The Youth Opioid Recovery Support (YORS) intervention is a promising approach for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in young adults that seeks to improve adherence to extended-release medications for OUD (XR-MOUD) and reduce opioid relapse through assertive outreach techniques. YORS was previously tested with individuals seeking extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), but has not been tested on individuals pursuing extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP). This pilot study tested the YORS intervention among a group choosing either XR-MOUD compared to historical treatment as usual (H-TAU) and intervention conditions from a previous study. This study also tested feasibility of a stepped care approach using a protocol for transition to standard care. Twenty-two young adults (ages 18-26) with OUD intending to pursue outpatient treatment with XR-NTX (n=11) or XR-BUP (n=11) were recruited from inpatient treatment and received 12-24weeks of the YORS intervention. Participants in YORS compared to H-TAU readults.This study examined nicotine and cannabis vaping among adolescents in treatment for substance use disorders. Participants were 363 adolescents aged 12-17 (66% male, mean age = 15.5 [SD = 1.3], 46% non-Hispanic white) seen for a specialty addiction intake evaluation between 2017 and 2019 at one of six medical offices of a large, integrated health care system in Northern California. Multivariable logistic regression models tested for associations of sociodemographics, cigarette smoking, and substance use disorders with vaping behaviors. A majority of adolescents reported ever (68%) or current vaping (60%) of nicotine and/or cannabis; current vaping was similar for nicotine (50%) and cannabis (51%); 40% reported current vaping of both. Current smokers (6% of the sample) had higher odds of ever vaping (aOR = 3.95, 95%CI 1.04-14.95). Black (versus non-Hispanic white) adolescents had lower odds of current nicotine vaping (aOR = 0.08, 95%CI 0.02-0.37) and current vaping of both nicotine and cannabis (aOR = 0.12, 95%CI 0.03-0.60). Having an alcohol use disorder was associated with current vaping (aOR = 2.14, 95%CI 1.06-4.33). Those who endorsed that most friends get drunk/high (aOR = 1.87, 95%CI 1.02-3.42) or that cannabis was their substance of choice (aOR = 2.36, 95%CI 1.16-4.81) had higher odds of current cannabis vaping. Higher neighborhood household income ($80,000-$120,000 and >$120,000 vs. less then $80,000, aORs = 2.05-9.48), never versus ever blunt use (aORs = 2.47-8.68), and intakes in 2018 and 2019 versus 2017 (aORs = 2.18-5.38) were associated with higher odds of all vaping outcomes. Vaping was common among adolescents in addiction treatment and varied with sociodemographics and substance-related factors. Research should assess how vaping impacts the development of substance use disorders and whether it interferes with addiction treatment. To compare over ten weeks the number of relapses, hospital admissions, calls made, admissions to therapeutic communities, face-to-face visits, treatment adjustment, number of injectables administered, and number of emergencies attended due to emotional and behavioral alterations and/or substance use disorder, and to describe and quantify social emergencies in an outpatient drug clinic (ODC) in Salamanca (Spain) from March 16, 2020, to May 22, 2020. This is an ecological study of the COVID pandemic over ten weeks. The study examines the set of alcohol or other drug-dependent or dual disorder patients in the population of Salamanca, Spain. The measurements were professionals; calls made; percentage of successful calls; face-to-face visits; first visits made; reviews made; techniques; injectable treatments; other treatments; evolution; relapses. The ODC includes about 375 new patients each year and another 650 other patients annually. The study found the number of relapses to be greater in the last five weemotional responses and other behaviors, such as excessive alcohol consumption. The number of face-to-face consultations, admissions, and referrals to therapeutic communities increased. Patients under stress and in social isolation resorted more often to substance use. The ODC had to adopt a flexible approach to evaluate patients with more serious problems, by using face-to-face assessments.Some adult cannabis users report negative consequences of use but do not seek treatment. Nonjudgmental, brief interventions incorporating motivational interviewing techniques may be able to reach users who otherwise would not seek treatment and increase their motivation to change use. Previous studies have shown brief interventions with this population are efficacious in reducing use, but the absolute amount of change has not clearly translated into meaningful reductions in associated negative consequences. The current study used a marijuana check-up (MCU) model to attract nontreatment-seeking adults who used cannabis at levels that may have caused negative consequences. The study randomly assigned participants to 2-session (n = 93) and 6-session (n = 93) versions of the intervention and followed them for 12 months. The study designed the extended 6-session condition to build on the efficacy of the previously tested 2-session intervention. The study hypothesized that the opportunity to continue to consider the consequences of cannabis use would have the greatest impact on those who were in earlier stages of readiness for change. We used cognitive behavioral techniques to assist with change efforts when indicated. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/slf1081851-hydrochloride.html Results showed significant reductions in the frequency and daily duration of cannabis use at all follow-ups in both intervention conditions. The extended 6-session condition produced greater change only on a measure of the number of periods of the day in which cannabis was used. Reductions in dependence symptoms and problems related to cannabis use occurred in both conditions, but there was no effect of intervention condition. Participants who were less ready to make changes at the outset decreased use and negative consequences the least. Results suggested that some benefit of the extended session format of the check-up in reducing daily use, but the lack of a corresponding reduction in consequences suggested that the original 2-session MCU may be more cost effective.