Based on what the paper I will give to u and write the last two sections.Section : Strategy Selection (QSPM)Identify what you believe to be the best two strategies and complete a QSPM Matrix for your organization. Each selected strategy must be specific and fall into one of the Strategy Categories discussed in class (see Strategy Categories). Explain your reasoning for each.(Grading will be based on the formatting and accuracy of the data and the reasoning for each)Section : Conclusion and Recommendations1.Based the strategies developed in the previous section, discuss which strategy (select the best based on what you believe is the best course of action for your company). 2.Describe any actual or potential Ethical Failures with each of the strategies and how these may be mitigated. Keep in mind that most of these companies operate globally.3.Write a conclusion that summarizes your findings from this analysis and discuss the feasibility of your strategy recommendation.(Grading will be based on depth, quality and originality)

All reading and questions in the.docx

first question Please read the Psychology Discussion Requirements fully, and then Read pages  174 - 184 in your text.   Opioid use, addiction, and overdoses have increased to alarming rates in the United States in recent years. Millions of Americans are affected by the opioid epidemic every day.  Read Volkow et al.'s (2014) article and Brown’s (2018) articles (PDF's below) before discussing the following questions. References Brown, A. R. (2018). A systematic review of psychosocial interventions in treatment of opioid addiction, Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1533256X.2018.1485574 Coon, D., Mitterer, J.O., & Martini, T. (2022). Introduction to psychology: Gateways to mind and behavior (16th ed.). Cengage Learning.  Volkow, N. D., Frieden, T. R., Hyde, P. S., & Cha, S. S. (2014). Medication-assisted therapies — tackling the opioid-overdose epidemic. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(22), 2063-2066. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1402780 For this week’s main post, answer all of the following questions. Be sure to include factual, properly cited information in your post. What are some ways that opioid addiction is affecting the United States? What are some forms of treatment available to those suffering from opioid addiction? If you had a friend or family member suffering from opioid addiction, what sort of help would you recommend they seek? PSY1012 Week 2 Discussion Brown-2018.pdf PSY1012 Week 2 Discussion Brown-2018.pdf - Alternative Formats PSY1012 Week Two Discussion Volkow-2014.pdf PSY1012 Week Two Discussion Volkow-2014.pdf - Alternative Formats second question Your Assignment Read the section titled "REM Sleep and Dreaming" on page 168 and "Dream Theories" on pages 169-170 in your textbook.  These sections discuss theories on dreams, the history of dream interpretation, the most common characteristics of dreams, and the meaning of dreams. Check out these websites: Freud Museum: Dream Analysis-You may have to click on "Discover Psychoanalysis" then scroll down to "The Interpretation of Dreams" or you can past the following link into your web browser. (Direct Link: https://www.freud.org.uk/learn/discover-psychoanalysis/the-interpretation-of-dreams/) Irish Association of Humanistic and Integrative Psychology: Becoming The Dream – A Gestalt Approach (Direct Link: https://iahip.org/page-1076535 ) Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams"  (Direct Link: https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Freud/Dreams/dreams.pdf )  For this week’s Assignment, answer the following questions in APA Format and in a word document. Be sure to include factual, properly cited information in your Assignment. Write about a dream that really made an impact on you.  It can be a recurring dream, a scary dream, a happy dream, or an especially vivid dream.   What do the above websites say about the interpretation of your dream?   Do you feel these interpretations are accurate? Why or why not? What do you think is the meaning behind this dream?  hensive approaches to chronic pain into their scope of services.Health care systems can in corporate nonjudgmental screen ing, brief intervention, and refer rals for further assessment and treatment of addiction into all clinical settings where opioids are prescribed. Conversely, addiction treatment providers can screen patients for pain, recognizing that inadequately treated pain is a risk factor for relapse.Payers, including Medicare and state Medicaid programs, can use data-analysis tools to spot the red flags of inappropriate prescribing and refer prescribers to medical boards or other state agencies for further review, education, and oversight. Prescription-drug mon itoring programs can also identi fy prescribers in need of assis tance. Coherent, evidence-based review of clinical practice can be conducted with theAn audio interview with Dr. Olsen is available at NEJM.orgaim of supporting high-quality care for both chronic pain and addic tion — and avoiding the unin tended consequence of deterring physicians from caring for pa tients with complex needs.Public and private insurers can provide as generous coverage for treatment of opioid-use disorder as they do for management of chronic pain. This standard is infrequently met — for example,Chronic Pain, Addiction, and Zohydroit is long past time for Medicare to begin covering the effective care provided in opioid-treatment programs.It is also time for the FDA to address the intertwining of chron ic pain and addiction farther up stream in the drug-development cycle. The agency might consider creating a pathway for develop ment and review of new products and indications for simultaneous treatment of chronic pain and opioid-use disorder. Building on its own work to advance the sci ence of abuse-deterrent formula tions, the FDA should also re quire that prescription opioids meet basic deterrent standards and should facilitate the gradual reformulation of existing products to meet such standards. In declin ing to apply such a standard to Zo hydro, the agency noted that ex the tension that exists today be tween chronic pain and addiction. All concerned about the treatment of chronic pain and all responding to the rise in overdose deaths need to come together to promote high quality and effective prevention and treatment for both conditions.Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this articleat NEJM.org.From the Institutes for Behavior Resources (Y.O.) and the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (J.M.S.) — both in Baltimore.This article was published on April 23, 2014, at NEJM.org.1. Public health grand rounds — prescrip tion drug overdoses: an American epidemic. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Pre vention, February 18, 2011 (http://www.cdc .gov/about/grand-rounds/archives/2011/ 01-February.htm).2. Policy impact: prescription painkiller overdoses. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Conisting deterrent mechanisms have .pdf). had minimal impact by themselves. However, even modest safeguards have been shown to reduce the potential for inappro priate use.5 As part of a compre hensive strategy, a set of reason able requirements for opioid medications is well in line with the FDA’s public health mission. Taking such action will deter others with less expertise from filling a perceived void.In the end, pointing the finger at Zohydro is not going to resolve trol and Prevention, July 2, 2013 (http:// www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/ pdf/PolicyImpact-PrescriptionPainkillerODFDA Commissioner Margaret A. Ham- burg statement on prescription opioid abuse. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, April 3, 2014 (http://www .fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/ PressAnnouncements/ucm391590.htm).Federation of State Medical Boards of theUnited States. Pain management policies: board by board overview. February 2014 (http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/GRPOL_Pain_ Management.pdf).5. Severtson SG, Bartelson BB, Davis JM, et al. Reduced abuse, therapeutic errors, and diversion following reformulation of extend ed-release oxycodone in 2010. J Pain 2013; 14:1122-30.DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1404181Copyright © 2014 Massachusetts Medical Society.Medication-Assisted Therapies — Tackling the Opioid Overdose EpidemicNora D. Volkow, M.D., Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H., Pamela S. Hyde, J.D., and Stephen S. Cha, M.D.The doses rate of of prescription death from opioids over in the United States more than quadrupled between 1999 and2010 (see graph), far exceeding the combined death toll from co caine and heroin overdoses.1 In 2010 alone, prescription opioids were involved in 16,651 overdose deaths, whereas heroin was im plicated in 3036. Some 82% of the deaths due to prescriptionOpioid Sales, Admissions for Opioid-Abuse Treatment, and Deaths Due to Opioid Overdose in the United States, 1999–2010.and Data Prevention, are from the the National Treatment AUTHOR: Vital Episode Statistics Volkow Data System Set of of the the Substance Centers for Abuse Disease and Control Mental Health Services Administration, FIGURE: and 1 the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System of the Drug ARTIST: Enforcement mst Administration.AUTHOR, PLEASE NOTE:heroin tentional, opioids were and with 92% classified the Issue Figure of remainder date: those has as been Please 5-29-14 due unin- redrawn be- to check and carefully. appropriate and ications. type OLF: has safeguard been HHS 4-23-14 reset. access agencies legitimate to these are med- and im- ing attributed predominantly to plementing a coordinated, com prehensive effort addressing the suicide or “undetermined intent.” Rates of emergency department key risks involved in prescription visits and substance-abuse treat drug abuse, particularly opioid ment admissions related to pre related overdoses and deaths. These efforts focus on four main scription opioids have also in creased markedly. In 2007, objectives: providing prescribers prescription-opioid abuse cost in with the knowledge to improve surers an estimated $72.5 billion their prescribing decisions and the ability to identify patients’ prob — a substantial increase over previous years.2 These health and lems related to opioid abuse, re economic costs are similar to ducing inappropriate access to opioids, increasing access to effec those associated with other chron ic diseases such as asthma and tive overdose treatment, and pro HIV infection. viding substance-abuse treatmentThese alarming trends led the Department of Health and Hu man Services (HHS) to deem pre scription-opioid overdose deaths an epidemic and prompted multi ple federal, state, and local ac tions.2 The HHS efforts aim to si multaneously reduce opioid abuseto persons addicted to opioids.A key driver of the overdose epidemic is underlying substance use disorder. Consequently, ex panding access to addiction treatment services is an essential component of a comprehensive response.2 Like other chronic diseases such as diabetes and hyper tension, addiction is generally refractory to cure, but effective treatment and functional recov ery are possible. Fortunately, cli nicians have three types of medi cation-assisted therapies (MATs) for treating patients with opioid addiction: methadone, buprenor phine, and naltrexone (see table). Yet these medications are mark edly underutilized. Of the 2.5 mil lion Americans 12 years of age or older who abused or were depen dent on opioids in 2012 (according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA]), fewer than 1 million received MAT.When prescribed and moni tored properly, MATs have proved effective in helping patients re cover. Moreover, they have been shown to be safe and cost-effec tive and to reduce the risk of over dose. A study of heroin-overdose deaths in Baltimore between 1995 and 2009 found an association between the increasing availabil ity of methadone and buprenor phine and an approximately 50% decrease in the number of fatal overdoses.3 In addition, some MATs increase patients’ retention in treatment, and they all improve social functioning as well as re duce the risks of infectious-disease transmission and of engagement in criminal activities. Nevertheless, MATs have been adopted in less than half of private-sector treat ment programs, and even in pro grams that do offer MATs, only 34.4% of patients receive them. 4A number of barriers contrib ute to low access to and utilization of MATs, including a paucity of trained prescribers and negative attitudes and misunderstandingsTackling the Opioid-Overdose EpidemicCharacteristicBrand namesClassUse and effectsAdvantagesDisadvantagesCharacteristics of Medications for Opioid-Addiction Treatment.MethadoneDolophine, MethadoseAgonist (fully activates opioid receptors)Taken once per day orally to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawalsymptomsHigh strength and efficacy as longas oral dosing (which slows brain uptake and reduces euphoria) is adhered to; excellent option for patients who have no response to other medicationsMostly available through approvedoutpatient treatment programs, which patients must visit dailyBuprenorphineSubutex, Suboxone, ZubsolvPartial agonist (activates opioid recep tors but produces a diminished re sponse even with full occupancy)Taken orally or sublingually (usuallyonce a day) to relieve opioid crav ings and withdrawal symptomsEligible to be prescribed by certified physicians, which eliminates the need to visit specialized treatment clinics and thus widens availabilitySubutex has measurable abuse liability; Suboxone diminishes this risk by in cluding naloxone, an antagonist that induces withdrawal if the drug is injectedNaltrexoneDepade, ReVia, VivitrolAntagonist (blocks the opioid receptors and interferes with the rewarding and analgesic effects of opioids)Taken orally or by injection to diminish the reinforcing effects of opioids (potentially extinguishing the asso ciation between conditioned stimuliand opioid use)Not addictive or sedating and does not result in physical dependence; a re cently approved depot injection for mulation, Vivitrol, eliminates need for daily dosingPoor patient compliance (but Vivitrolshould improve compliance); initi ation requires attaining prolonged (e.g., 7-day) abstinence, during which withdrawal, relapse, and early dropout may occurabout addiction medications held by the public, providers, and pa tients. For decades, a common concern has been that MATs merely replace one addiction with another. Many treatment-facility managers and staff favor an ab stinence model, and provider skepticism may contribute to low adoption of MATs.4 Systematic prescription of inadequate doses further reinforces the lack of faith in MATs, since the resulting return to opioid use perpetuates a belief in their ineffectiveness.Policy and regulatory barriers are another concern. A recent re port fro Journal of Social Work Practice in the AddictionsISSN: 1533-256X (Print) 1533-2578 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswp20A Systematic Review of Psychosocial Interventions in Treatment of Opioid AddictionAaron R. BrownTo cite this article: Aaron R. Brown (2018): A Systematic Review of Psychosocial Interventions in Treatment of Opioid Addiction, Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, DOI: 10.1080/1533256X.2018.1485574To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2018.1485574Published online: 06 Jul 2018.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 18View Crossmark data             Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformati...Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 00:1–21, 2018 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1533-256X print/1533-2578 onlineDOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2018.1485574A Systematic Review of Psychosocial Interventions in Treatment of Opioid AddictionAARON R. BROWN, LCSWCollege of Social Work, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USAOpioid addiction has become a U.S. epidemic. It is important to determine whether psychosocial interventions help prevent relapse. A total of 14 studies were included in this systematic review. Most studies compared psychosocial interventions in conjunction with pharmacological maintenance. Only 2 studies found that psycho- social interventions led to statistically significant benefits for out- comes related to opioid abuse when compared to maintenance and less or no psychosocial intervention. Psychosocial interventions were not found to be additive to pharmacological treatments dur- ing induction or maintenance stages. Further research is needed to determine effectiveness of psychosocial interventions during dose reduction and long-term relapse prevention.KEYWORDS addiction, intervention, maintenance, opioid, prevention, psychosocial, relapse, substanceIn the last 20 years, both therapeutic and illicit opioid use have escalated in the United States (Manchikanti et al., 2012). The total number of opioid prescriptions dispensed from U.S. outpatient retail pharmacies increased from 174.1 million in 2000 to 256.9 million in 2009 (Governale, 2010). Hydro- codone is not only the most commonly prescribed opioid, it is the most prescribed medication in the United States (Manchikanti et al., 2012).Manchikanti et al. (2012) stated, “Drug dealers are no longer the primary source of illicit drugs” (p. ES31). As the number of opioids prescribed has increased, so has their illicit use. According to the 2014 National Survey onReceived March 11, 2017;revised June 6, 2016;accepted May 30, 2017.Address correspondence to Aaron R. Brown LCSW, College of Social Work, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1618 Cumberland Ave., Knoxville, TN 37996. E-mail: [removed] src="blob:https://www.studypool.com/ec329a37-fc19-4d1f-845e-291273815380" alt="page2image513447776">  12 A. R. BrownDrug Use and Health (NSDUH), prescription opioids have been the most frequently abused psychotherapeutic drug for more than a decade, and are second only to marijuana for all illicit drugs (Hedden et al., 2014). An esti- mated 4.3 million individuals 12 or older are current nonmedical users of prescription opioids, which represents 1.6% of the population aged 12 or older in the United States (Hedden et al.). The problem of opioid abuse is most prevalent among young adults. The same 2014 survey estimated that 2.8% of young adults aged 18 to 25 in the United States were current non- medical users of opioids (Hedden et al.). Looking at the problem in a more local context, Wright et al. (2014) examined opioid abuse at the county level in Indiana and found a significant association between the rate of opioid dispensed and the rate of opioid abuse.A serious risk associated with prescription opioid abuse is the develop- ment of opioid addiction, which can be defined as a pattern of compulsive, prolonged use of opioids for nonmedical reasons or in excess of the amount necessary for legitimate medical use marked by psychological and physiolo- gical dependence and leading to significant impairment (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). An estimated 2.4 million Americans suffer from a substance use disorder related to prescription opioids, more than for cocaine and heroin combined and second only to marijuana for illicit drugs (Ali & Mutter, 2016; Hedden et al., 2014).Societal CostPrescription opioid abuse is taking an increasingly large toll on the United States in terms of the costs related to its prevention and treatment as well as the losses it inflicts on families and communities. Between 2005 and 2011, the number of emergency room visits in the United States involving abuse of prescription opioids more than doubled from 168,379 to 366,181 (Crane, 2015). There has also been a substantial increase in those seeking treatment for opioid abuse. The number of individuals in the United States reporting substance abuse treatment related to prescription opioid abuse more than doubled between 2002 and 2014 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2015b). The mortality rate in the United States associated with opioid abuse drastically increased during this same time period, from 4,400 to 18,893 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016).There have been numerous indications that costs associated with the growing prescription opioid abuse problem in the United States are substan- tial. However, there are many aspects of the problem that incur costs, and research on the overall economic burden has been limited. These aspects can be grouped into categories of criminal justice, workplace, and health care costs. Two systematic analyses of the total U.S. societal costs of prescription opioid abuse estimated it at more than $50 billion as of 2007 (Birnbaum et al.,Psychosocial Interventions and Opioid Addiction 32011; Hansen, Oster, Edelsberg, Woody, & Sullivan, 2011). Florence, Zhou, Luo, and Xu (2016) estimated the economic burden of prescription opioid overdose, abuse, and dependence to be $78.5 billion as of the end of 2013.Relapse Prevention and Opioid AbusePrescription opioid use and abuse in the United States have significantly increased over the last decade. Given the substantial number of individuals with substance use disorders related to prescription opioid abuse and the increasing utilization of treatment for these disorders, outpatient clinicians are more and more likely to encounter individuals who abuse prescription opioids in their practice (Hedden et al., 2014; SAMHSA, 2015b). Typically, these clients seek assistance in preventing relapse to maintain abstinence from the abuse of prescription opioids. A better understanding of whether psychosocial inter- ventions are effective for relapse prevention is needed.The first line of treatment for opioid use disorders is often medical detoxification, a short-term inpatient process of providing medical supervision to assist in the achievement of abstinence while treating the symptoms of withdrawal (Veilleux, Colvin, Anderson, York, & Heinz, 2010). The adverse symptoms associated with withdrawal are rarely medically serious, but fear of withdrawal might discourage individuals from seeking treatment and the discomfort experienced during withdrawal might lead clients to drop out of treatment (Gossop, 2006). For these reasons, detoxification is typically a prerequisite for admission to long-term abstinence-based treatment programs, whether residential or outpatient.Detoxification may positively influence long-term treatment outcomes for opioid use disorders, but it is not sufficient as a standalone intervention (Gossop, 2006; Veilleux et al., 2010). A relapse prevention phase is needed to help those suffering from opioid addiction achieve longterm recovery, even after detoxifica- tion. Relapse prevention often includes a pharmacological component such as the use of an opioid agonist and conjunctive psychosocial components. Pharma- cological maintenance is sometimes derided as merely a substitution of one addictive drug for another. However, there is substantial evidence that medica- tion-assisted therapies (MATs) are effective in preventing relapse when properly used (Mattick, Breen, Kimber, & Davoli, 2014; Volkow, Frieden, Hyde, & Cha, 2014). It is for this reason that the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) refers to these pharmacological components as treatments and not substitutions (NIDA, 2016). Psychosocial interventions are often strongly encouraged or required as a part of maintenance treatments in the United States (SAMHSA, 2015a).This leads to the question of whether psychotherapy is a useful compo- nent of relapse prevention, either in conjunction with pharmacological treat- ment or in medication-free treatment modalities. Previous systematic reviews have addressed similar questions pertaining to opioid addiction in general, but4 A. R. Brownnone has looked at psychosocial interventions in the specific context of prescription opioid addiction (Amato, Minozzi, Davoli, & Vecchi, 2011; Dugosh et al., 2016; Veilleux et al., 2010). Are psychosocial interventions effective for treating individuals with prescription opioid addiction during relapse prevention? Which psychosocial interventions are most effective for relapse prevention of prescription opioid addiction?Definition of TermsRelapse is defined as the use of nonmedical prescription opioids after a voluntary period of abstinence. Relapse prevention is defined as a treatment phase after voluntary abstinence has been achieved during which efforts are made to maintain an opioid-free lifestyle. Psychosocial intervention is defined as individual or group sessions with a licensed clinician implementing a behavioral intervention intended to prevent relapse for which the clinician has received sufficient training.Prescription opioid addiction is a pattern of compulsive, prolonged use of prescription opioids for nonmedical reasons or in excess of the amount necessary for legitimate medical use marked by psychological and physiolo- gical dependence and leading to significant impairment (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Individuals recovering from opioid addiction are defined as Americans aged 18 years or older who have previously been diagnosed with opioid use disorder related to prescription opioid abuse according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM–5]) criteria and have achieved a voluntary period of abstinence.METHODS Inclusion and Exclusion CriteriaA systematic review of studies comparing psychosocial interventions and outcome measures related to relapse prevention for prescription opioid abuse was conducted solely by the author. The inclusion criteria for this study were as follows:? Studies published in the English language.? Studies included in at least one of the following databases: Web ofScience Core Collection: Citation Indexes, Social Work Abstracts,PsychINFO, Social Science Research Network, or Cochrane Library. ? Studies published after 2010, specifically, from January 1, 2010 untilSeptember 30, 2016.? Studies that compared at least one psychosocial intervention as aprimary condition.Psychosocial Interventions and Opioid Addiction 5? Studies conducted on individuals 18 years or older who were in treatment for prescription opioid addiction, whether in detox or a relapse prevention phase.? Studies that examined outcomes related to relapse and opioid abuse such as opioid use, treatment completion, abstinence from opioid use, treatment duration, or treatment retention.? Studies that included quantitative data analysis.? Articles were excluded from this study based on the following criteria: ? Studies conducted outside of the United States.? Studies that are qualitative.? Studies that did not specifically describe the types of psychosocialinterventions implemented.? Studies that did not specifically describe the types of pharmacologicalinterventions used if pharmacological interventions were used.Rationale for Inclusion and Exclusion CriteriaThis review is primarily concerned with the treatment of prescription opioid addic- tion in the United States due to the rapid growth of prescription opioid abuse over the last decade. For this reason, studies conducted outside of the United States were excluded. Because English is the language primarily used for research and publica- tion in the United States, only studies published in English were included.This review’s focus on prescription opioid abuse required a wide catch- net of journals within multidisciplinary fields such as social work, counseling, psychology, psychiatry, pharmacology, substance abuse, addiction, and pub- lic health. Search databases were chosen based on whether they included journals related to these multidisciplinary fields of research.Studies were included that used quantitative data analysis. This inclusion criterion was chosen to focus on those studies that showed the most con- clusive evidence to support the opioid abuse treatment protocols. Studies that were primarily qualitative were excluded to maximize homogeneity of out- come measures and form relevant conclusions across studies.This review was limited to studies published after 2010 to include only the most recent and relevant research related to a problem that has been increasing over the last decade. Also, to the author’s knowledge, the oft-cited reviews by Veilleux et al. (2010) and Amato et al. (2011) are the most recent and rigorous systematic reviews focused on comparing treatment protocols for opioid abuse that included both psychosocial and pharmacological interven- tions. Since these reviews, new relapse prevention interventions have been developed and studied. For instance, mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) is a recent and promising intervention that was first studied in a pilot randomized controlled trial by Bowen et al. (2009).6 A. R. BrownBecause the primary aim of this review was to identify whether and under which conditions psychosocial interventions are effective in prescrip- tion opioid addiction treatment, only those studies that implemented psycho- social interventions were included. Studies that focused on other types of treatment interventions (e.g., pharmacological ones) were also included so long as they included at least one psychosocial intervention as a component of comparison. Focusing only on reviewing studies of a specific type of intervention would limit best practice recommendations. It is important for clinicians to be informed about the most effective interventions with this population.It was also important for this review to exclude those studies that did not describe the specific interventions implemented. In their systematic review, Veilleux et al. (2010) found that targeted psychosocial interventions showed the most promise for use in treatment of opioid addiction. For best practice recommendations to be made, it was necessary to understand whether spe- cific interventions were more effective than others, and to avoid the assump- tion that any pharmacological or any psychosocial intervention is as effective as others.Studies were also chosen based on population criteria. The focus of this review is on relapse prevention from prescription opioid abuse. As such, only those studies that specifically studied outcome measures related to relapse prevention and opioid abuse were included. Additionally, only studies that focused on adults, which is the population of interest for this review, were included. Data indicate that individuals 18 to 25 years old make up the largest percentage of those who abuse prescription opioids (Hedden et al., 2014).Search and DistillationUsing the stated inclusion and exclusion criteria, a search was conducted in three phases (see Figure 1). Phase I used Boolean terms to identify articles in any of the included databases. The following Boolean terms were used for topic search: opioid AND (addict* OR dependen* OR abuse OR misuse) AND (psychotherapy OR psychosocial OR counseling OR “relapse prevention”) NOT (child* OR adolesce* OR youth OR infant) NOT (cannabis OR marijuana OR cannabinoid OR cocaine OR alcohol* OR heroin OR methamphetamine). Searches were limited to those results written in English between January 2010 and October 2016.To capture studies that implemented counseling-only treatment proto- cols, a second search was conducted using the following Boolean terms in a title search: opioid AND (addict* OR dependen* OR abuse OR misuse OR “use disorder”) AND (psychotherapy OR psychosocial OR counsel* OR therapy OR behavioral OR “relapse prevention”) NOT (maintenance OR pharmacological OR naltrexone OR naloxone OR methadone OR Buprenorphine ORPsychosocial Interventions and Opioid Addiction 7FIGURE 1 Phases of search and distillation.suboxone) NOT (child* OR adolesce* OR youth OR infant) NOT (cannabis OR marijuana OR cannabinoid OR cocaine OR alcohol* OR heroin OR methamphetamine).Phase I of the first search captured a total of 255 articles from Web of Science (n = 144), Social Work Abstracts (n = 0), PsycINFO (n = 38), Social Science Research Network (n = 0), and Cochrane Library (n = 73). Phases II and III implemented distillation per inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Figure 1). In Phase II, duplicates (n = 47) and articles with topics outside of inclusion criteria (n = 180) were excluded from the results. Then in Phase III of the first search, qualitative studies (n = 6), reviews (n = 9), and studies outside the United Stated (n = 5) were excluded. After distillation, eight articles were included from the first search.Phase I of the second search captured a total of 111 articles from Web of Science (n = 66), Social Work Abstracts (n = 0), PsycINFO (n = 33), Social Science Research Network (n = 0), and Cochrane Library (n = 12). In Phase II, duplicates (n = 37) and articles with topics outside of inclusion criteria (n = 51) were excluded from the results. Then in Phase III of the second search, qualitative studies (n = 5), reviews (n = 10), and studies outside the United States (n = 4) were excluded. Articles already included from previous search were also excluded (n = 1). After distillation, two articles were included from the second search.In an effort to capture more articles meeting inclusion criteria, the cita- tions from already included articles were reviewed. A total of three articles8 A. R. Brownmeeting inclusion criteria were found among citations of those articles already included from two searches (Fiellin et al., 2013; Ling, Hillhouse, Ang, Jenkins, & Fahey, 2013; Moore et al., 2016). An additional article (Schwartz, Kelly, O’Grady, Gandhi, & Jaffe, 2012) was included based on a response written by Schwartz (2016) to a very recent systematic review that failed to include this relevant article (Dugosh et al., 2016). These articles were not captured by the search methodology used here, but they were deemed important to include due to their direct relevancy to this review and their meeting criteria for inclusion. These four articles were combined with the 10 captured by two searches for a total of 14 articles included in this review (see Table 1).FINDINGSTreatment ProtocolsSeveral types of psychosocial interventions were compared within the various articles. All but one of the studies included in this review used random assignment to treatment conditions (Barry, Cutter, Beitel, Liong, & Schotten- feld, 2015). As seen in Table 1, the most common psychosocial intervention studied was cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which was compared in 6 of the 14 studies (Barry et al., 2015; Fiellin et al., 2013; Lander, Gurka, Marshalek, Riffon, & Sullivan, 2015; Ling et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2016; Otto et al., 2014). Other types of psychosocial interventions compared included mindfulness- oriented recovery enhancement (MORE), therapy groups, contingency man- agement (CM), Web-based counseling, CBT for interoceptive cues (CBT–IC), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), distress tolerance (DT), and support groups (Garland et al., 2014; Ling et al., 2013; Otto et al., 2014; Smallwood, Potter, & Robin, 2016; Stein et al., 2015; Stotts et al., 2012; Weiss et al., 2011).Pharmacological treatment was compared in all but one of the 14 articles included in this review. The most common type of pharmacological treatment implemented was buprenorphine, which was used in nine of the studies (Barry et al., 2015; Fiellin et al., 2013; Lander et al., 2015; Moore et al., 2016; Smallwood et al., 2016; Stein et al., 2015; Tetrault et al., 2012; Weiss et al.,2011). Buprenorphine was typically used in combination with naloxone for maintenance induction. Methadone was used in four of the included studies (Marsch et al., 2014; Otto et al., 2014; Schwartz et al., 2012; Stotts et al., 2012). In all but one of the studies, pharmacological treatment was implemented for induction and maintenance. In one study (Stotts et al., 2012), instead of induction and maintenance, the groups were compared during methadone dose reduction with the goal of detoxification from methadone.      9TABLE 1 Articles Included in Review. SampleAuthors Barry et al.Size 90Opioid Abuse Comparison Groups Outcome(s)ResultsLimitations(2015)1. Buprenorphine and physician Opioid use (urine) management (PM)2.Buprenorphine, PM, andcognitive-behavioral therapyBoth CBT and EC groups sustained decreases in nonmedical opioid use, whereas nonmedical opioid use increased for PM-only group.Fiellin et al. (2013)1411. Buprenorphine and PM2. Buprenorphine, PM, and CBTOpioid use (urine and self-report)For both groups nonmedical opioid use significantly decreased and number of weeks abstinent significantly increased. There was no significant difference between group outcomes.PM was provided with greater frequency than typical in standard practice. Attrition led to missing data, which was accounted for in statistical analysis.Garland et al.671. Mindfulness-oriented recovery Desire for opioidsThe MORE group had significantly less desire for opioids at posttreatment. Both groups had significantly less nonmedical opioid abuse at posttreatment. The MORE group was significantly less likely to still meet criteria for an opioid use disorder at posttreatment. The differences between groups were not significant at 3-month follow- up.Attrition rate was relatively high at 42%. The SF homework might have led to rumination on symptoms and thus affected pain and cravings for nonmedical use.(2014)enhancement (MORE)2. Support group (SG)(self-report); nonmedical opioid use (self-report); status of opioid use disorder(Continued )(CBT)3. Buprenorphine, PM, and educational counseling (EC)     10TABLE 1 (Continued) SampleOpioid Abuse Outcome(s)AuthorsSize 45Comparison GroupsResultsLimitationsLander et al.1. Buprenorphine and mixed- gender CBT therapy group;2. Buprenorphine and female- only CBT therapy groupOpioid use (self- report and urine); treatment retentionThere were no significant differences between groups for either outcome variable, however women in the female-only group were 25% less likely to relapse than women in the mixed-gender group. Relapse rates were 37% and 50% for the female-only and mixed-gender groups, respectively.The study was low-powered due to sample size, so it was unable to achieve statistical significance for primary outcome measures. Additionally, attrition was about 50% overall.(2015)Ling et al. (2013)2021. Buprenorphineand CBT2. Buprenorphineand contingency management (CM)3. Buprenorphine, CBT, and CM4. Buprenorphine onlyOpioid use (urine); treatmentAll groups benefited from treatment. No significant group differences were found.One exclusion criterion eliminated individuals with health issues, which limits the generalizability of the results.Marsch et al.1601. Methadone and in-person individual counseling2. Methadone and mixed individual and Web-based counseling: Therapeutic Education System (TES)Opioid use (urine); treatment retentionBoth groups benefited from treatment, but the mixed counseling groups improved significantly more than the standard treatment group. There was no significant difference in retention between groups.The sample was 75% male. Attrition rates were high in both groups (~40%). Dose exposure of counseling was low (~12 sessions).(2014)Moore et al. (2016)481. Buprenorphine and PM2. Buprenorphine and CBTOpioid use (urine and self-report)The CBT group had better outcomes, but no group differences were statistically significant.There wasn’t enough statistical power to detect significant group differences.retention; craving11Otto et al. (2014)781. Methadone and individual counseling2. Methadone and CBT for interoceptive cues (CBT–IC)Opioid use (self- report and saliva)Both groups benefited from treatment. There was no significant difference between groups for opioid use as measured by saliva, but the CBT–IC group reported significantly less opioid use.Only participants who had responded poorly to standard treatment were recruited. Results differed by outcome measure: self-report vs. toxicology. 23% of participants did not finish treatment.Schwartz et al.2301. Methadone and counseling2. Methadone and higher dose of counseling3. Methadone only for 120 days then counseling addedOpioid use (self- report and urine)All three groups showed reduction in opioid use. There were no significant group differences for reduction in opioid use.Amount of counseling was at most once per week (higher dose group). Counseling was generally less structured than CBT.(2012) Smallwood251.Buprenorphineand acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)2. Buprenorphine and health education (HE)BrainMRIdata; opioid craving (self-report)Resultsindicatedthatthoseinthe Lowsamplesizeandhighet al. (2016)ACT group had reduced activation in brain regions linked to pain processing. No differences between groups for opioid craving were reported.attrition (50%) led to insufficient power.Stein et al. (2015)491. Buprenorphine and distress tolerance (DT) 2. Buprenorphine and HEOpioid use (self- report and urine); treatment retentionDT led to a small statistically insignificant reduction in opioid use during the first 3 months of treatment. No group difference was found for treatment retention.Fixed buprenorphine dosing might have limited its benefits. Attrition was about 25%.(Continued )      12TABLE 1 (Continued) SampleOpioid Abuse Outcome(s)Authors Stotts et al.Size 56Comparison GroupsResultsLimitations(2012)1. Methadone dose reduction and ACT2. Methadone dose reduction and drug counseling (DC)Opioid use (self- report and urine); detoxification status; detoxification fearNo significant differences between groups were found for opioid use. 37% of ACT participants successfully completed detoxification by end of treatment compared to 19% of DC participants. ACT was also favorable for fear of detoxification outcome.Adherence and competence ratings were high for counseling, but some processes were implemented less often than others, which might have attenuated results. Therapy training time was greater in the ACT condition.Tetrault et al.471. Buprenorphine and PM2. Buprenorphine, PM, and enhanced medical management (EMM)Opioid use (urine and self-report); treatment retentionThere were no differences between groups in outcome measures related to opioid use or retention.Small sample size reduced ability to detect between-group differences. Counseling was implemented by nurses.(2012) Weiss et al.6531. Buprenorphine, PM, and self- Opioid use (self-Adding individual counseling did not improve outcomes. There were no significant differences between groups for opioid use outcomes. Secondary analysis (Weiss et al., 2014) revealed that participants who had ever used heroin benefited from counseling if they adhered to treatment.Participants received PM and counseling weekly, and variations of more counseling and less PM might affect outcomes.(2011)help groups2. Buprenorphine, PM, self-help groups, and individual counselingreport and urine); treatment retentionPsychosocial Interventions and Opioid Addiction 13MeasuresThe most common outcome measure for the included studies was opioid use, which was typically measured by urine toxicology and self-report and was measured in 12 of the 14 included articles. Treatment retention was measured in all studies, but was only considered a primary outcome measure in about half of the included articles.Evidence Across StudiesNone of the 14 articles reviewed showed evidence of adverse effects as a result of psychosocial interventions. Across all studies reviewed, the inclusion of psychosocial interventions was found to be at least as effective if not more effective than comparison groups with either a lower dose of psychosocial intervention or none at all.Of the 13 studies that compared psychosocial interventions in conjunc- tion with pharmacological treatment, only 2 resulted in statistically significant differences between groups for outcomes related to opioid abuse. Barry et al. (2015) found that either CBT or educational counseling in conjunction with buprenorphine treatment was favorable to no psychosocial treatment, but did not find significant differences between the two psychosocial interventions. Stotts et al. (2012) did not find significant differences between groups for opioid use; however, they did find that ACT led to a significantly higher success rate for detoxification from methadone.Other studies (Moore et al., 2016; Otto et al., 2014; Stein et al., 2015) found evidence that psychosocial interventions might improve outcomes in conjunction with pharmacological treatment, but they were unable to achieve statistical significance due to low sample size and low statistical power. Gar- land et al. (2014) found that MORE led to significant benefits over a support group condition when assessed at posttreatment, but at 3-month follow-up there were no longer any significant differences between the two conditions.The results of this review contribute to conclusions similar to those made in previous reviews of psychosocial interventions and opioid relapse preven- tion (Amato et al., 2011; Dugosh et al., 2016; Veilleux et al., 2010). The evidence across studies indicates that although for some opioid users (parti- cularly those in pain management) psychosocial interventions can be bene- ficial on their own (Garland et al., 2014), they are generally not additive to pharmacological maintenance for opioid relapse prevention. However, psy- chosocial interventions might be beneficial in helping those recovering from opioid abuse achieve detoxification from pharmacological maintenance and sustain long-term abstinence from opioid abuse. Additionally, psychosocial interventions during pharmacological maintenance might benefit certain sub- groups of participants, such as those with cooccurring polysubstance use disorders (Weiss et al., 2014; Weiss et al., 2014).14 A. R. BrownDue to the high level of heterogeneity for types of psychosocial inter- ventions implemented across the studies in this review, conclusions about a specific intervention being most effective cannot be made. However, there is growing evidence that interventions such as ACT, MORE, and MBRP that incorporate mindfulness and are targeted for treatment of substance depen- dence might be more effective than other protocols (Bowen et al., 2009; Garland et al., 2014; Smallwood et al., 2016; Stotts et al., 2012).LimitationsSmall sample size, low statistical power, and not achieving statistical signifi- cance were the most common limitations across articles included for this review. Attrition rates across the studies ranged from about 25% to 50%, which likely contributed to the limitation of low statistical power. It is likely that effect size differences when comparing pharmacological treatment to conjunctive psychosocial interventions are quite small, meaning that large sample sizes are needed to achieve statistical significance.Of those studies that compared psychosocial interventions in conjunction with pharmacological treatment, the comparison group conditions often included regular meetings with the prescribing physician for brief 15- to 20- minute physician management (PM) or health education (HE) sessions. These PM sessions were often similar in frequency to counseling, weekly or biweekly, and as such might have reduced the power of between-group comparisons. For methadone maintenance, it is particularly difficult to achieve adequate effect sizes for between-group comparisons, because in the United States counseling is a required component (SAMHSA, 2015a). Schwartz et al. (2012) took advantage of an exception that allows for the use of methadone maintenance while on a waiting list for counseling, which is limited to the first 120 days of methadone treatment. Their study comparing interim methadone treatment with methadone plus weekly individual counseling used a relatively large sample size (n = 230), and although both groups showed significant reductions in opioid use, there were no significant between-group differences.This review did not capture evidence about the use of psychosocial interventions as replacements for maintenance treatments in opioid relapse prevention, so conclusions could only be made about their use in conjunction with pharmacological maintenance treatments. However, Mattick, Breen, Kim- ber, and Davoli (2009) conducted a systematic review comparing methadone maintenance to drug-free opioid relapse prevention and found methadone maintenance to be more effective for treatment retention and opioid use.A major limitation of this systematic review was failing to capture articles that examined the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions after detoxifica- tion from maintenance treatment. Additionally, this review only captured one study (Stotts et al., 2012) that compared psychosocial interventions duringPsychosocial Interventions and Opioid Addiction 15dose reduction from maintenance. That study found positive results, but one study does not provide sufficient evidence for conclusions about whether psychosocial interventions are beneficial during the dose-reduction stage of relapse prevention. It is possible that psychosocial interventions are most effective during dose-reduction and after pharmacological maintenance has ended, but this review failed to capture enough evidence to form these conclusions.This review attempted to examine the use of psychosocial interventions to treat specifically prescription opioid addiction during relapse prevention. In attempting to only capture studies about prescription opioid addiction, many relevant studies might have been excluded. For example, studies were excluded because they sampled individuals who used illicit opioids such as heroin or other illicit drugs. Excluding studies of illicit opioids might have been unnecessary as differences in treatment outcomes for prescription and illicit opioids are likely minimal.Finally, this review was conducted solely by its author. Ideally a systema- tic review should make use of multiple reviewers for search, distillation, and extraction to minimize bias and avoid exclusion of eligible articles. Although the author took great care in these processes, attempting to strictly adhere to inclusion and exclusion criteria and consulting with a senior faculty member throughout the process of conducting and writing this review, it is important to acknowledge this limitation.DISCUSSIONThe primary goal of this systematic analysis was to determine what the most recent evidence indicates about the effectiveness of psychosocial interven- tions in the relapse prevention phase of treatment. Based on the articles included in this systematic review, psychosocial interventions are not additive to pharmacological treatments using methadone or buprenorphine during induction or maintenance stages of relapse prevention. However, there is some indication that psychosocial interventions might be more effective dur- ing dose reduction and long-term relapse prevention stages (Stotts et al., 2012).Implications for Social Work Policy, Practice, and ResearchMedication-assisted therapies for opioid addiction are severely underutilized in the United States despite evidence that they are more effective than drug- free treatments (Mitchell et al., 2016; Volkow et al., 2014). Existing policies that limit availability of medication-assisted therapies for opioid addiction or require participation in psychosocial interventions as a condition of16 A. R. Brownpharmacological treatment should be revised in accordance with current evidence. Evidence does not indicate that conjunctive psychosocial interven- tions during maintenance have any adverse effects. However, given the costs associated with providing psychosocial treatments and their unproven efficacy during maintenance, evidence does not support their use during maintenance. Psychosocial interventions might be more beneficial and thus cost-effective at other stages of relapse prevention. Policies that increase participation in psychosocial services while in dose reduction or aftercare from medication- assisted therapies for opioid addiction seem favorable, but further research is needed to determine what types of psychosocial interventions and at which stages of treatment are most effective.Existing attitudes among social workers toward pharmacological mainte- nance for opioid addiction treatment might contribute to its underutilization. Although achieving complete abstinence is a valid goal for those receiving treatment for opioid addiction, requiring or expecting complete cessation early in treatment has been shown to reduce treatment retention and success (Dobkin, Civita, Paraherakis, & Gill, 2002; Hartzler, Cotton, Calsyn, Guerra, & Gignoux, 2010). Lushin and Anastas (2011) argued that given the evidence supporting harm reduction strategies such as medication-assisted therapies for treating opioid addiction, social workers should adopt a more pragmatic view of substance abuse treatment by seeking to “develop and successfully use con- textualized, client-centered approaches to addiction treatment instead of rely- ing on obsolete positive worldview and the outdated disease model” (p. 99).Prevention and education are important to prevent initial use and to attenuate the development of dependence and addiction. Psychosocial inter- vention research is needed, but so is research into preventative programs and wrap-around services to reduce the problem of opioid addiction before it even develops. Heroin abuse has generally been confined to urban areas in the past. However, the growing opioid epidemic has especially affected rural areas such as the Appalachian region (Cicero, Surratt, Inciardi, & Munoz, 2007; Paulozzi & Xi, 2008; Rossen, Bastian, Warner, Khan, & Chong, 2016). New efforts are needed to help educate and prevent opioid abuse in communities that are struggling with opioid addiction now more than ever.Although the articles included in this review compared several different psychosocial interventions along with two major types of pharmacological maintenance, there are likely many other psychosocial interventions that could be compared for opioid relapse prevention. The interventions com- pared among the articles in this review do represent the current state of evidence-based interventions in substance abuse treatment, but is it possible that interventions not included in this review are more effective for opioid relapse prevention? More research is needed to determine if targeted psycho- social interventions are effective across the different stages of opioid addiction treatment.Psychosocial Interventions and Opioid Addiction 17 CONCLUSIONAlthough psychosocial interventions that directly target opioid abuse during maintenance are not supported by this review, those that target cooccurring disorders to minimize risk for relapse are important. Existing evidence indi- cates that when cooccurring psychiatric disorders are left untreated, risk of relapse is significantly increased (Bradizza, Stasiewicz, & Paas, 2006; Brady & Sinha, 2005; Flynn & Brown, 2008). Social workers should seek to provide services and linkage for those clients with cooccurring disorders participating in pharmacological maintenance.Further research is needed to determine effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in long-term relapse prevention. Medication-assisted therapies have been shown to be effective at helping individuals replace prescription and illicit opioids with agonists as a means to increase functioning and reduce harm, but these treatments amount to management and eventually detoxifica- tion from replacement therapies is needed. If psychosocial interventions can help individuals detoxify from replacement therapies and achieve complete abstinence with long-term relapse prevention, then they would be a way to move from management to complete remission.Opioid addiction treatment is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. Evidence- based interventions are needed for each phase of prevention and treatment that consider the complex risk and protective factors associated with success at each phase. Social workers are uniquely qualified to help those with opioid addiction minimize risks for relapse and maximize protective factors. By targeting each phase with contextualized interventions, social workers will be able to reduce the number of people affected by opioid addiction.ORCIDAaron R. Brown http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9108-0338REFERENCESAli, M. M., & Mutter, R. (2016). The CBHSQ Report: Patients who are privately insured recieve limited follow-up services after opioid-related hospitalization. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa. gov/data/sites/default/files/report_2117/ShortReport-2117.htmlAmato, L., Minozzi, S., Davoli, M., & Vecchi, S. (2011). Psychosocial combined with agonist maintenance treatments versus agonist maintenance treatments alone for treatment of opioid dependence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD00414718 A. R. BrownAmerican Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of men- tal disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.Barry, D., Cutter, C., Beitel, M., Liong, C., & Schottenfeld, R. (2015). Cognitive- behavioral therapy and educational counseling for chronic pain and opioid dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 146, e218–e219. doi:10.1016/j. drugalcdep.2014.09.062Birnbaum, H. G., White, A. G., Schiller, M., Waldman, T., Cleveland, J. M., & Roland, C. L. (2011). Societal costs of prescription opioid abuse, dependence, and misuse in the United States. Pain Medicine, 12(4), 657–667. doi:10.1111/ j.1526-4637.2011.01075.xBowen, S., Chawla, N., Collins, S. E., Witkiewitz, K., Hsu, S., Grow, J., ... Marlatt, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based relapse prevention for substance use disorders: A pilot efficacy trial. Substance Abuse, 30(4), 295–305. doi:10.1080/08897070903250084Bradizza, C. M., Stasiewicz, P. R., & Paas, N. D. (2006). Relapse to alcohol and drug use among individuals diagnosed with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(2), 162–178. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.11.005Brady, K. T., & Sinha, R. (2005). Co-occurring mental and substance use disorders: The neurobiological effects of chronic stress. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(8), 1483–1493. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.8.1483Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Number and age-adjusted rates of drug-poisoning deaths involving opioid analgesics and heroin: United States, 2000–2014. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ health_policy/AADR_drug_poisoning_involving_OA_Heroin_US_2000-2014.pdfCicero, T. J., Surratt, H., Inciardi, J. A., & Munoz, A. (2007). Relationship between therapeutic use and abuse of opioid analgesics in rural, suburban, and urban locations in the United States. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 16(8), 827–840. doi:10.1002/pds.1452Crane, E. H. (2015). The CBHSQ Report: Emergency department visits involving narcotic pain relievers. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/rep... ShortReport-2083.htmlDobkin, P. L., Civita, M. D., Paraherakis, A., & Gill, K. (2002). The role of functional social support in treatment retention and outcomes among outpatient adult substance abusers. Addiction, 97(3), 347–356. doi:10.1046/j.1360- 0443.2002.00083.xDugosh, K., Abraham, A., Seymour, B., McLoyd, K., Chalk, M., & Festinger, D. (2016). A systematic review on the use of psychosocial interventions in conjunction with medications for the treatment of opioid addiction. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 10(2), 93–103. doi:10.1097/adm.0000000000000193Fiellin, D. A., Barry, D. T., Sullivan, L. E., Cutter, C. J., Moore, B. A., O’Connor, P. G., & Schottenfeld, R. S. (2013). A randomized trial of cognitive behavioral therapy in primary care-based buprenorphine. The American Journal of Medicine, 126(1), 74.e11–74.e17. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.07.005Psychosocial Interventions and Opioid Addiction 19Florence, C. S., Zhou, C., Luo, F., & Xu, L. (2016). The economic burden of prescrip- tion opioid overdose, abuse, and dependence in the United States, 2013. Medical Care, 54(10), 901–906. doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000000625Flynn, P. M., & Brown, B. S. (2008). Co-occurring disorders in substance abuse treatment: Issues and prospects. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 34(1), 36–47. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.11.013Garland, E. L., Manusov, E. G., Froeliger, B., Kelly, A., Williams, J. M., & Howard, M. O. (2014). Mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement for chronic pain and prescription opioid misuse: Results from an early-stage randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(3), 448–459. doi:10.1037/a0035798Gossop, M. (2006). Medically supervised withdrawal as stand-alone treatment. In E. C. Strain & M. L. Stitzer (Eds.), The treatment of opioid dependence (pp. 346–362). Baltimore, MD, USA: John Hopkins University Press.Governale, L. (2010). Outpatient prescription opioid utilization in the U.S., years 2000–2009. Retrieved from Anesthetic and Life Support Drugs Advisory Com- mittee http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMee- tingMaterials/Drugs/AnestheticAndLifeSupportDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/ UCM220950.pdfHansen, R. N., Oster, G., Edelsberg, J., Woody, G. E., & Sullivan, S. D. (2011). Economic costs of nonmedical use of prescription opioids. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 27(3), 194–202. doi:10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181ff04caHartzler, B., Cotton, A. J., Calsyn, D. A., Guerra, R., & Gignoux, E. (2010). Dissolution of a harm reduction track for opiate agonist treatment: Longitudinal impact on treatment retention, substance use and service utilization. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(1), 82–85. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.01.005Hedden, S. L., Kennet, J., Lipari, R., Medley, G., Tice, P., Copello, E. S., & Kroutil, L. A. (2014). Behavioral health trends in the United States: Resul