HIV Testing and Counseling at U.S. Substance Use Treatment Facilities: A Missed Opportunity for Early Identification
Abstract
Objective:
The objective of this study was to determine the availability and national distribution of HIV testing and counseling at substance use treatment facilities in the United States.
Methods:
Analyses of data from the 2018 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services assessed HIV testing and counseling availability in U.S. substance use treatment facilities (excluding those in U.S. territories). Facilities were subcategorized by availability of mental health services and medication for opioid use disorders and compared by using logistic models. Descriptive statistics were calculated to characterize the availability of HIV testing and counseling by state, state HIV incidence, and facility characteristics.
Results:
Among U.S. substance use treatment facilities (N=14,691), 29% offered HIV testing, 53% offered HIV counseling, 23% offered both, and 41% offered neither. Across states, the proportions of facilities offering HIV testing ranged from 9.0% to 62.8%, and the proportion offering counseling ranged from 19.2% to 83.3%. In only three states was HIV testing offered by at least 50% of facilities. HIV testing was significantly more likely to be offered in facilities that offered medication for opioid use disorder (48.0% versus 16.0% in those not offering such medication) or mental health services (31.2% versus 24.1% in those not offering such services). Higher state-level HIV incidence was related to an increased proportion of facilities offering HIV testing.
Conclusions:
Only three in 10 substance use treatment facilities offered HIV testing in 2018. This finding represents a missed opportunity for early identification of HIV among people receiving treatment for substance use disorders.
Highlights
• Substance use treatment facilities are uniquely positioned to improve early identification, treatment, and prevention of HIV.
• These facilities could play an important role in diagnosing HIV among the 25% of people with serious mental illness who have comorbid substance use disorders.
• Only three in 10 substance use treatment facilities offered HIV testing in 2018.
To improve early identification, treatment, and prevention of HIV, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised its HIV testing recommendations in 2006 to include routine HIV testing for all patients between the ages of 13 and 64, marking a shift away from risk-based testing (1). In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) also recommended routine HIV testing for patients ages 15–64 (2). This recommendation was important, because USPSTF guidelines have implications for reimbursement. Unfortunately, these recommendations have not been consistently implemented across health care settings. Physicians often cite insufficient time, stigma, consent burden, competing priorities, and reimbursement concerns as barriers to HIV testing (3).
Substance use treatment facilities are uniquely positioned to improve early identification, treatment, and prevention of HIV (4), because they serve a high-risk population. Alcohol and other drug use is broadly associated with increased HIV risk behaviors, including higher-risk sexual and injection drug behaviors (5).
These facilities may play an especially important role in diagnosing HIV among the 25% of people with serious mental illness who have comorbid substance use disorders (6), nearly 30% of whom seek substance use treatment services (6). People with serious mental illness are up to 10 times as likely as the general U.S. population to have HIV (7), and people living with HIV and serious mental illness are more likely to experience increased HIV-related morbidity and mortality from decreased receipt of antiretroviral treatment and lower rates of viral suppression (8–10). Despite this high prevalence and poorer HIV treatment outcomes, HIV testing in this population remains quite low (11).
Before the 2006 CDC guidelines, fewer than 30% of U.S. substance use treatment facilities offered HIV testing and counseling (12). The primary objective of this study was to estimate current HIV testing and counseling availability in U.S.-based substance use treatment facilities and characterize state-to-state variation. The second objective was to assess HIV testing availability at facilities serving subpopulations at particularly high risk of HIV—those providing medication for opioid use disorder or mental health services.
Methods
Data Sources
The National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) is an annual Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) nationwide survey of drug and alcohol treatment facilities. The 2018 survey was sent to 16,365 eligible facilities across the United States, including those in the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, with a response rate of 92% (170 respondents were deemed to represent facilities that were out of scope and thus were excluded). This study included facilities that responded to the survey and were located in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (N=14,691), excluding those in territories. Background HIV incidence data for each state the year prior (2017) was obtained from the CDC’s 2018 HIV Surveillance Report (13).
Outcome Measures
The primary outcome measure was availability of HIV testing. A secondary outcome measure was availability of HIV counseling as reported by the facility in response to the query, “Does this facility provide any form of HIV/AIDS education, counseling, or support?” We also examined these variables in combination, constructing measures for provision of both HIV testing and counseling, as well as for provision of neither HIV testing nor counseling.
Facility Characteristics
Facility characteristics included type of insurance reimbursement accepted and operation type (nonprofit, for profit, or government funded). To define sites most likely to serve especially high-risk populations (people who inject drugs or have serious mental illness), we identified whether a facility offered medication for opioid use disorder or mental health services. A facility was deemed to offer medication for opioid use disorder if it answered “yes” to offering any one of the following medication services: “maintenance services with methadone or buprenorphine,” “maintenance services with medically supervised withdrawal (or taper) after a period of stabilization,” “detoxification from opioids of abuse with methadone or buprenorphine,” or “relapse prevention with naltrexone” (14). Facilities were also asked to indicate ancillary services offered at the facility location. Facilities were also asked to indicate ancillary services offered at the facility location and were categorized as offering mental health services if they affirmatively indicated offering them.
Data Analysis
We used descriptive statistics to characterize the availability of HIV testing and counseling by state, 2017 background HIV incidence, and facility characteristics. We included all U.S. states and the District of Columbia but not U.S. territories. We mapped the proportion of substance use treatment facilities offering HIV testing by state, then used linear regression to estimate the association of 2017 HIV statewide incidence with the percentage of sites offering HIV testing in each state (13). To estimate the strength of associations between offering medication for opioid use disorder and mental health services, we fit four separate logistic models predicting whether facilities offered HIV testing (irrespective of whether they offered counseling), HIV counseling (irrespective of whether they offered testing), both, or neither. Each of the four models included the two covariates of interest—whether facilities offered medication for opioid use disorder and whether they offered mental health services—and adjusted for other facility characteristics and state (as a proxy for the impact of statewide HIV incidence). To aid in interpretation, marginal effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to obtain adjusted differences in the predicted prevalence of each outcome associated with a facility offering medication for opioid use disorder and mental health services. Finally, we used chi-square tests to evaluate differences in facility characteristics between facilities that did and did not offer mental health services. All analyses were performed with Stata, version 16.2 (15). This research was determined not to meet the definition of human subjects research by the University of California, San Francisco, Committee on Human Research, and thus institutional review board approval was waived in December 2018.
Description of Sample
A total of 14,691 U.S.-based substance use treatment facilities were included in the 2018 N-SSATS, including facilities in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Forty-one percent (N=5,963) offered medication for opioid use disorder, and 68% (N=10,014) offered mental health services. Facilities accepted a variety of insurance reimbursement sources: private insurance (71.6%, N=10,521), Medicaid (65.9%, N=9,675), Medicare (35.9%, N=5,267), and cash or self-payment (90.1%, N=13,241); 2.6% (N=386) provided services for free. Facilities included those operated by private nonprofit organizations (51.5%, N=7,571), private for-profit organizations (37.8%, N=5,558), or local, state, federal, or tribal governments (10.6%, N=1,562). CDC data for 2017 show newly diagnosed HIV cases nationally to be at about 12 per 100,000 people, with wide variation across states (range 1.7–45.3 per 100,000) (13).
Results
As shown in Table 1, of the 14,691 facilities, 29.0% offered HIV testing, 53.0% offered HIV counseling, 23.4% offered both HIV testing and counseling, and 41.4% offered neither. We found significant state-to-state variation in the proportion of facilities offering HIV testing (range 9.0% to 62.8%) (Figure 1) and HIV counseling (range 19.2% to 83.3%) (Figure 2). (A table in an online supplement to this article provides state-specific details.)
| Offered medication for | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| opioid use disorder | Adjusted | ||||||||
| All facilities | Yes | No | differences in testing | ||||||
| (N=14,691) | (N=5,963, 41%) | (N=8,728, 59%) | or counseling ratesa | ||||||
| Service | N | % | N | % | N | % | % | 95% CI | p |
| HIV testing | 4,258 | 29.0 | 2,862 | 48.0 | 1,396 | 16.0 | 30.8 | 29.3, 32.4 | <.001 |
| HIV counseling | 7,785 | 53.0 | 3,826 | 64.2 | 3,959 | 45.4 | 18.6 | 17.0, 20.2 | <.001 |
| HIV testing and counseling | 3,441 | 23.4 | 2,292 | 38.4 | 1,149 | 13.2 | 24.6 | 23.2, 26.1 | <.001 |
| Neither HIV testing nor counseling | 6,089 | 41.4 | 1,567 | 26.3 | 4,522 | 51.8 | –24.9 | –26.5, –23.4 | <.001 |
a
Model adjusted for facility characteristics (insurance reimbursement options and operating agency).
Among facilities that provided medication for opioid use disorder, 48.0% offered HIV testing, 64.2% offered HIV counseling, 38.4% offered both, and 26.3% offered neither (Table 1). Rates of HIV testing availability were significantly higher in facilities offering medication for opioid use disorder, compared with those not offering such medication (48.0% versus 16.0%), with an adjusted estimate of the difference in testing rates of 30.8% (p<0.001). HIV counseling was significantly higher in facilities offering medication for opioid use disorder, compared with those not offering such medications (64.2% versus 45.4%), with an adjusted estimate of the difference in counseling rates of 18.6% (p<0.001).
Among facilities providing mental health services, 31.2% offered HIV testing, 54.3% offered HIV counseling, 25.7% offered both, and 40.2% offered neither (Table 2). HIV testing rates were significantly higher in facilities offering mental health services, compared with those not offering such services (31.2% versus 24.1%), with an adjusted estimate of the difference in the testing rates of 3.4% (p<0.001). HIV counseling was significantly higher in facilities offering mental health services, compared with those not offering such services (54.3% versus 50.2%), with an adjusted estimate of the difference in counseling rates of 4.2% (p<0.001).
| Offered mental health services | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All facilities (N=14,691) | Yes (N=10,014, 68%) | No (N=4,677, 32%) | Adjusted differences in testing or counseling ratesa | ||||||
| Service | N | % | N | % | N | % | % | 95% CI | p |
| HIV testing | 4,258 | 29.0 | 3,129 | 31.2 | 1,129 | 24.1 | 3.4 | 1.9, 5.0 | <.001 |
| HIV counseling | 7,785 | 53.0 | 5,435 | 54.3 | 2,350 | 50.2 | 4.2 | 2.4, 5.9 | <.001 |
| HIV testing and counseling | 3,441 | 23.4 | 2,571 | 25.7 | 870 | 18.6 | 4.7 | 3.3, 6.1 | <.001 |
| Neither HIV testing nor counseling | 6,089 | 41.4 | 4,021 | 40.2 | 2,068 | 44.2 | –2.9 | –4.6, –1.2 | <.001 |
a
Model adjusted for facility characteristics (insurance reimbursement options and operating agency).
Additional analyses showed that 29% (N=4,329) of all facilities offered both mental health services and medication for opioid use disorder, and the adjusted rate of HIV testing in these 4,329 facilities was even higher (47.3%, 95% CI=45.8%−48.7%), as was the adjusted rate of HIV counseling (64.7%, 95% CI=63.3%−66.1%). These rates were significantly higher than rates among facilities offering only mental health services (p<0.001), but they did not differ significantly from rates in facilities offering only medication for opioid use disorder.
Compared with private nonprofit facilities, private for-profit facilities were less likely to offer HIV testing (odds ratio [OR]=0.66, 95% CI=0.53–0.83, p<0.001) and government facilities were more likely to offer HIV testing (OR=2.10, 95% CI=1.45–3.03, p<0.001). Payment type accepted (e.g., no payment, cash, private insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare) was not associated with HIV testing. Higher background state-level HIV incidence was related to an increased proportion of facilities offering HIV testing (R2=0.48) (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3. State HIV incidence and state HIV testing in substance use treatment facilitiesa
aState data on facilities offering HIV testing in 2018 obtained from 2018 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services. State data on newly diagnosed HIV cases in 2017 obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2018 HIV Surveillance Report. Washington, D.C., was an outlier and was excluded from this analysis.
Discussion
Among U.S. facilities reporting to N-SSATS, 29% offered HIV testing, consistent with prior reports in these settings (16). We found little change from prior estimates of HIV testing in these settings between 1995 and 2005 (27% to 29%) (12), despite increasing HIV incidence, updated 2006 CDC guidelines, new policies that incentivize or require reimbursement, and a decline in the rate of uninsured adults (12). This low rate of HIV testing is a missed opportunity for early HIV diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, particularly at a time when the nation is grappling with the impact of the opioid epidemic and investing in the “Ending the HIV Epidemic” initiative, which features testing as a key strategy (17). Given the CDC and USPSTF recommendations for routine HIV testing and the higher-risk population served, universal HIV testing in substance use treatment facilities could help identify individuals who are unaware of their HIV status, link those who are newly diagnosed to care, reengage those previously diagnosed but not currently retained in care, and initiate HIV prevention interventions for those who test negative (1).
Among facilities offering medication for opioid use disorder, fewer than half offered HIV testing. Although this rate was significantly higher than in facilities not offering such medication (16%), sites offering medication for opioid use disorder are more likely to treat people who inject drugs. Although our data show some improvement in these settings, compared with data from prior smaller studies in similar settings in 2011 (16), the results are nevertheless concerning, because people with opioid use disorder—even those on medication for opioid use disorder—are more likely to engage in HIV-related risk behaviors, including sexual risk and high-risk injection drug use (18). Notably, the CDC, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and SAMHSA all encourage routing HIV testing in opioid treatment programs or integration of HIV and substance use disorder services (19).
HIV testing availability was higher in facilities offering mental health services, compared with those not offering such services (31% versus 24%). These modestly higher rates of testing availability may reflect the influence of organizational characteristics—that is, facilities offering behavioral health care may simply offer more services in general—or may reflect need-based policies responding to the perceived presence of populations at higher risk of HIV. Given the low prevalence of HIV testing among people with serious mental illness served in community mental health settings (11), improving testing in substance use treatment settings could help fill this critical testing gap.
Finally, although we found a positive association between state-level incidence rates of diagnosed HIV and rates of HIV testing in state substance use treatment facilities, adherence to universal HIV testing recommendations was low even in states with high HIV burden. For example, fewer than half of all facilities in New York and California offered HIV testing (Figure 1 and table in online supplement). In fact, in only three states (Louisiana, Nevada, and South Carolina) and the District of Columbia did 50% or more of facilities offer HIV testing. Considering how widespread the low rates of HIV testing in substance use treatment facilities were across the United States, leadership at the federal and state levels may be needed to increase testing (3).
Although it is important to document how HIV testing practices fall short of guidelines, barriers to adoption should be further investigated systematically, and intervention strategies should be tested. One possible barrier to HIV testing is that many substance use treatment facilities are rooted in a 12-step philosophy, and providers may be more reluctant to adopt a medical model of care that would include routine HIV testing (20, 21).
We also found that government-run facilities were more likely than other facilities to offer HIV testing. Given that many of the nongovernment substance use treatment facilities accept federal funding, federal agencies could consider making funding contingent on the capacity to offer HIV testing or offering incentives to facilities that reach testing targets.
Another approach to increase testing rates in this population involves promoting or encouraging sites to offer rapid, on-site HIV testing with immediate results at substance use treatment facilities. Multiple randomized clinical trials in substance use treatment facilities have shown that offering this testing service more than triples the proportion of clients who receive HIV testing results (22, 23). Of note, the addition of counseling to rapid HIV testing did not reduce HIV risk behaviors or increase receipt of test results (23).
It is important to consider the results of this study in a larger context. Most people in the United States who have a substance use disorder, with or without other comorbid mental illnesses, are not in treatment (24–26). Although there is a range of reasons for this, one important barrier is the lack of access to services. Examining the system of substance use services currently in place in the United States does not address this much larger problem of people out of care.
As we explore policy solutions aimed at expanding services to treat substance use disorders, our study supports the value of integrated services. Substance use programs that either offered medication for opioid use disorder or mental health services or both had higher rates of HIV testing and counseling, suggesting that programs with a broader range of services are also more likely to address the common medical comorbidities seen in this population, of which HIV infection is a prominent example.
As the nation grapples with the opioid epidemic in particular, new opportunities will arise that aid us in the goal of expanding access to comprehensive substance use services. One example is ongoing efforts to address the underuse of buprenorphine. In January 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published practice guidelines that allow physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without undergoing additional training and a waiver process (27). Expanding the scope of eligible providers could remove barriers to treatment by facilitating access and normalizing substance use treatment in a range of health care settings, but broad implementation efforts will likely be critical to move the needle. In addition to this change, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also issued guidance that all state Medicaid programs are required to cover treatment for opioid use disorders, including medication (28). Although positive results of these changes may be anticipated, their success needs to be investigated empirically. As the range of settings providing treatment for people with opioid use disorders expands as a result of such policy changes and initiatives, it will also be important to extend access to HIV testing to this broader range of providers, even as efforts continue to expand provision of HIV testing in the licensed substance use disorder facilities that are included in the N-SSATS sample. These settings include, for example, federally qualified health centers, which play a significant role in the care of both people with substance use disorders and those with mental disorders.
Strengths of this study include the size of the data set and geographic diversity. One limitation is that N-SSATS data are self-reported by clinic directors and supervisors and thus may be missing, incomplete, or subject to social desirability bias. The N-SSATS database includes only programs that seek to be listed in the SAMHSA services locator tool and thus likely overrepresents publicly funded sites and underrepresents programs that are primarily funded through patient self-pay or commercial health insurance plans. Additionally, N-SSATS does not have client-level data, excludes facilities serving incarcerated individuals, and does not define the extent or content of “HIV/AIDS counseling.” Finally, although it would have been preferrable to measure sites where the primary focus was providing mental health services, the response data for the pertinent survey question are not publicly available in the downloadable N-SSATS data set. We may have seen different results if the analysis had been limited to facilities that focused on providing mental health services.
Conclusions
Only about three in 10 U.S. substance use treatment facilities were found to offer HIV testing, and fewer than half of facilities that treat people with medication for opioid use disorder offered HIV testing. State- and federal-level policy makers have opportunities to use evidence-based approaches to increase HIV testing in these facilities, monitor adoption rates, and use financial incentives and their regulatory and licensing authority to increase testing and improve HIV-related health outcomes. Further, as the nation seeks to end the HIV epidemic through a national initiative (17, 29), engaging substance use treatment facilities could represent one means of connecting a key risk population to needed HIV prevention and treatment services.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.202000524.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 93.77 KB
References
1.
Branson B, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, et al: Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings, 2006. MMWR Recomm Rep 2006; 55:1–17
2.
Moyer VA: Screening for HIV: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2013; 159:51–60
3.
Burke RC, Sepkowitz KA, Bernstein KT, et al: Why don’t physicians test for HIV? A review of the US literature. AIDS 2007; 21:1617–1624
4.
Simeone CA, Seal SM, Savage C: Implementing HIV testing in substance use treatment programs: a systematic review. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care 2017; 28:199–215
5.
HIV and Substance Use. Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019
6.
Jones CM, McCance-Katz EF: Co-occurring substance use and mental disorders among adults with opioid use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend 2019; 197:78–82
7.
Hughes E, Bassi S, Gilbody S, et al: Prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C in people with severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 3:40–48
8.
McGinty EE, Baller J, Azrin ST, et al: Quality of medical care for persons with serious mental illness: a comprehensive review. Schizophr Res 2015; 165:227–235
9.
Carrico AW, Bangsberg DR, Weiser SD, et al: Psychiatric correlates of HAART utilization and viral load among HIV-positive impoverished persons. AIDS 2011; 25:1113–1118
10.
Weiser SD, Wolfe WR, Bangsberg DR: The HIV epidemic among individuals with mental illness in the United States. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2004; 6:404–410
11.
Mangurian C, Cournos F, Schillinger D, et al: Low rates of HIV testing among adults with severe mental illness receiving care in community mental health settings. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68:443–448
12.
Pollack HA, D’Aunno T: HIV testing and counseling in the nation’s outpatient substance abuse treatment system, 1995–2005. J Subst Abuse Treat 2010; 38:307–316
13.
Diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2018 (Updated). HIV Surveillance Report, vol 31. Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020
14.
National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS). Rockville, MD, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2017
15.
Stata Statistical Software, Release 16. College Station, TX, StataCorp LLC, 2019
16.
Frimpong JA, D’Aunno T, Helleringer S, et al: Low rates of adoption and implementation of rapid HIV testing in substance use disorder treatment programs. J Subst Abuse Treat 2016; 63:46–53
17.
What Is “Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America”? Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, HIV.gov, 2020
18.
McHugh RK, Weitzman M, Safren SA, et al: Sexual HIV risk behaviors in a treatment-refractory opioid-dependent sample. J Psychoactive Drugs 2012; 44:237–242
19.
Volkow ND, Montaner J: The urgency of providing comprehensive and integrated treatment for substance abusers with HIV. Health Aff 2011; 30:1411–1419
20.
Nowinski J, Baker S: The Twelve-Step Facilitation Handbook: A Systematic Approach to Early Recovery From Alcoholism and Addiction. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1992
21.
Rothman J, Rudnick D, Slifer M, et al: Co-located substance use treatment and HIV prevention and primary care services, New York State, 1990–2002: a model for effective service delivery to a high-risk population. J Urban Health 2007; 84:226–242
22.
Frimpong JA, Shiu-Yee K, Tross S, et al: Bundling rapid human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus testing to increase receipt of test results: a randomized trial. Med Care 2020; 58:445–452
23.
Metsch LR, Feaster DJ, Gooden L, et al: Implementing rapid HIV testing with or without risk-reduction counseling in drug treatment centers: results of a randomized trial. Am J Public Health 2012; 102:1160–1167
24.
Williams AR, Nunes EV, Bisaga A, et al: Development of a Cascade of Care for responding to the opioid epidemic. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2019; 45:1–10
25.
Hasin DS, Stinson FS, Ogburn E, et al: Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64:830–842
26.
Priester MA, Browne T, Iachini A, et al: Treatment access barriers and disparities among individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders: an integrative literature review. J Subst Abuse Treat 2016; 61:47–59
27.
HHS Expands Access to Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder. Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2021
28.
Costello A: RE: Mandatory Medicaid State Plan Coverage of Medication-Assisted Treatment. Baltimore, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2020
29.
Dawson L, Kates J: The US Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) Initiative: What You Need to Know. San Francisco, Kaiser Family Foundation, 2020
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 13 July 2020
Revision received: 2 February 2021
Accepted: 4 March 2021
Published online: 15 June 2021
Published in print: December 01, 2021
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
All authors, except for Ms. Borowsky, Ms. Dawson, and Dr. Bazazi, were supported by grant R01MH112420 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The authors thank Andrea Elser, B.A., for assistance with generating initial figures.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).