Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Too little is known about the effectiveness of efforts to prevent firearm violence. Our objective is to evaluate California's Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS), a law enforcement intervention that seeks to recover firearms from individuals who purchased them legally but subsequently became prohibited from having access to firearms. Prohibitions usually arise from events suggesting an increased risk for future violence. DESIGN AND STUDY POPULATION/METHODS:This group-randomised trial involves approximately 20 000 APPS-eligible individuals in 1041 communities. Randomisation was performed at the community level, to early or later intervention (Group 1 and Group 2, respectively) with stratification by region, population and violent crime rate. METHODS:APPS is being implemented by the California Department of Justice. The principal outcome measure is the incidence of arrest for a firearm-related or violent crime. Primary analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis, comparing individuals in Group 1 and Group 2 communities. Analyses will focus on time to event, using proportional hazards regression with adjustment for the clustered nature of the data and incorporating individual- and community-level characteristics. Secondary analyses will examine the effect of the intervention on an as treated basis, effects on subgroups, and effects on community-wide measures such as crime rates. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:APPS may have a significant impact on risk for future violence among members of its target population. The findings of this study will likely be generalisable and have clear implications for violence prevention policy and practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/BACKGROUND:NCT02318732.

BACKGROUND:Assaultive violence events are associated with increased risk for adverse psychiatric outcomes, including post-traumatic stress (PTS), depression, and generalized anxiety. Prior research has indicated that economic, legal, and social stressors that could follow assaultive events may explain the increased risk for adverse psychiatric outcomes, yet longitudinal studies have not adequately examined this pathway. In the current study, we aimed to address this limitation. METHODS:Participants (N = 1360) were part of a longitudinal population-based study of adults living in Detroit. At three waves, participants indicated their exposure to assaultive violence and economic, legal, and social stressors, and completed inventories of PTS, depression, and generalized anxiety. Longitudinal mediation models were used to test the hypothesized pathway from assaultive violence to each psychiatric outcome. RESULTS:The hypothesized models evidenced good fit with the data and, in each, the paths from Wave 1 (W1) assaultive violence to W2 stressors, and from W2 stressors to W3 symptoms were significant (range of Standardized Estimates: 0.09-0.15, all p < 0.01). Additionally, the indirect paths from W1 assaultive violence to W3 symptoms were significant (range of Standardized Estimates: 0.01-0.02, all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:The findings illustrate that the economic, legal, and social stressors that could follow assaultive violence increase risk for a range of psychiatric symptoms. Although future research is needed, the results suggest that investment in interventions that prevent and mitigate assaultive violence survivors' exposure to such stressors may be an effective way to prevent mental illness in the aftermath of violent assaults.

Background:We studied the association between sex in exchange for money, drugs or goods and HIV for women who inject drugs (WWID) in Ukraine, as previous data on this association from the post-USSR region are contradictory. Methods:Data come from the Integrated Bio-Behavioral Survey of Ukrainian people who inject drugs collected in 2011 using respondent-driven sampling. Participants were interviewed and tested with rapid HIV tests. Results:The sample included 2465 WWID (24% HIV positive); 214 (8.7%) of which reported having had exchange sex during the last 90 days. Crude analysis showed no association between exchange sex and HIV (OR = 0.644; 95% CI 0.385-1.077). No confounders were found to alter this result in a multivariable analysis. Further modeling showed that exchange sex modifies association between HIV and alcohol use: no association between HIV and daily alcohol use was found for those women who exchanged sex (OR = 1.699, 95% CI 0.737-3.956); while not engaging in sex work and daily using alcohol reduced odds to be HIV infected (OR = 0.586, 95% CI 0.389-0.885). Conclusions:Exchange sex may have less impact on the HIV status of WWID who are exposed to injecting risks. The finding that daily alcohol use appears protective against HIV among WWID who do not exchange sex requires more research.

BACKGROUND:We compare self-reported prevalence of drug use and indicators of data quality from two different response modes (with and without an independent answer sheet for recording responses) in a survey conducted in 2015 among secondary school students. METHODS:Stratified cluster-randomized study conducted among students in grades 8-12 from public, private and subsidized schools in Chile (N=2317 students in 122 classes). Measurements included were: percentage reporting substance use (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy); number of inconsistent responses; number of item nonresponses; percentage of extreme reports of drug use; percentage reporting using the nonexistent drug, relevón; and completion times. RESULTS:Compared with those who responded directly in the questionnaire booklet, students who used a separate answer sheet took 17.6 more minutes (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4-20.8) to complete the survey and had on average 1.5 more inconsistent responses (95%CI: 0.91-2.14). The prevalence and variance of drug use was higher among those who used an answer sheet for all substances except tobacco; the prevalence ratio (PR) of reported substance use for low-prevalence substances during the past year were: cocaine PR=2.5 (95%CI: 1.6-4.1); ecstasy PR=5.0 (95%CI: 2.4-10.5); relevón PR=4.8 (95%CI: 2.5-9.3). CONCLUSIONS:Using an answer sheet for a self-administered paper-and-pencil survey of drug use among students result in lower quality data and higher reports of drug use. International comparison of adolescent drug use from school-based surveys should be done with caution. The relative ranking of a country could be misleading if different mode of recording answers are used.

BACKGROUND:Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) is the standard of care for the treatment of opioid use disorders. However, most people in treatment do not receive OAT. This study evaluated whether there are racial and/or ethnic differences in OAT receipt among adults entering specialty treatment for opioid use disorders in publicly-funded treatment programs across the U.S. METHODS:Using data from the national Treatment: Episode Data Base, odds of OAT receipt were compared among black, Hispanic and white clients. Mediation analyses were used to explore whether any racial/ethnic differences in OAT receipt were explained by variation in clinical need or by other treatment, sociodemographic, or geographic characteristics. Interaction terms were used to assess whether this association was modified by primary opioid type. RESULTS:Only 28.7% of clients received OAT. Odds of OAT receipt were significantly higher odds among blacks (OR: 2.27(2.14-2.41)) and Hispanics (OR: 1.98(1.88-2.09)), compared to whites. Differences in clinical need accounted for a substantial portion of this difference (76.79% and 49.74%, respectively). Differences persisted after accounting for other potential explanatory variables (adjusted OR: 1.37 (1.24-1.52); 1.21(1.11-1.32)), but were only evident for primary heroin users (adjusted OR: 1.50 (1.34-1.69); 1.29 (1.17-1.42)) and not other opioid users. CONCLUSIONS:OAT receipt in treatment programs is low overall and particularly lacking among white heroin users. Differences in OAT receipt cannot be fully explained by differences in clinical need. More research is needed to understand and address barriers that underpin these differences so more patients with opioid use disorder can access evidenced-based treatment.

Attacks on peoples' dignity help to produce and maintain stigmatization and interpersonal hostility. As part of an effort to develop innovative measures of possible pathways between structural interventions or socially-disruptive Big Events and HIV outbreaks, we developed items to measure dignity denial. These measures were administered to 300 people who inject drugs (PWID), 260 high-risk heterosexuals who do not inject drugs, and 191 men who have sex with men who do not inject drugs (MSM). All of the PWID and many of the high risk heterosexuals and MSM were referred to our study in 2012-2015 by a large New York city study that used respondent-driven sampling; the others were recruited by chain-referral. Members of all three key populations experienced attacks on their dignity fairly often and also reported frequently seeing others' dignity being attacked. Relatives are major sources of dignity attacks. MSM were significantly more likely to report having their dignity attacked by police officers than were the other groups. 40 % or more of each key population reported that dignity attacks are followed "sometimes" or more often both by using more drugs and also by using more alcohol. Dignity attacks and their health effects require more research and creative interventions, some of which might take untraditional forms like social movements.

The hidden barriers, or 'gender pay gap', preventing women from earning equivalent incomes to men is well documented. Yet recent research has uncovered that, in Britain, there is also a comparable class-origin pay gap in higher professional and managerial occupations. So far this analysis has only been conducted at the national level and it is not known whether there are regional differences within the UK. This paper uses pooled data from the 2014 and 2015 Labour Force Survey (N = 7,534) to stage a more spatially sensitive analysis that examines regional variation in the class pay gap. We find that this 'class ceiling' is not evenly spatially distributed. Instead it is particularly marked in Central London, where those in high-status occupations who are from working-class backgrounds earn, on average, £10,660 less per year than those whose parents were in higher professional and managerial employment. Finally, we inspect the Capital further to reveal that the class pay gap is largest within Central London's banking and finance sector. Challenging policy conceptions of London as the 'engine room' of social mobility, these findings suggest that class disadvantage within high-status occupations is particularly acute in the Capital. The findings also underline the value of investigating regional differences in social mobility, and demonstrate how such analysis can unravel important and previously unrecognized spatial dimensions of class inequality.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are a widely prescribed psychoactive drug; in the U.S., both medical and nonmedical use of benzodiazepines has increased markedly in the past 15 years. Long-term use can lead to tolerance and dependence, and abrupt withdrawal can cause seizures or other life-threatening symptoms. Benzodiazepines are often used nonmedically in conjunction with other drugs, and with opioids in particular-a combination that can increase the risk for fatal and non-fatal overdose. This mixed-methods study examines nonmedical use of benzodiazepines among young adults in New York City and its relationship with opioid use. METHODS: For qualitative analysis, 46 90-minute semi-structured interviews were conducted with young adult opioid users (ages 18-32). Interviews were transcribed and coded for key themes. For quantitative analysis, 464 young adult opioid users (ages 18-29) were recruited using Respondent-Driven Sampling and completed structured interviews. Benzodiazepine use was assessed via a self-report questionnaire that included measures related to nonmedical benzodiazepine and opioid use. RESULTS: Participants reported using benzodiazepines nonmedically for a wide variety of reasons, including: to increase the high of other drugs; to lessen withdrawal symptoms; and to come down from other drugs. Benzodiazepines were described as readily available and cheap. There was a high prevalence (93%) of nonmedical benzodiazepine use among nonmedical opioid users, with 57% reporting regular nonmedical use. In bivariate analyses, drug-related risk behaviours such as polysubstance use, drug binging, heroin injection and overdose were strongly associated with regular nonmedical benzodiazepine use. In multivariate analysis, growing up in a middle-income household (earning between $51,000 and $100,000 annually), lifetime overdose experience, having ever used cocaine regularly, having ever been prescribed benzodiazepines, recent drug binging, and encouraging fellow drug users to use benzodiazepines to cope with opioid withdrawal were consistently strong predictors of regular nonmedical benzodiazepine use. CONCLUSION: Nonmedical benzodiazepine use may be common among nonmedical opioid users due to its drug-related multi-functionality. Harm reduction messages should account for the multiple functions benzodiazepines serve in a drug-using context, and encourage drug users to tailor their endorsement of benzodiazepines to peers to include safer alternatives.