Faculty Bibliography

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.

There is currently widespread concern that access to, and success within, the British acting profession is increasingly dominated by those from privileged class origins. This article seeks to empirically interrogate this claim using data on actors from the Great British Class Survey (N = 404) and 47 qualitative interviews. First, survey data demonstrate that actors from working-class origins are significantly underrepresented within the profession. Second, they indicate that even when those from working-class origins do enter the profession they do not have access to the same economic, cultural and social capital as those from privileged backgrounds. Third, and most significantly, qualitative interviews reveal how these capitals shape the way actors can respond to shared occupational challenges. In particular we demonstrate the profound occupational advantages afforded to actors who can draw upon familial economic resources, legitimate embodied markers of class origin (such as Received Pronunciation) and a favourable typecasting.

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.

Background Agricultural production has expanded dramatically throughout Brazil. Previous research in the Serrana Region found that from 1979 to 1998, agricultural workers experienced high mortality rates from certain cancers compared to non-agricultural workers [Meyer et al. (2003): Environ Res 93:264-271].

BACKGROUND:Psychiatric disorders are highly comorbid with substance use disorders and play an important role in their course and recovery. However, the impact of comorbidity on treatment outcomes has not been examined in a U.S. national sample. This study explores the impact of psychiatric comorbidity on treatment completion among individuals admitted to publicly funded substance use treatment facilities across the United States. METHODS:Using data on first-time treatment episodes in the U.S. from the Treatment Episode Dataset-Discharges (TEDS-D) for the years 2009-2011, logistic regression was used to assess the association between psychiatric comorbidity and treatment non-completion, and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the association between comorbidity and rate of attrition. Analyses were performed for all substances together and then stratified by primary substance of abuse (alcohol, cannabis, stimulants, or opioids). RESULTS:Of 856,385 client treatment episodes included in our analysis, 28% had a psychiatric comorbidity and 38% did not complete treatment. After adjusting for socio-demographic and treatment characteristics, clients with psychiatric comorbidity had higher odds of not completing treatment relative to those without comorbidity [OR=1.28 (1.27-1.29)], and had an earlier time to attrition [HR=1.14 (1.13-1.15)]. Psychiatric comorbidity was most strongly associated with treatment non-completion and rate of attrition in those admitted primarily for alcohol [OR=1.37 (1.34-1.39); HR=1.19 (1.17-1.21), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS:Individuals with psychiatric comorbidities receiving treatment for substance use disorders face unique challenges that impact their ability to complete treatment. The findings call for further efforts to integrate treatment for psychiatric comorbidities in substance use treatment settings.

The numbers and success of minority students in science and the health fields remain relatively low. This study presents the outcomes of a research training program as an illustrative case study. The Short-Term Training Program for Minority Students (STPMS) recruits underrepresented minority undergraduate and graduate students for immersion in research training. A total of 69 students participated in the STPMS between 1995 and 2012, and 59 of these completed our survey to determine the perceived impact of the program on the students' motivations and professional development. Results indicated that motivations to participate in the STPMS were commonly related to long-term professional development, such as obtaining mentoring and guidance in career decision making, rather than gaining specific research skills or for economic reasons. Students reported that participation in short-term research training had the most significant effect on improving their attitudes toward biomedical research and promoted positive attitudes toward future careers in health research. A total of 85% of the program's alumni have since completed or are currently working toward a degree in higher education, and 79% are currently working in science research and health care fields. Overall, the short-term training program improved students' attitudes toward research and health science careers. Mentoring and career guidance were important in promoting academic development in students.

PURPOSE:This short communication examines the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on insurance coverage and substance use treatment access among persons with opioid use disorders. METHODS:Data came from the 2010-2015 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. Among persons with heroin and opioid pain-reliever use disorders, measures of insurance coverage and treatment access were compared before and after the implementation of major PPACA provisions that expanded access to insurance in 2014. RESULTS:The prevalence of uninsured persons among those with heroin use disorders declined dramatically following PPACA implementation (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.89), largely due to an increase in the prevalence of Medicaid coverage (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.21-3.18). There was no evidence of an increase in the prevalence of treatment, but among persons who received treatment, there was an increase in the proportion whose treatment was paid for by insurance (OR 3.75, 95% CI 2.13-3.18). By contrast, there was no evidence the uninsured rate declined among persons with pain-reliever use disorders. CONCLUSIONS:The PPACA Medicaid expansion increased insurance coverage among persons with heroin use disorders, and likely plays an essential role in protecting the health and financial security of this high-risk group. More research is needed on the relationship between insurance acquisition and utilization of substance use treatment.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The American Academy of Pediatrics recently recommended that pediatricians consider medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for adolescents with severe opioid use disorders. Little is known about adolescents' current use of MAT. METHODS:We use data on episodes of specialty treatment for heroin or opioid use (n = 139,092) from a database of publicly funded treatment programs in the U.S. We compare the proportions of adolescents and adults who received MAT, first using unadjusted comparison of proportions, then using logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS:Only 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4%-3.7%) of adolescents in treatment for heroin received MAT, as compared to 26.3% (95% CI, 26.0%-26.6%) of adults. Only .4% (95% CI, .2%-.7%) of adolescents in treatment for prescription opioids received MAT, as compared to 12.0% (95% CI, 11.7%-12.2%) of adults. Regression-adjusted results were qualitatively similar. CONCLUSIONS:Regulatory changes and expansions of Medicaid/CHIP coverage for MAT may be needed to improve MAT access.

Calls to address crack-cocaine use in Brazil among homeless and street-frequenting populations who are in urgent need of health services have questioned the capacity of the Brazilian Unified Health System to attend to the nation's most marginalized citizens. In recent years, Brazil has launched several actions to escalate care for substance users, yet many obstacles hindering accessibility and effectiveness of services remain. Paradoxically, these actions have been implemented in the context of a growing economic crisis, and expanding services for a population of poor and stigmatized substance users while cutting other government programs tends to elicit harsh criticism from citizens. In consequence of such prospects, this commentary aims to discuss barriers marginalized substance users face in accessing health services that are at risk of worsening with government cutbacks. Using Rio de Janeiro as an example, we explore two primary issues: the resource-strained, under-staffed and decentralized nature of the Brazilian Unified Health System and the pervading stigma that bars vulnerable citizens from official structures and services. Abandoning initiated government efforts to increase access to health services would risk maintaining vulnerable citizens at the margins of public structures, inhibiting the opportunity to offer this population humane and urgently needed treatment and care.