Costs, benefits, and net benefit of 13 inpatient substance use treatments for 14,947 women and men.

In an attempt to replicate earlier findings that substance use disorder treatment (SUDTx) has monetary outcomes (benefits) for taxpayers that exceed treatment costs several times over for the average participant, costs of SUDTx were contrasted to observed costs of healthcare, criminal justice services, and economic assistance, plus potential increases in earned income, for 14,947 substance-using individuals treated at 13 intensive inpatient programs varying in gender sensitivity. Those who received higher levels of gender-sensitive treatment were expected to better offset treatment costs through greater reductions in subsequent service costs and economic assistance, and greater increases in earned income. Compared to the 24 months preceding treatment, archival data from state databases showed that use of health and criminal justice services, and receipt of economic assistance, actually increased during the 24 months following treatment, and that earned income decreased, resulting in unexpectedly negative net benefits, i.e., a net loss, from a taxpayer perspective. More gender-sensitive treatment was less costly per participant, however, making the net loss less for persons receiving more gender-sensitive treatment. Alternative explanations for these findings are explored, including utilization of archival records of service use rather than the more bias-sensitive self-reports of service use that others have examined previously. The importance of evaluating nonmonetary, as well as monetary, outcomes of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is noted as well.

A pilot open-label feasibility trial examining an adjunctive mindfulness intervention for adolescents with obesity.

BACKGROUND: Obesity in adolescence is predictive of obesity in adulthood and risk for chronic disease. Traditional behavioral approaches to addressing obesity in adolescence rarely yield meaningful changes in body mass index (BMI), suggesting that adjunctive treatments are necessary. Herein, we describe a study examining whether it is feasible to integrate a brief mindfulness intervention with the usual recommended care for adolescent obesity in a pediatric weight management clinic. METHODS: We conducted a single arm open-label trial with 11 adolescent patients with obesity. Participants received the recommended standard of medical management of obesity (usual care) plus a six-week mindfulness intervention. To assess our primary aim of feasibility, we examined recruitment, retention, and satisfaction rates. Participants also completed measures of mindfulness, emotion regulation, disordered eating, quality of life, and executive functioning, and had their BMI and blood pressure measured. RESULTS: We recruited 11 adolescents to participate in the intervention, with 8 (73%) completing the entire program. Attendance rates (85%) and satisfaction rates (100%) were promising for a larger trial. While preliminary analyses of changes in health outcomes should be examined with caution, effect sizes ranged from small to large with some promising trends in eating behaviors. DISCUSSION: It might be feasible to augment existing behavioral interventions for adolescents with obesity with brief mindfulness; however, some adaptations are needed to enhance recruitment and retention. The lessons learned in this feasibility study can inform an adequately powered efficacy trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This research is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03874377).

Sleeve Gastrectomy for Youth With Cognitive Impairment or Developmental Disability.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Youth with cognitive impairment or developmental disability (CI/DD) face higher rates of obesity and secondary medical issues. Bariatric surgery may be a helpful tool for health improvement because it has been shown efficacious for adolescents. We aim to contribute to literature regarding bariatric surgery for adolescents with CI/DD and explore the association between cognitive functioning and weight loss outcomes. METHODS: Adolescents (N = 64) received a preoperative psychological evaluation, including cognitive assessment, and bariatric surgery at 1 weight loss program between 2010 and 2017. For these adolescents with measured cognitive performance, CI/DD was defined by an IQ <80 or previous diagnosis. In analyses, we compared adolescents with and without CI/DD. Structural equation modeling was used to assess the impact of cognitive functioning on weight loss 3 to 24 months postsurgery. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between adolescents with or without CI/DD in terms of preoperative BMI, age, and sex. Having CI/DD did not significantly impact weight loss or weight loss trajectory in the 2 years after surgery, although modeling revealed a trend toward individuals with CI/DD losing more weight over time. Similarly, intelligence scores did not predict weight loss after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery may be a helpful tool for adolescents with severe obesity and CI/DD. They could benefit from the surgery as much as those with typical development, and having CI/DD should not be used as a criterion to deny surgery. Continuing research with this population can be used to determine long-term outcomes in addition to defining best practices.

Patient and program costs, and outcomes, of including gender-sensitive services in intensive inpatient programs for substance use.

Gender-sensitive services (GSS) attempt to make substance use treatment better for women, but at what cost and with what results? We sought answers to these questions in a federally-funded study by measuring separately the patient and provider costs of adding GSS, outcomes, and cost-outcome relationships for 12 mixed-gender intensive inpatient programs (IIP) that varied in amounts and types of GSS. GSS costs to female inpatients included time devoted to GSS and expenses for care of dependents while in the IIP. GSS costs to providers included time spent with patients, indirect services, treatment facilities, equipment, and materials. Offering more GSS was expected to consume more patient and provider resources. Offering more GSS also was expected to enhance outcomes and cost-outcome relationships. We found that average GSS costs to patients at the IIPs were $585 ($515-$656) per patient. Average GSS costs to providers at the IIPs were $344 ($42-$544) per patient. GSS costs to patients significantly exceeded GSS costs to providers. Contrary to previous research, offering more GSS services to patients did not result in significantly higher costs to patients or providers. IIPs offering more GSS may have delivered fewer traditional services, but this did not significantly affect outcomes, i.e., days until returning to another substance use treatment. In fact, median cost-outcome for these IIPs was a promising 35 treatment-free days, i.e., over a month, per $100 of GSS resources used by patients and providers.