Colorado Coalition for the Homeless

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is responsible for a significant burden of medical, economic, and social harm globally and across the United States. Currently, only three FDA-approved medications for AUD are available, and most patients with AUD never receive pharmacotherapy. Disulfiram, the first medication that FDA approved for treatment of AUD, is recommended as a second-line treatment option by several national treatment guidelines citing safety concerns and lack of high-quality comparative studies. In this issue, Holt argues that disulfiram should be reclassified as a first-line treatment for AUD based on promising open-label randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for disulfiram as a behavioral intervention. Review of the literature suggests that disulfiram can be a useful treatment for a highly selected group of patients with no medical or psychiatric contraindications, high motivation for abstinence, and adequate family support. Unfortunately, many patients with AUD, a disorder characterized by high rates of medical and psychiatric multimorbidity and social vulnerability, fall outside of this narrow selection criteria. Prescribers should consider other FDA-approved medications as first-line treatment options for most patients with AUD, reserving disulfiram for the rare patients in whom the potential for benefit clearly outweighs risk of harm.

After publication of the original article [1], the authors identified an error in Acknowledgements section. The below disclosures is missing. "Dr. Ciccarone has received compensation in the past 36 months for: being on the Scientific Advisory Board for Celero Systems; providing expert testimony for Motley Rice LLP; being a one-time consultant for Arbor Pharmaceuticals; all outside the submitted work". The original article has been corrected.

Runaway and homeless youth (RHY) are dependent on the specialized settings that locate, engage, and serve them. Yet, little research has focused on the features of effective settings for RHY. The present qualitative study, grounded in the Youth Program Quality Assessment model, explored characteristics of higher quality organizations for RHY and gaps that remain from staff and RHY perspectives. A total of 29 diverse settings serving RHY in New York State were randomly selected for participation, and ranked on a quantitative program quality index. Within settings, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with program administrators (N=30) and other staff (N=24). Focus group interviews were conducted with RHY (N=13 focus groups; N=84 RHY). Data were analyzed using a systematic content analysis approach that was both theory-driven and inductive, comparing higher to lower quality settings. We found all settings provided vital services and experienced challenges, but higher quality settings ameliorated challenges through 1) a youth-centered program philosophy equally understood by staff and RHY; 2) developmentally appropriate relationships between staff and RHY that promoted autonomy; 3) a focus on short- and long-term goals within anticipated crises; and 4) ongoing internal quality assessment procedures. Within lower-quality settings we found 1) difficulties retaining effective staff and 2) a primary focus on basic services and managing crises, but less attention to emotional support, exacerbated by 3) funding and other challenges emerging from the larger environment. The present study extends the literature on organizations for RHY by identifying characteristics of higher quality settings, and challenges that remain.