Programs and Communities
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Substance-Related Disorders
- All Subjects: Climate Change
Women in recovery from substance use disorders (SUD) face significant barriers to achieving reproductive well-being (RWB) and disproportionately experience unintended pregnancy. Unintended pregnancy can have serious consequences in this population. Equity-informed approaches promote the integration of reproductive health care (RHC) with recovery programs to improve both access to and quality of RHC. Arizona’s largest SUD recovery program, Crossroads, Inc. recently opened an on-site, integrated primary clinic offering RHC. A one-month pilot demonstration of One Key Question (OKQ), a pregnancy desire screening tool, was implemented with fidelity at Crossroads to identify clients with RHC needs and offer care.
IRB exempt status was obtained through Arizona State University. All female-bodied clients aged 18-49 were screened following routine admission assessments. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement Triple Aim model based on Self-Determination Theory and Motivational Interviewing was used to prioritize client autonomy. The client experience of care was measured using an adapted Interpersonal Quality of Family Planning scale. The magnitude of needs and desires were summarized with descriptive statistics. Sixty-three clients were screened with OKQ. Needs were identified in 97% of clients. Of those clients, 98% accepted referrals. Ninety percent of items measuring the client experience of care were rated as “excellent.” OKQ provided an efficient structure for person-centered screening and referral conversations to integrate RHC in a large SUD recovery program with excellent care experiences reported by clients.
Maricopa County, Arizona, anchor to the fastest growing megapolitan area in the United States, is located in a hot desert climate where extreme temperatures are associated with elevated risk of mortality. Continued urbanization in the region will impact atmospheric temperatures and, as a result, potentially affect human health. We aimed to quantify the number of excess deaths attributable to heat in Maricopa County based on three future urbanization and adaptation scenarios and multiple exposure variables.
Two scenarios (low and high growth projections) represent the maximum possible uncertainty range associated with urbanization in central Arizona, and a third represents the adaptation of high-albedo cool roof technology. Using a Poisson regression model, we related temperature to mortality using data spanning 1983–2007. Regional climate model simulations based on 2050-projected urbanization scenarios for Maricopa County generated distributions of temperature change, and from these predicted changes future excess heat-related mortality was estimated. Subject to urbanization scenario and exposure variable utilized, projections of heat-related mortality ranged from a decrease of 46 deaths per year (− 95%) to an increase of 339 deaths per year (+ 359%).
Projections based on minimum temperature showed the greatest increase for all expansion and adaptation scenarios and were substantially higher than those for daily mean temperature. Projections based on maximum temperature were largely associated with declining mortality. Low-growth and adaptation scenarios led to the smallest increase in predicted heat-related mortality based on mean temperature projections. Use of only one exposure variable to project future heat-related deaths may therefore be misrepresentative in terms of direction of change and magnitude of effects. Because urbanization-induced impacts can vary across the diurnal cycle, projections of heat-related health outcomes that do not consider place-based, time-varying urban heat island effects are neglecting essential elements for policy relevant decision-making.
Global environmental change and sustainability science increasingly recognize the need to address the consequences of changes taking place in the structure and function of the biosphere. These changes raise questions such as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental changes underway, and where? Research demonstrates that vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards (perturbations and stresses) alone but also resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing such hazards. This recognition requires revisions and enlargements in the basic design of vulnerability assessments, including the capacity to treat coupled human–environment systems and those linkages within and without the systems that affect their vulnerability. A vulnerability framework for the assessment of coupled human–environment systems is presented.
Research on global environmental change has significantly improved our understanding of the structure and function of the biosphere and the human impress on both (1). The emergence of “sustainability science” (2–4) builds toward an understanding of the human–environment condition with the dual objectives of meeting the needs of society while sustaining the life support systems of the planet. These objectives, in turn, require improved dialogue between science and decision making (5–8). The vulnerability of coupled human–environment systems is one of the central elements of this dialogue and sustainability research (6, 9–11). It directs attention to such questions as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental and human changes underway, and where? How are these changes and their consequences attenuated or amplified by different human and environmental conditions? What can be done to reduce vulnerability to change? How may more resilient and adaptive communities and societies be built?
Answers to these and related questions require conceptual frameworks that account for the vulnerability of coupled human–environment systems with diverse and complex linkages. Various expert communities have made considerable progress in pointing the way toward the design of these frameworks (10, 11). These advances are briefly reviewed here and, drawing on them, we present a conceptual framework of vulnerability developed by the Research and Assessment Systems for Sustainability Program (http://sust.harvard.edu) that produced the set of works in this Special Feature of PNAS. The framework aims to make vulnerability analysis consistent with the concerns of sustainability and global environmental change science. The case study by Turner et al. (12) in this issue of PNAS illustrates how the framework informs vulnerability assessments.
Stress is the direct source of some health issues and the precursors to many illnesses. The effects of stress are felt by the majority of the population and is usually undertreated or overlooked as a norm of life rather than a potential source of illness. Though everyone has different thresholds of stress, chronic or constant stress is debilitating for some and can manifest itself in limitless ways. For adults with substance use disorders (SUDs), research supports that mindfulness based interventions (MBIs) could be beneficial for stress management. The techniques incorporated in mindfulness based practices can decrease the baseline stress of its practitioners by increasing their awareness and mindfulness within daily life and during stressful situations.
This increase in awareness and mindfulness has shown numerous benefits that may be crucial in increasing the likelihood of sobriety for those with SUDs. Some of these benefits may include, improved stress management, improved mitigation of craving symptoms, reduced incidences of relapse, and a better quality of life. A 4-week self-help mindfulness pilot program was conducted twice within two separate residential substance recovery settings. The participant’s satisfaction and the internalization of mindfulness concepts were measured within the pre and post implementation of a self-help mindfulness class. In the pilot program, participants rated high satisfaction of the mindfulness class and showed increased levels of mindfulness through the use of the client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8) and the five facets of mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ-39).
The chronic nature of substance use disorder requires continuity of care after residential treatment. Only a small proportion of patients, however, adhere to aftercare follow-up plans and the relapse rates remain between 40- 80% within a year post-discharge. Synthesis of evidence showed that facilitated referral (FR) significantly increased follow- up adherence and resulted to positive outcomes. The study aimed to examine the effectiveness of FR in improving access, follow-up adherence and engagement to aftercare services, and relapse rate after a month post- discharge.
After the Institutional Review Board approval, 30 participants were recruited in two residential treatment facilities. Questionnaires, the Assessment of Warning Signs of Relapse and Health leads surveys were utilized to collect data. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, McNemar, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Results showed that FR significantly increased access to many community aftercare services (p<.05). A significant reduction in relapse risk post-intervention was also noted (Z= -3.180, p= .001). Additionally, most participants discharged with scheduled appointments followed-up and had continued engagement with aftercare services. Eight participants maintained sobriety and 18 were lost to follow-up a month post-discharge, while four relapsed in the facility.
Overall, FR increased access to needed aftercare services and significantly decreased the relapse percentage risk post-discharge. FR is a promising intervention that can be implemented for practice. Future research is recommended to further examine the correlation with follow-up adherence and continuous engagement to aftercare services, and relapse rate at 30 days after discharge.