BACKGROUND: Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) is a cognitive-behavioral intervention aimed at reducing risk for criminal recidivism by restructuring antisocial attitudes and cognitions (i.e., "criminogenic thinking"). MRT has empirical support for reducing risk for criminal recidivism among civilian offenders. Recently, a version of MRT was developed for military veterans; however, no randomized controlled trials (RCT) have been conducted with the veteran-specific protocol, and the effectiveness and implementation potential of MRT outside of correctional settings has not been established. METHODS: Using a Hybrid Type 1 RCT design, this study will test the effectiveness of MRT to reduce risk for criminal recidivism and improve health-related outcomes among justice-involved veterans entering mental health residential treatment at three US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Medical Centers. Upon admission to the treatment program, justice-involved veterans will complete a baseline assessment, be randomized to usual care (UC) or UC + MRT, and be followed 6 and 12 months post-baseline. A process evaluation will also be conducted to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of MRT in residential treatment. DISCUSSION: The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of MRT with justice-involved veterans. If MRT proves effective in this trial, the findings can provide large healthcare systems that serve veterans with an evidence-based intervention for addressing criminogenic thinking among justice-involved adults, as well as guidance on how to facilitate future implementation of MRT in non-correctional settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is funded by the VA Health Services Research and Development Program (IIR 14-081) and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02524171 ).

This study assessed perceptions of voluntary consent among 69 veterans who enrolled in a "jail diversion" program for co-occurring disorders. Perceptions were measured using modified items from the MacArthur Perceived Coercion and Negative Pressure Scales. A majority reported that they "chose to" (88.4%) or "felt free to" (85.5%) enroll. Most reported having "control over" (69.6%) and "more influence than anyone else" regarding (60.9%) their participation. About half reported that enrollment was "their idea" (49.3%). Fewer reported perceptions of negative pressure, including the feeling that someone "talked them into" enrolling (24.6%), "threatened them with the maximum criminal punishment" (13.0%), "offered or promised them something" (5.8%), or "forced" them to enroll (5.8%). Nobody felt "tricked, lied to, or fooled into" participating. Total negative pressure scores were higher in those with combat experience, U = 406.50, p = .016. Although potentially inappropriate pressures were reported, these data suggest that the majority perceived enrollment as voluntary.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although advocates and providers identify stigma as a major factor in confounding the recovery of people with SUDs, research on addiction stigma is lacking, especially when compared to the substantive literature examining the stigma of mental illness. METHODS: A review of key studies from the stigma literature that yielded empirically supported concepts and methods from the mental health arena was contrasted with the much smaller and mostly descriptive findings from the addiction field. RESULTS: Integration of this information led to Part I of this two part paper, development of a research paradigm seeking to understand phenomena of addiction stigma (eg, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination) and its different types (public, self, and label avoidance). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: In Part II paper (American Journal of Addictions, Vol 26, pages 67-74, this issue), we address how this literature informs a research program meant to develop and evaluate and stigma strategies (eg, education, contact, and protest). Both papers end with recommendations for next steps to jumpstart the addiction stigma portfolio. Here in Part I, we offer one possible list of key research issues for studies attempting to describe or explain addiction stigma. (Am J Addict 2017;26:59-66).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although advocates and providers identify stigma as a major factor in confounding the recovery of people with SUDs, research on addiction stigma is lacking, especially when compared to the substantive literature examining the stigma of mental illness. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the stigma literature that yielded empirically supported concepts and methods from the mental health arena was contrasted with the much smaller and mostly descriptive findings from the addiction field. In Part I of this two part paper (American Journal of Addictions, Vol 26, pages 59-66, this issue), constructs and methods from the mental health stigma literature were used to summarize research that seeks to understand the phenomena of addiction stigma. RESULTS: In Paper II, we use this summary, as well as the extensive literature on mental illness stigma change, to outline a research program to develop and evaluate strategies meant to diminish impact on public and self-stigma (eg, education and contact). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: The paper ends with recommendations for next steps in addiction stigma research. (Am J Addict 2017;26:67-74).