment outcomes for AI/AN with substance abuse
problems.
Contact Information
Daniel Dickerson, D.O., M.P.H.
e-mail: [email protected]
phone: 562-277-0310