Emerging Biopsychosocial Models of Care for Psychostimulant Disorder Prevention and Treatment

Rachel Blanton
Public Health Innovation, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Correspondence to: rachel.harris.blanton@gmail.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.70389/PJP.100003

Additional information

• Ethical approval: N/a
• Consent: N/a
• Funding: No industry funding
• Conflicts of interest: N/a
• Author contribution: Rachel Blanton – Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, review and editing
• Guarantor: Rachel Blanton
• Provenance and peer-review:
  Commissioned and externally peer-reviewed
• Data availability statement: N/a

Keywords: Biopsychosocial model, Stimulant use disorder, Contingency management, Naloxone co-prescribing, Harm reduction measures.

Received: 13 September 2024
Revised: 15 January 2025
Accepted: 16 January 2025
Published: 4 February 2025

Background

Stimulant use disorder (StUD) is the condition in which the continued use of stimulants (cocaine, crack, methamphetamine, prescription drugs) causes clinically significant impairment or distress.¹ Associated medical and psychiatric harms associated with StUD include but are not limited to psychosis, agitation, severe anxiety, depression, cardiovascular issues (e.g., arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accidents), infectious diseases (e.g., HIV and hepatitis), and dental problems.² Annual hospital costs related to amphetamines increased nearly 500% between 2003 and 2015 ($436 million to $2.17 billion).¹ Annual rates of primary cause of admission due to stimulant use increased by an average of 8.8% per year between 2010 and 2017, with opioid admissions with secondary stimulant use increasing at 24.3% per year over the same time period.³ Current deaths attributed to stimulant use are also at the highest rate in history and are increasing annually at an alarming rate.⁴

Use of stimulants causes brief euphoria, mania, and wakefulness by increasing the availability of free dopamine within the brain.1 However, repeated use increases the risk of developing substance use disorders (SUD) through the development of tolerance in the (1) acute intoxication/binge; (2) withdrawal; (3) anticipation/craving cycle. This makes cessation of psychostimulants extremely difficult, even with substantial clinical intervention. Recent data shows that within 1 year of intensive treatment, approximately 50–60% of individuals relapse.5 Unlike treatment for opioid use disorder, tobacco use, and alcohol use disorder, there is no FDA-approved medication for StUD treatment. As a result, current approaches center on behavioral interventions and supports (Figure 1).

Implementation of best practices related to identification and treatment is more important than ever with overdose rates related to stimulants increasing over the past 10 years. In fact, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths involving psychostimulants increased more than 34 times from 2002 (0.3) to 2022 (10.4).⁶ This can be attributed to a combination of factors including the adulteration of stimulants with opioids, particularly synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, and the increasing potency of stimulants.⁷ Thus, while overall prevalence rates of use and use disorders related to stimulants remain relatively low, they are of significant concern (see prevalence data in Figure 2).

There are distinct utilization patterns based on the substance of choice within the stimulant category. Among adults, methamphetamine use is correlated with male sex, 26+ age, low education attainment, income less than $50k per year, Medicaid or no health insurance, and residence in small metro or non-metro (rural) communities.³ Cocaine use is correlated with male gender, 18+ age, Hispanic ethnicity, income less than $20k per year, polysubstance use, a history of suicidal ideation, and residence in large or small metro communities.⁹ Finally, prescription stimulant misuse is correlated with 18–25 age, white non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a history of mental health comorbidities, and relatively low peer social connection.¹⁰ Key utilization trends show generally lower usage among younger individuals (12–18 years old), but prevention, identification, and treatment of StUD in younger individuals is critical given its profound long-term impacts on brain development during this developmental period.¹¹ Among all individuals with long-term use, permanent damage to major body systems can occur including the brain, cardiovascular system, and dental health.¹

In the last 10 years, there has been a major push among care providers and healthcare researchers to incorporate biopsychosocial models of care in the treatment and management of patients with StUD to prevent these harms. The biopsychosocial model of addiction considers the combination of factors in the development of SUD including genetic, biological, psychological, and cultural features, and calls for all of these factors to be considered in the treatment of SUD in general.¹² The relationship between StUD and social determinants of health (SDoH) and psychosocial factors can be mutually destructive. The physiologic and psychological/behavioral symptoms of chronic stimulant use can further degrade psychosocial functioning such as depression, paranoia, apprehension, extreme fatigue, poor hygiene/self-care, skin disorders, hair loss, impaired sexual performance/reproductive functioning, and oral health conditions.¹ Key SDoH drivers of stimulant use initiation and use disorder include low access to healthcare, low economic resources, and poor social connections.¹² As a result, current literature supports a combined psychological and behavioral approach in the biopsychosocial model.¹

Current Recommendations

1. Utilize contingency management where current policies allow with complementary psychosocial interventions.

Systematic reviews of the literature consistently show the most promising clinical intervention for StUD is contingency management (CM) and CM plus complementary psychosocial treatments.⁶ CM is the practice of providing a supplemental incentive for remaining abstinent and/or participating in treatment activities and has been demonstrated to be an effective intervention for treatment in a variety of SUD.¹³ Utilization of contingency management may include activities such as offering a cash payment for a negative drug screen, providing childcare supplies for attendance at a mutual aid group, or a lottery system for those participating in a treatment program. Despite their demonstrated efficacy, CM programs have been limited based on regulatory guidelines, stigma, and funding but have been widely adopted by the US Veterans Administration Health System.¹⁴ Lack of widespread adoption of CM can be attributed to a variety of factors including high levels of stigma-characterizing CM as “paying people not to use drugs” and funding preferences for direct pharmacological intervention versus psychosocial supports within the U.S. health system.¹⁴

Combined approaches with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and CM also show a strong evidence base. CBT is a treatment technique based on the identification of negative thought and behavioral patterns and a focused approach to changing underlying thoughts that result in undesirable behaviors.¹⁵ This combined approach has been shown to significantly improve retention in treatment in particular.¹⁶ However, it is important to note that there is not a strong evidence base for psychological treatment interventions alone (CBT, psychodynamic therapy, motivational interviewing, etc.) in promoting long-term abstinence. Studies exploring the impact of intensive motivational interviewing (MI) versus standard MI have found no impact on treatment duration and abstinence.¹⁷ There is a strong literature supporting these interventions in a reduction of drug use frequency for StUD and related risky behaviors.¹⁶ Thus, there has been a recent call for healthcare communities and treatment providers to consider these reductions as meaningful outcomes, as opposed to holding a singular goal or outcome measure of abstinence.¹⁸

2. While there is no currently approved medication for the treatment of StUD, all patients identified with StUD or misuse of stimulants should be provided naloxone and overdose prevention/response education.

For many other SUDs, medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is considered a standard of care. Yet there is no currently approved pharmacological treatment for StUD.³ Research to date has found limited or mixed results. In a 2021 multisite, double-blind, two-stage, placebo-controlled trial to assess naltrexone (380 mg every 3 weeks) and bupropion (450 mg per day) regimes against placebo, there was a minor but not significant impact on treatment outcomes.19 Some studies have found negative effects for antidepressants and disulfiram in people with StUD and opioid use disorder (OUD).²⁰ The American Society for Addiction Medicine does describe potential off-label therapeutics in the treatment of StUD but provides the caveat that these have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA.²¹ Therefore, additional research and development related to pharmacologic treatments for the primary treatment of StUD is needed.²² Of note, it has been well-established that anyone being treated for StUD should be provided naloxone and education on opioid overdose response given the significant influx of synthetic opioids into the stimulant supply and the increase in polysubstance use.²¹

3. Primary care providers should be provided education on appropriate screening and referral tools, alongside stigma reduction to support patients.

Primary care providers are often at the frontlines of identifying SUDs and providing appropriate care/referrals. This is particularly true for StUD, where the patient community tends to have a lower-than-median income and either public insurance or no insurance, reducing their access to more specialty care resources.¹⁰ Unfortunately, primary care providers consistently rate their comfort with treating methamphetamine use as much lower than for treating other SUDs such as OUD.²³ Yet, there are relatively straightforward guidelines for primary care providers based on the screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment (SBIRT) model that have been shown to reduce drug use post-SBIRT administration.²⁴ The SBIRT technique includes screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment as a first-line identification of SUD, typically in the primary care setting. The stepwise actions recommended by SAMHSA include (1) screen for substance use; (2) if the screen is positive, utilize SBIRT technique; (3) mild to moderate use: education and MI combined with offered peer support services can be beneficial, or if use is severe, refer to a licensed mental health service and/or SUD treatment provider (other tips: follow-up on referrals, utilize a “warm hand-off” when possible, offer education specifically on the dangers of stimulants laced with opioids and how to utilize naloxone) (Figure 3).²⁴

Other considerations for primary care providers include offering sexually transmitted illness testing due to higher than community average rates in the StUD community, providing naloxone and education to prevent overdose deaths, and working with psychiatric providers to manage any symptoms of acute psychosis.²³ Providers should also work to address co-occurring mental health conditions in the StUD population. These occur at a higher rate than in those who use stimulants as compared to the general population.¹

In addition, healthcare systems and public health groups should aim to provide support to primary care providers to reduce stigma. Experts in the field of provider stigma have noted, “Research consistently demonstrates that healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards patients with addiction problems are often negative and may adversely impact service delivery.”²⁵ While education regarding stigma and neurobiology of addiction can provide mild reductions in stigma, the most significant improvement has been observed through facilitated relationship development and connection to people with SUD.²⁵ This is important given that provider rapport has been identified as an independent predictor of treatment success. In fact, in a study of in-patient methamphetamine treatment programs, positive care team rapport increased abstinence by up to 45%, where treatment duration had to nearly double to 13 weeks of care to achieve a similar improvement in abstinence rate of 43%.²⁶

4. Include social and community connections in clinical treatment and community prevention/ response plans.

In consideration of the biopsychosocial model of SUD, it is critical to manage StUD at the social and community level. SAMHSA has recommended involving families and close social connections in treatment at the primary and specialty levels of care as appropriate and with patient consent.²⁷ The community reinforcement model (partner of a person with a StUD engaged in therapy, participation in mutual aid groups, etc.) has also been identified as an understudied but high-potential benefit intervention with the most benefit when combined with CM.²⁸ Avoidance of social situations, environments, and individuals associated with drug use has also been shown to reduce the risk of relapse.²⁹ Peer recovery support services can provide another layer of support for those in treatment and recovery. This model staffs people with lived experience as patients with SUD to provide mentoring, education, and support to those in treatment and has been shown to mildly enhance recovery priming, recovery initiation and stabilization, and treatment engagement.³⁰ This can be done in traditional treatment or broader community settings and has been shown to generally improve recovery rates for those with SUD.³¹

In addition, housing and family impact are of particular note when working with people with StUD. Recent studies have found that housing status independently predicted relapse among women where mental health status, income, and food security did not.³² Family status is also an area of concern given the benefits of positive family interaction on recovery and well-being.²⁷ It is also extremely fragile for people with StUD. People who use methamphetamine are at particular risk of remaining separated from children who have been taken into foster care due to parental substance use. At 210 days post-separation, only 8% of families with methamphetamine-using guardians have been reunited compared with 22% of families separated due to alcohol use and 13% of families separated due to polysubstance use. This is likely due to these parents/guardians consistently receiving a higher “risk score” from Child Protective Services, despite evidence suggesting no greater harm to children as compared to other parental substance use.³³ Within the population of StUD patients with children, perinatal women should receive additional consideration. ASAM recommends utilizing a multidisciplinary care team to care for the parent and child/fetus given the potential impacts of StUD on infant development and health and the complex legal/custody ramifications of a positive laboratory confirmation of stimulant use.²¹ Given that social capital and connection are protective factor in recovery, family separation can be considered a risk. Thus, a wrap-around approach to not only medical care, but additional supports should be considered as best practice (Table 1).³⁴

Table 1: Parental substance use and reunification post foster care placement.
	% Of Families Reunified After Foster Care Placement
Time From Placement In Foster Care (Days)	Alcohol Only (%)	Other Drug Only (%)	Methamphetamine Only (%)	Polysubstance (%)
210	22	13	8	13
360	39	28	27	27
480	49	41	4	38
Presented as data from Lloyd and Akin, 201433

“While the metanalyses show that there is less strength for biopsychosocial intervention in significantly improving long-term total abstinence, it is important to note that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has recently indicated that total reduction in use is a meaningful outcome. Those who reduce their use, have fewer symptoms of depression, lower drug cravings and reduced complications related to drug use. Thus, interventions that achieve this aim should be considered a valuable treatment tool, even when the evidence does not demonstrate a significant impact on absolute abstinence.”¹⁸

5. Harm reduction and drug use reduction should be considered meaningful outcomes of treatment and recovery.

While many studies utilize long-term, total abstinence from stimulants and other substances as the gold standard for treatment and recovery success, the NIH has recently called for a consideration of other harm reduction and utilization reduction measures as meaningful outcomes in research and treatment.¹⁸ As clinicians, researchers, and policymakers look to evaluate interventions and supports, this could broaden options for care and provide more diverse alternatives depending on the needs and resources of the patient and community.³⁵ For example, a qualitative assessment of the recovery pathways of long-term methamphetamine users found that the majority in recovery for greater than 1 year used replacement substances in a “non-problematic” manner as a tool for recovery maintenance. Less than 15% of participants in the study fit the traditional model of total abstinence from all substances.²⁹ At the same time, as previously noted, there are multiple psychosocial treatment modalities with relatively weak evidence for promoting long-term abstinence that have also been shown to have a stronger effect on reduced drug use, reduced injection of substances, and decreased risky sexual behaviors.6 This reframing has the potential to increase adoption of supports such as CM and social supports based on harm reduction impacts and overcome barriers to implementation related to stigma. Thus, broadening future research and treatment goals to include harm reduction measures should be considered in the context of patient impact and intervention development.

Future Directions

Current research, policy, and treatment trends point to key areas of research including expanded access to CM programs, development of pharmacologic interventions, primary care training and engagement, expanded co-prescribing of naloxone for StUD patients, policy development to support social needs of individuals with StUD, and utilization of additional harm reduction measures in StUD utilization research. Each of these areas is summarized below.

Access to CM Treatment: Despite the significant evidence pointing to CM as a best practice for reducing relapse and promoting engagement in treatment for StUD, it shows relatively low implementation due to policy and funding barriers.¹ Policymakers and public/commercial payers should work together to reduce these barriers to this high-evidence intervention by removing existing ceilings to payments, provider and policymaker stigma related to CM, and the bureaucratic program administration obstacles.

Development of Pharmacologic Interventions: As previously stated, StUD is unique among other SUDs in the lack of approved medications for MAT to complement other treatment and support interventions. Fortunately, there is emerging research showing marked differences in brain activity among those who are most prone to StUD relapse.⁵ This presents a promising option for pharmacologic development in the future.

Primary Care Engagement and Training: There have been immense strides in the past 20 years to engage and activate primary care related to OUD prevention, identification, and treatment. A similar model could prove highly effective in the prevention, identification, and treatment of StUD.³⁶

Co-prescribing of Naloxone for People with StUD: While naloxone is not considered a direct treatment for stimulant overdose, it is critical given the polysubstance use (intentional) and the increase in the lacing of stimulants with opioids, particularly strong synthetic opioids (unintentional).¹ This will help reduce the overdose death rate that continues to climb in the United States.

Policy Development to Support Social-Ecological Context for Treatment and Recovery: As previously noted, social and community context is often inexorable to StUD. Researchers should continue to explore these connections to provide policymakers with data regarding key SDoH related to StUD such as housing and family connections.

Harm Reduction as a Meaningful Outcome in Research and Treatment: This publication aligns with recent calls to increase emphasis on harm reduction measures as meaningful outcomes for the treatment of StUD. While abstinence should continue to be pursued, other outcomes related to frequency/dose, utilization route, and other risky behaviors should be included as measures.

Conclusion

The burden of StUD has increased significantly in the past 20 years. While research into this condition has continued to improve, clinical care and policy guidelines have remained relatively stagnant. Thus opportunities to improve research, practice, and policy should be pursued to reduce the impact of StUD on individuals and communities.

References

1 SAMHSA. Treatment for Substance Use Disorders (TIP 33). SAMHSA. 2021.
 
2 Voce A, Calabria B, Burns R, Castle D, McKetin R. A systematic review of the symptom profile and course of methamphetamine-associated psychosis. Subst Use Misuse. 2019;54(4):549-59.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2018.1521430
 
3 Jones CM, Houry D, Han B, Baldwin G, Vivolo-Kantor A, Compton WM. Methamphetamine use in the United States: Epidemiological update and implications for prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2022;1508(1):3-22.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14688
 
4 Spencer MR, Garnett MF, Minino AM. NCHS Data Brief No 491. Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2002-2022 [Online] 2024. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db491.htm#:~:text=The %20age%2Dadjusted%20rate%20of%20drug%20overdose%20deaths%20involving%20psychostimulants,(10.4%20compared%20with%2010.0).
 
5 Mortazavi L, MacNiven KH, Knutson B. Blunted neurobehavioral loss anticipation predicts relapse to stimulant drug use. Bio Psych. 2024;95(3):256-65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2023.07.020
 
6 Minozzi S, Saulle R, Amato L, Traccis F, Agabio R. Psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2024;2(2):CD011866.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011866.pub3
 
7 Ciccarone D, Shoptaw S. Understanding stimulant use and use disorders in a new era. Med Clin North Am. 2022;106(1):81-97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2021.08.010
 
8 SAMHSA. Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. 2021.
 
9 Mustaquim D, Jones CM, Compton WM. Trends and correlates of cocaine use among Adultsin the United States, 2006-2019. Addict Behav. 2021;120:106950.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106950
 
10 SAMHSA. Prescription Stimulant Misuse and Prevention among Youth and Young Adults. Health and Human Services. 2021.
 
11 Park TM, Haning WF. Stimulant use disorders. In Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics 2016;(pp. 461-71).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2016.02.004
 
12 Skewes MC, Gonzalez VM. The biopscyhosocial model of addiction. In Miller PM. Principles of Addiction 2013;(Vol. 1, pp. 61-9). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-398336-7.00006-1
 
13 Prendergast M, Podus D, Finney J, Greenwell L, Roll J. Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. In DARE [Online] 2006. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK72392/.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01581.x
 
14 Rawson RA, Erath TG, Chalk M, Westley Clark H, McDaid C, Wattenberg SA. Contingency management for stimulant use disorder. J Ambul Care Manage. 2023;46(2):152-9.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JAC.0000000000000450
 
15 American Psychological Association. What is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy? American Psychological Association [Online] 2023. Available from: https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-families/cognitive-behavioral.
 
16 Ngoc Tran MT, Luong QH, Minh GL, Dunne MP, Baker P. Psychosocial interventions for amphetamine type stimulant use disorder: An overview of systematic reviews. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:512076.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.512076
 
17 Polcin DL, Bond J, Korcha R, Nayak MB, Galloway GP, Evans K. Randomized trial of intensive motivational interviewing for methamphetamine dependence. J Addict Dis. 2014;33(3):253-65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10550887.2014.950029
 
18 NIH. Reduced drug use is a meaningful treatment outcome for people with stimulant use disorders. NIH News Release. 2024.
 
19 Trivedi MH, Walker R, Ling W, Cruz AD, Sharma G, Carmody T, et al. Bupropion and naltrexone in methamphetamine use disorder. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(2):140-53.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2020214
 
20 Chan B, Freeman M, Ayers C, Todd Korthuis P, Paynter R, Kondo K. A systematic review and meta-analysis of medications for stimulant use disorders in patients with co-occurring opioid use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;216:108193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108193
 
21 ASAM/AAAP. Clinical practice guideline on the management of stimulant use disorder. American Society of Addiction Medicine. 2023.
 
22 Hersi M, Corace K, Hamel C, Esmaeilisaraji L, Rice D, Dryburgh N, et al. Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions for problematic methamphetamine use: Findings from a scoping review of the literature. PLoS One. 2023;18(1):e0292745.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292745
 
23 Dunn J, Yuan M, Ramírez F, Garneau HC, Brown-Johnson C, Breland H, et al. Addressing methamphetamine use in primary care: Provider perspectives. J Addict Med. 2023;17(1):60-6.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000001035
 
24 SAMHSA. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in Behavioral Healthcare. Health and Human Services. 2011.
 
25 Bielenberg J, Swisher G, Lembke A, Haug NA, et al. A systematic review of stigma interventions for providers who treat patients with substance use disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;131:108486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108486
 
26 McKetin R, Kothe A, Baker AL, Lee NK, Ross J, Lubman DI. Predicting abstinence from methamphetamine use after residential rehabilitation: Findings from the Methamphetamine Treatment Evaluation Study. Drug Alc Rev. 2018;37(1):70-8.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12528
 
27 SAMHSA. Substance Use Disorder Treatment and Family Therapy. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2020.
 
28 Ronsley C, Nolan S, Knight R, Hayashi K, Klimas J, Walley A, et al. Treatment of stimulant use disorder: A systematic review of reviews. PLOS One. 2020;15(6):e0234809.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234809
 
29 Boeri M, Gibson D, Boshears P. Conceptualizing social recovery: Recovery routes of methamphetamine users. J Qual Crim Justice Criminol. 2014;2(1):5-38.
https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.ce2a8386
 
30 Stanojlovic M, Davidson L. Targeting the Barriers in the Substance Use Disorder Continuum of Care with Peer Recovery Support. Subst Abus Res Treat. 2021;15:1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1178221820976988
 
31 Eddie D, Hoffman L, Vilsaint C, Abry A, Bergman B, Hoeppner B, et al. Lived experience in new models of care for substance use disorder: A systematic review of peer recovery support services and recovery coaching. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1052.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01052
 
32 Mehtani NJ, Chuku CC, Meacham MC, Vittinghoff E, Dilworth SE, et al. Housing instability associated with return to stimulant use among previously abstaining women. J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(19):6830.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20196830
 
33 Lloyd MH, Akin BA. The disparate impact of alcohol, methamphetamine, and other drugs on family reunification. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2014;44:72-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.05.013
 
34 Bahji A, Danilewitz M, Crockford D. Navigating evidence, challenges, and caution in the treatment of stimulant use disorders. Brain Sci. 2023;13(10):1416.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13101416
 
35 Amin-Esmaeli M, Farokhnia M, Susukida R, Leggio L, Johnson RM, Crum RM, et al. Reduced drug use as an alternative valid outcome in individuals with stimulant use disorders: Findings from 13 multisite randomized clinical trials. Addiction. 2024;119(5):833-43.
https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16409
 
36 CDC. Linking People with Opioid Use Disorder to Medication Treatment. Health and Human Services. 2024.
 

Cite this article as:
Blanton R. Emerging Biopsychosocial Models of Care for Psychostimulant Disorder Prevention and Treatment. Premier Journal of Psychology 2025;2:100003

Export to EndNote Export to Mendeley