Product Type: eNewsletter or Blog

Monthly E-newsletter.

Monthly E-newsletter

Monthly E-Newsletter

Monthly E-Newsletter

Monthly E-Newsletter

Monthly E-Newsletter

Monthly E-Newsletter

Monthly E-Newsletter

Monthly E-Newsletter

Monthly E-Newsletter

Monthly E-Newsletter

Monthly E-Newsletter

The MESSENGER November 2020

The MESSENGER December 2020

The MESSENGER January 2021

The MESSENGER February 2021

The MESSENGER March 2021

The MESSENGER October 2020

By Caroline Kuo, DPhil, MPhil Associate Professor, Brown University School of Public Health Honorary Associate Professor, University of Cape Town As we work to close disparities in substance use prevention and treatment, we need to turn to the evidence-base and choose interventions that not only work, but are likely to have the largest impact upon the health behaviors we are trying to address. However, interventions are designed and tested in a particular population and context. The transportability of evidence-based models is not always appropriate or guaranteed. Culture, language, poverty, health systems differences, and other social and structural determinants of health may adversely affect engagement in, and response to evidence-based intervention models that are applied to new populations and settings unless the interventions are adapted. Such adaptations to existing evidence-based programs should not alter the core components of the intervention in order to maintain the intervention’s efficacy and effectiveness. Ideally, adaptation procedures strike a delicate balance between the idea of interventions being “universally applicable” to all contexts with the notion that “custom tailoring” is necessary to address inevitable differences in populations, settings, and cultures. The following six sequential steps can guide the process of assessing, and if necessary, adapting existing interventions to new populations and settings. Click on View Resource to read more.

By Jesse Heffernan CCAR Core Trainer and Recovery Coach Professional, Helios Recovery Services As we start to prepare, or continue, to celebrate the 2020 holiday season, it goes without saying that this will be perhaps one of the most stressful and difficult ones in recent times. The pressure and influence of the COVID-19 pandemic has caused many folx in recovery and supporting fields to assess this year differently. For many in or seeking recovery, the holidays may already activate any number of traumas or personal “stuff” causing some to be more susceptible to symptoms of recurrence or heavier use. We may also experience the effectiveness of our self-care strategies lessening through this time, which does not mean we are failing, it instead indicates we are experiencing something new or extra challenging. We need to remember there are ways to successfully navigate the holidays — and we can ask family, friends and colleagues to help. One of the ways we can mitigate the stress of the season is planning and boosting our self-care before the holidays kick in. We can do this by focusing not just on engagement in recovery supports, but also on staying on track with a holistic approach to support our physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual well-being. Every individual's recovery looks different and with the help a counselor, mentor, recovery coach, or sponsor we can have a plan ready. (We also want to consider other factors, like equitable access to services and promoting multiple pathways of recovery, which includes medications and moderation.) Here are some suggestions that may help you out. Click on View Resource to read the full article.

Revisit these ATTC Messenger Articles from 2020: ATTC Messenger January 2020: The Intersection of HIV and SUD: An Innovative Partnership to Educate and Support Two Critically Important Workforces ATTC Messenger February 2020: New Toolkit on Using MAT for Opioid Use Disorder in Jails and Prisons ATTC Messenger March 2020: Shedding Light on Gambling Disorder as an Addiction: A Guide for Practitioners ATTC Messenger April 2020: A Roadmap to a Better Alcohol Environment ATTC Messenger May 2020: Responding to the Silent Epidemic ATTC Messenger June 2020: Zooming through a Pandemic ATTC Messenger July 2020: Emerging Issues Around COVID-19 and Social Determinants of Health for the Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Workforces ATTC Messenger August 2020: Minority to Priority ATTC Messenger September 2020: Building Leaders to Advance Recovery ATTC Messenger October 2020: In Honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Responding to Substance Use Coercion in Treatment and Recovery Services ATTC Messenger November 2020: Adapting evidence-based programs to diverse populations and settings ATTC Messenger December 2020: Thriving in Survival - Holidays 2020

Practice Guidelines for the Administration of Buprenorphine for Treating Opioid Use Disorder On Jan. 27, 2021, the Office of National Drug Control Policy issued a statement regarding the announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) about forthcoming Practice Guidelines for the Administration of Buprenorphine for Treating Opioid Use Disorder. The initial DHHS announcement generated a lot of discussion in the field around the pros and cons of the X waiver for buprenorphine prescribers. To provide clarity, the ATTC Network Coordinating Office (NCO) asked H. Westley Clark, MD, JD, MPH to write a summary of the proposal and the field’s reaction. The article below was written prior to ONDCP’s Jan. 27 statement, which postponed the new Guidelines indefinitely. Nevertheless, the ATTC NCO felt it was important to publish Dr. Clark’s article to provide context to a conversation which will undoubtedly be ongoing. By Westley Clark, MD, JD, MPH Dean's Executive Professor of Public Health Santa Clara University Santa Clara, California On Jan. 12, 2021, a week before the Trump Administration left office, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) submitted to the Federal Register for publication new Practice Guidelines for the Administration of Buprenorphine for Treating Opioid Use Disorder. In a questionable interpretation of the Drug Addiction Treatment Acts of 2000 (DATA 2000), the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) and the Substance Use Disorder Prevention Opioid Recovery and Treatment For Patients and Communities (SUPPORT) Act, DHHS concluded that Practice Guidelines could eliminate the requirement that physicians with a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration number apply for a separate waiver to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder treatment. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) in DHHS determined that the need for physicians to make all of the certifications under DATA 2000 represented a significant perceived barrier to prescribing buprenorphine in the United States and removing the certification requirements would dramatically improve access to buprenorphine and save lives. The proposed guidelines applied only to licensed physicians who possess a DEA registration and only to buprenorphine, not methadone. They required physicians who use the exemption to place an ‘X’ on the prescription, clearly identifying the prescription as being written for opioid use disorders. They required that charts for patients being treated for OUD be maintained separately from other patients to ensure confidentiality and required physicians to maintain and retain records of prescriptions issued. Physicians became limited to no more than 30 patients; however, they exempted hospital-based physicians, such as emergency department (ED) physicians who initiated treatment in the ED, from the 30-patient limit if they did not engage in a long-term treatment relationship. Finally, the guidelines restricted the exemption to patients in the states where physicians have a license. The proposal included information about implementation of the guidelines. DHHS would establish an interagency working group to monitor the implementation and results of the guidelines, as well as the impact on diversion. The working group would be chaired by a representative from the Immediate Office of the Secretary of HHS. To read the full article, click on View Resource.

An Evaluation of Recovery Housing in Missouri: Key Outcomes and Recommendations By Claire Wood, PhD; Brenna Lohmann, MSW; Kori Richardson, MPP; Alex Duello, MPH; Marsha Hourd; Rosie Anderson-Harper, MA; and Rachel Winograd, PhD Between legislative advances for increasing recovery budgets, creation of recovery housing standards by the National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR), and increasing support of the use of Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) as part of an abstinence-based recovery path, recovery housing has made substantial progress in finding ways to support individuals in their recovery. As part of SAMHSA-funded awards focused on addressing the opioid crisis, the State Targeted Response (STR) (2017-2019) and State Opioid Response (SOR) grants (2018-present), a team based out of the University of Missouri, St. Louis–Missouri Institute of Mental Health (UMSL-MIMH) conducted a robust mixed methods evaluation of recovery homes across the state. The goal of the evaluation was to provide insights to the Missouri recovery system and identify gaps and strategies to better support individuals in their recovery. The two-part evaluation of the recovery housing system included: 1) A Community Based System Dynamics (CBSD) evaluation, and 2) A survey of recovery housing characteristics. Click on View Resource to read the full article.

Introducing NIDA's Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (JCOIN) By Tisha R.A. Wiley, PhD, and Lori J. Ducharme, PhD National Institute on Drug Abuse In the context of addressing the overdose epidemic, the U.S. criminal justice system presents significant opportunities for intervention, challenges for service delivery, and potential for creating essential linkages to community-based services for individuals upon release. More than half of individuals in U.S. jails and prisons meet diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder, and a substantial proportion report regular opioid use (Bronson et al., 2017). Research that can inform and improve service delivery and treatment engagement is critical for this vulnerable population. In 2019, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched the Helping to End Addiction Long-term Initiative, or NIH HEAL InitiativeSM, an ambitious effort to address the opioid crisis through research on the effective management of chronic pain, and the prevention and treatment of opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD). As part of that initiative, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), established the Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (JCOIN) to study approaches to improve OUD treatment services for individuals involved in the justice system. The delivery of substance use treatment services within correctional settings remains rare, and is challenged by a number of logistical, regulatory, philosophical, and resource hurdles (Fiscella et al., 2018). Continuity of care, both upon incarceration and upon release, is a particular challenge (Joudrey et al., 2019). JCOIN provides an opportunity to test alternative service delivery models to better engage individuals in ongoing treatment, and to support interagency collaborations that can facilitate the transition between criminal-legal and community settings. JCOIN is a cooperative agreement that supports an array of clinical trials, pilot studies, stakeholder engagements, and dissemination activities. It begins with the perspective that every individual involved in the justice system should have access to evidence-based SUD treatment services, while detained and while in the community. Thirteen large clinical trials are designed to generate evidence about “what works” in these settings and how best to implement those services. Briefly, they can be described in four thematic clusters...click on View Resource to read the full article.