Matthew Ryan Pearson

Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is one of the most popular community-based resources for addressing alcohol use disorders, and meta-analytic reviews have reported that frequency of AA meeting attendance ...

Substance use (and polysubstance use in particular) is prevalent and associated with a range of negative outcomes among young adults. The Substance Use Protective Strategies Scale (SUPSS) was originally developed and validated using a Polish sample and is a substance-general measure of cognitive-behavioral strategies aimed at reducing substance-related harms associated with the use of multiple substances. The present study developed an adapted version of the SUPSS for the purposes of examining the psychometric properties and validity of this measure in a large sample of U.S. college students (n = 2,566) recruited across 10 universities who reported past-month substance use. Using confirmatory factor analysis, we found an adequate fit for a four-factor model, consistent with the developmental sample. Using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, we found support for scalar invariance of the SUPSS across distinct sociodemographic groups and those using distinct substances. Generally, the SUPSS subscales were positively associated with alcohol and cannabis protective behavioral strategies use and negatively associated with alcohol- and cannabis-related outcomes (frequency, consequences, disorder symptoms). The present study was limited by its cross-sectional design and exclusive reliance on retrospective self-reports. Future research using longitudinal and experimental designs can determine the prospective and causal effects of these substance-general protective behavioral strategies on substance-related outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

We sought to evaluate an expanded and adapted version of the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ) to assess the internalization continuum of motivation per self-determination theory (SDT) for responsible cannabis use and cannabis protective behavioural strategies (PBS). We recruited 1,196 college students (Study 1) and 1,409 adults (Study 2) who reported past-month cannabis to complete online surveys; a random sample of 501 adults in Study 2 completed a follow-up survey one month later. We found support for a 3-factor exploratory structural equation model of a 26-item TSRQ representing autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation. Associations of the TSRQ with cannabis outcomes were consistent with SDT such that greater autonomous motivation was associated with more frequent cannabis PBS use (e.g. 'Limit use to weekends'). In contrast, greater controlled motivation and amotivation were associated with more negative cannabis-related consequences and more severe cannabis use. Differences emerged for instructions referencing responsible cannabis use versus cannabis PBS in Study 1. The results support the use of the expanded and adapted TSRQ to assess motivations per SDT for cannabis harm reduction behaviours. These findings warrant replication and suggest that responsible cannabis use is conceptualized to be distinct from cannabis PBS.

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals have the highest rates of opioid overdose mortality and chronic pain (CP) compared to other racial/ethnic groups in the United States. These individuals also report higher rates of pain anxiety and pain catastrophizing, which are both associated with poorer outcomes and risk for opioid misuse (OM) and opioid use disorder (OUD) among individuals with CP. Yet, no prior studies have examined rates of comorbid pain and OUD among AI/AN adults. This commentary describes an implementation research partnership of 3 AI/AN-serving clinics and a university team that utilizes an implementation hybrid type III design to examine the impact of implementation strategies on adoption and sustainability of evidence-based screening and brief intervention for CP and OM/OUD among AI/AN clients. As part of our community-engaged approach, we embrace both AI/AN models and Western models, and a collaborative board of 10 individuals guided the research throughout. We hypothesize that our culturally centered approach will increase rates of screening and brief intervention and improve identification of and outcomes among AI/AN clients with CP and OUD who receive treatment at participating sites. Each site convenes a workgroup to evaluate and set goals to culturally center screening and brief interventions for CP and OM/OUD. Data collected include deidentified electronic health records to track screening and brief interventions and rates of CP and OUD; provider and staff surveys beginning prior to implementation and every 6 months for 2 years; and a subset of clients will be recruited (N = 225) and assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 months to examine biopsychosocial and spiritual factors and their experiences with culturally centered screening and brief intervention. Cultural adaptations to the measures and screening and brief intervention as well as barriers and facilitators will be addressed. Recommendations for successful Tribal health clinic-university partnerships are offered.

Previous work examining the extent to which individuals seek alcohol to enhance positive experiences (reward drinking) or relieve aversive states (relief drinking) has shown that reward/relief drinking predicts response to naltrexone and acamprosate treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Yet, various measures of reward/relief drinking have been used in prior research, and the comparative psychometric properties of these measures are unknown. Evaluating and comparing the psychometric properties of these reward/relief drinking measures could identify measures with the most promise for translating precision medicine findings to clinical practice. In a community sample of 65 individuals with heavy/hazardous alcohol use on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test, we showed good internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity for theoretically aligned measures (e.g., reward drinking and reward responsiveness, relief drinking and depression/anxiety symptoms) of the reward and relief subscales across the six measures. We then used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to determine whether reward and relief drinking subscales predicted within-person associations between contextual factors of interest (e.g., negative affect, positive affect, distress intolerance, physical pain, hangover symptoms, social drinking situations, alcohol cues) and same-moment alcohol craving. All six measures demonstrated limited predictive validity for alcohol craving contexts in daily life assessed via EMA. Despite these findings, reward and relief drinking measures show good reliability and concurrent validity and previously demonstrated clinical utility for predicting response to AUD treatments, including naltrexone. Future research should aim to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the association between responses to reward/relief drinking measures and pharmacotherapy outcomes.