Abstract
The US-Mexico border presents potential cultural and logistic barriers to obtaining substance abuse treatment. We compare the prevalence and correlates of wanting and getting help between border and non-border residents in both the US and Mexico. Data come from the 2011 to 2012 US-Mexico Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions which surveyed 3214 border and 1582 non-border residents in the US and Mexico. Multivariate logistic regressions estimate the effect of border residence on desire for and receipt of help. In both countries, border substance users were about half as likely as nonborder substance users to have wanted or obtained any kind of help, independent of predisposing, need and enabling factors, including migration status. Among those desiring help, however, about half had obtained it, both on and off the border in both countries. While substantial proportions of those who need help do not get it either on or off the border, lower motivation for treatment may be more important than access in explaining border/non-border differences. Future research should investigate whether there are border-specific barriers to wanting help, and how to minimize them.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Despite substantial evidence of the effectiveness and benefits of substance use disorder treatment for individuals as well as for public health [1–5], most people who need treatment do not obtain any formal or informal help. Major US, Mexican and international surveys have shown rates of under 20 % for obtaining treatment or even wanting but not getting it [6–11], and rates are, on average, lower in Mexico/Latin America than in the US [5, 12].
Findings about the treatment gap for US Hispanics specifically are mixed, although most show lower rates of treatment-seeking as compared to non-Hispanic whites [13–20]. Yet, Hispanics may have a greater need for treatment, as they are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to experience negative consequences of alcohol and drug use, including abuse and dependence [21–23], intimate partner violence [24], arrests for DUI [25], alcohol-related injury [26], liver cirrhosis [27, 28], and alcohol-related mortality [29, 30].
Mexican-Americans living along the US-Mexico border, especially young adults, have been found to experience higher rates of substance-related problems as compared to Mexican-Americans elsewhere [31–35]. However, treatment-seeking may present particular challenges in the border area, due to low availability of services, low health literacy and education levels, language and acculturation diversity, high poverty, low insurance rates and high numbers of undocumented immigrants [36–38]. In addition, drug trafficking and associated violence, especially that directed at drug treatment centers [39, 40], may reduce the likelihood of border residents to obtain or even consider treatment.
The Mexican side of the border may also have unique characteristics that could affect treatment-seeking there, although the unique “meaning” of border residence may differ between countries. For example, prevalence of alcohol and drug use in the northern Mexican regions is twice as high as elsewhere in Mexico [41], in contrast to the US side, where prevalence of alcohol and drug use is similar or lower than elsewhere in the US [32, 33, 35]. Moreover, the Mexican northern states are relatively affluent, with lower unemployment compared to other parts of Mexico, while poverty and unemployment levels on the US side are among the highest in the country [42–44]. Although treatment access and availability cannot be directly compared between the two countries, Maxwell et al. [45] documented ten times as many treatment admissions in US border states than in Mexican border states, for similar border population sizes, as well as differences in the primary problem (methamphetamine and alcohol on the US side and heroin on the Mexican side).
In light of the potential for border residents to experience more adverse substance use outcomes and more challenges to obtaining treatment, understanding the desire for and receipt of help, and factors associated with those outcomes, is important in developing more targeted strategies for decreasing the treatment gap that may be particularly large on the border. The substantial interactions and movement of people across the border [44], and the potential to cross the border for health care [46], make it also important to examine similarities and differences in the relationship of border residence to treatment-seeking on both sides.
The present study is the first, to our knowledge, to be able to describe treatment-seeking among border and non-border residents in both the US and Mexico, using data collected with the same sampling strategy, instrument and timeframe. We address the following questions: (1) are there differences between border and non-border residents in each country in the percentage who have wanted help and who have received it; and (2) are border/non-border differences explained by other factors affecting help-seeking, including demographic characteristics, severity of need, and factors enabling or impeding help-seeking, especially those most salient on the border (insecurity, drug-dealing, migration)? Given the environmental challenges of border residence described above for the US side, and the drug-related violence on the Mexican side, we hypothesize that receipt of help for those who want it will be lower among border residents as compared to non-border residents. We expect, however, that this difference will be attenuated after controlling for the border-related and other factors potentially affecting help-seeking.
Methods
Participants and Data Collection
Data come from the 2011 to 2012 US-Mexico Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions (UMSARC), the first large-scale survey of alcohol and drug use conducted simultaneously in “sister city” pairs on both sides of the US-Mexico border, and in a comparison non-border city on each side. Household face-to-face interviews of about 45 min were conducted in English or Spanish with Mexican-origin adults aged 18–65 by the Public Policy Institute at Texas A&M University on the US side and the National Institute of Psychiatry on the Mexican side. A multistage area-probability sampling design with stratification by city was used to select census block groups and randomly select respondents within them.
On the US side, the border sample consisted of respondents from the Texas border metropolitan areas of Laredo (n = 751) and McAllen/Brownsville (n = 814); the non-border sample consisted of respondents from the metropolitan area of San Antonio (n = 771). Together, the US samples reflected a combined cooperation rate of 84.0 % and a response rate of 53.1 %. Parallel sampling was carried out in Mexico on respondents living in the respective border sister cities of Nuevo Laredo (n = 828) and Reynosa/Matamoros (n = 821) and in the non-border metropolitan area of Monterrey (n = 811), reflecting a combined cooperation rate of 71.4 % and a response rate of 63.3 %. Cooperation rates include in the denominator only households in which an eligible respondent was confirmed to reside, while response rates include in the denominator all households estimated to contain eligible respondents [47]. The research protocol was approved by IRBs from the Alcohol Research Group-Public Health Institute in the US and the National Institute of Psychiatry in Mexico. A more detailed description of the sampling, fieldwork and instrument for the UMSARC survey can be found in Cherpitel et al. [34].
Measures
Desire for Help and Receipt of Help
The primary dependent variables were wanting and getting help for substance problems, as identified by a “yes” response to the following questions: Have you ever had a problem with your alcohol or drug use for which you thought about getting help? and Have you ever gone to anyone—a physician, AA, a treatment agency, anyone at all—for a problem related in any way to your drinking or drug use? Only individuals who had ever used alcohol or drugs were asked these questions, so the analysis sample was limited to lifetime substance users. Furthermore, the question about receipt of help was asked only of those who had considered it. For those who had obtained help, follow-up questions were asked about where they had received it and whether for an alcohol or drug problem.
Border Residence
The main explanatory variable of interest was border residence versus non-border residence in each country. Border residents were those living in Laredo and McAllen/Brownsville on the US side or Nuevo Laredo and Reynosa/Matamoros on the Mexican side, and non-border residents were those living in San Antonio in the US or Monterrey in Mexico. The non-border sites chosen as a comparison represented large cities close to but not in the border area; since they may have differed in some demographic characteristics (e.g. percentage foreign-born or migration status), such characteristics are controlled for in the analyses.
Other Factors
We group other factors potentially affecting treatment-seeking into predisposing factors, such as demographic characteristics; need factors, such as severity of alcohol and drug problems; and enabling factors, such as the logistical aspects of obtaining care, a typology first suggested by Andersen and Newman [48] and which has been widely used since then as a conceptual framework in which to understand factors that facilitate or impede health care utilization [49, 50].
Predisposing Factors
Gender male versus female; age 18–29 versus 30+; and educational level less than high school, high school graduate, and some college/college graduate.
Need Factors
Lifetime Alcohol Use Disorder
Severity of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder (AUD), coded as no problem (0–1 symptoms), mild (2–3), moderate (4–5), and severe (6+) [51].
Drug Use and Problems
Due to the survey’s focus on alcohol, full criteria for a DSM-5 diagnosis of drug use disorder were not assessed; however, two representative symptoms were asked: Were there times in your life when you were often under the influence of drugs in situations where you could get hurt, for example when riding a bicycle, driving, operating a machine, or anything else? and Were there times when you tried to stop or cut down on drug use and found that you were not able to do so? Drug use/problems was coded here as No drug use, Use of illicit drugs but no problems, and Drug-related problems.
Enabling Factors
Employment Status
Working full- or part-time, unemployed, and not in labor market, which includes homemaker, student, retired, or disabled.
Health Insurance Status
None, Public insurance (e.g. Medicaid or Medicare in the US, Social Security, Ministry of Health or Seguro Popular in Mexico), or Private/other insurance.
Border-Salient Factors
The border has been called an area of “turmoil, chaos and lawlessness” [52]; while this is an exaggerated characterization, it might be expected that drug trafficking, human smuggling and immigration enforcement would contribute to an environment of insecurity, which might deter treatment-seeking; additionally, migration experience is more prevalent among border populations. Since these factors have not been well-studied in relation to treatment-seeking, our reasons for including them are described below.
Experience of Neighborhood Insecurity
Respondents were asked ten questions regarding their perceived security, violent victimization and exposure to crime, including feelings of safety walking alone in their neighborhood in the daytime and after dark; experience of theft or break-into their home or car; having been mugged or physically attacked; hearing gunshots; seeing someone get beaten up, stabbed, or shot. These questions were adapted from items in the British General Household Survey [53] and the NIMH Community Violence Project [54]. For the present survey, the events were summed and dichotomized as 0–2 events (low insecurity) versus 3–10 events (high insecurity). Neighborhood insecurity and violence may make access to care more difficult [55].
Drug-Dealing Environment
A “yes” response to one of the following three events: having seen drug deals or seen violence related to drug dealing or gang warfare in the past year, or having been approached to buy an illegal drug in the past month. After controlling for the environment of insecurity described above, which is expected to impede treatment-seeking, a drug-dealing environment may work in the opposite way, by motivating individuals to distance themselves from the drug scene by addressing their own substance use.
Nativity and Migration
For US residents, whether the respondent had been born in Mexico; for Mexican residents, whether they had any personal or family migration experience to the US, including having previously lived in the US for work or study, or having a relative living in the US. Foreign-born individuals in the US may have less knowledge of how to access treatment, or be reluctant to do so if they are undocumented [56, 57]. In Mexico, return migrants from the US and family members of migrants are at higher risk for substance use disorders than those with no migrant in their family, and their exposure to US norms and use patterns may also affect how they search for and treat their disorders [41, 58].
Analysis
Cross-tabulations describe sample characteristics and the percentage that wanted and got help, by border/non-border residence, in both countries. Multivariate logistic regression analyses test the hypothesis that, once other factors related to help-seeking are controlled, the effect of border residence on wanting and getting help will be attenuated. For each country, we examine two models, one predicting desire for help and the other predicting receipt of help. In the first model, the negative condition is not wanting help, while in the second model, the negative condition is not receiving help, but also includes not wanting it, since the question about receipt was only asked of those who wanted it. While the models therefore overlap somewhat, it is expected that the salience of factors will vary, with enabling factors more likely to come into play in predicting receipt of help than desire for it.
Data from each site were weighted to reflect the multistage clustered sampling design and then adjusted to match census marginal distributions of education and the combined gender by age distribution (see [34] for further details of the survey methodology). To adjust for design effects inherent in multistage clustered sampling, SAS survey commands were used for model parameter estimation. This generally results in a more conservative estimate of the significance of differences as compared to statistics assuming random samples.
Results
Sample Characteristics: Predisposing, Need and Enabling Factors
Table 1 presents frequency distributions of the sample characteristics expected to be related to wanting and getting help, for border compared to non-border residents within each country who had used alcohol or drugs in their lifetime.
There was no gender or age difference between border and non-border residents in either country. On the US side, border residents were less likely to have used drugs, but had similar levels of lifetime AUD as non-border residents. In the US also, border residents were more likely than non-border residents to be working, to be uninsured, and to have been born in Mexico. On the Mexican side, border residents were less likely than non-border residents to have an AUD (though similar levels of drug use), had lower educational levels, were more likely to be working, were more likely to have had migration experience to the US, and were less likely to report feelings of environmental insecurity.
Percentages Who Wanted and Got Help On and Off the Border
Table 2 shows the percentages of border and non-border residents who wanted help and who had gotten help.
Among lifetime alcohol or drug users, border residents in both countries were about half as likely as non-border residents to have wanted help or to have received it. This disparity was also true, although the magnitude of difference was less, when limited to those with an AUD or symptoms of drug use disorder. However, once desire for help was established, there was no difference between border and non-border individuals in the proportion (about half) who had actually obtained help. Although we use the broad term “help” to reflect the question wording, 2/3 of those who did get help, both on and off the border in both countries, had obtained it from a formal drug or alcohol treatment program (not shown). There was no border/non-border difference in either country in whether help was obtained for alcohol versus drugs.
Factors Associated with Wanting and Getting Help
Tables 3 and 4 show the results of logistic regressions conducted to test the hypothesis that other factors related to help-seeking would mediate the effect of border residence.
In the United States
Border residents’ lower desire for help remained robust after controlling for individual characteristics, need, and enabling factors. The factors predicting wanting help, in addition to border residence, included male gender, older age, unemployment, having an AUD at any level (mild to severe, although odds increased with severity) and having drug-related problems. Education beyond high school reduced desire for help, as compared to having less than a high school diploma.
Border residents’ lower receipt of help also remained robust after controlling for other factors. These factors included, again, male gender, older age, and need (alcohol and drug problems). They also included the border-salient factors of neighborhood insecurity (trend, p = .06) and being born in Mexico, both of which reduced the likelihood of receiving help, and a drug-dealing environment, which increased the likelihood of getting help. Additionally, as compared to having no insurance, health insurance from a public source predicted getting help, but private insurance was associated with not getting help.
In Mexico
Because of the relatively small number of individuals in Mexico who wanted or got help, associations with predictive factors were harder to discern, and findings should be interpreted with caution, due to high variance. Nevertheless, a few findings stood out. As was true in the US, wanting help remained lower on the border even after other factors were accounted for, although receiving help was no longer significantly related to border residence once other factors were controlled.
AUD predicted both desire for and receipt of help, while illicit drug use and drug problems (the latter only a trend, p = .08) predicted wanting help but did not predict getting it. Individuals with migration experience were more likely to want help, but not any more likely to obtain it. Finally, having any kind of insurance was associated with wanting help, although not with receiving it; since over 90 % of Mexican respondents reported being insured, this variable may be less meaningful in predicting treatment-seeking in Mexico.
Discussion
Like most studies of treatment prevalence, the present study found overall low rates of wanting or getting help for those who may need it, and particularly lower rates on the border compared to the non-border sites in both countries. A potentially important finding of this study is that lower rates of border help-seeking are largely a result of lower desire for help rather than lower rates of receiving it, if it was desired. This is contrary to our expectation that border residents would experience more challenges related to obtaining treatment, and suggests that reasons for differences in motivation may be an important area for further exploration.
While our hypothesis that the predisposing, need and enabling factors would explain or attenuate the border effect was not supported, the effect of those factors was largely consistent with other studies showing that male gender, older age, unemployment, lower education, and severity of need are associated with higher likelihood of obtaining treatment in Mexican and Mexican-American populations [6, 7, 9, 19, 20, 57, 59].
Insurance status showed a somewhat unexpected association with help-seeking on the US side. Although, consistent with other studies [60, 61], public insurance (Medicaid, Medicare) predicted getting help as compared to not having insurance, having private insurance paradoxically decreased receipt of help. It is possible that those completely without insurance may be more likely to avail themselves of publicly-funded services or cost-free modalities, such as AA or faith-based treatment, while those with private insurance may fear a co-pay, or disclosure of their substance abuse, if their insurance is work-based.
Finally, the border-specific enabling factors were also associated to some degree with receiving help. Experiencing insecurity marginally reduced the likelihood of obtaining help, and only on the US side, although we had anticipated that violence directed at drug treatment centers in Mexico would make this variable more salient there. This unexpected finding may be due to the fact that, at the time of the survey, the non-border comparison city of Monterrey, traditionally one of Mexico’s safest and wealthiest cities, was experiencing a wave of cartel-related violence [62], thus contributing to higher feelings of insecurity there than on the border.
Experiencing a drug-dealing environment, once controlling for insecurity, increased the likelihood of getting help for US residents, perhaps by motivating individuals to distance themselves from the drug scene through seeking help for their own problems. Being an immigrant to the US reduced the likelihood of obtaining help, possibly through heightened challenges related to language, acculturation, documentation status, or unfamiliarity with obtaining US health care [19, 56]. However, including language, generation or acculturation status in the model did not change the results. Conversely, having migration experience for Mexican residents increased the desire for help, perhaps due to the influence of their US experience on substance use norms or attitudes towards treatment [41]. Yet, in line with other work [63], we did not find an effect of migration experience on actually obtaining help among Mexican respondents.
Since the combination of factors examined here did not explain the lower help-seeking observed on the border, other factors should be investigated in future research. For example, fear of exposure and stigma may be more likely in the smaller border cities as compared to the larger non-border cities. Additionally, the relatively more tolerant social norms for drinking in Mexico [64], or a social life that includes gathering at bars—both of which may be more prevalent in US border towns [65, 66]—may reduce the likelihood that heavy drinking will be seen as a problem requiring help. (However, other research [67] has not found a difference in drinking norms between border and non-border populations.) Additionally, border residents, especially more recent immigrants, may have less familiarity with the goals and methods of treatment, less knowledge of or trust in large service systems and institutions, believe they are not eligible, or worry that services would not be culturally sensitive. While the present study did not ask reasons for not wanting or getting help, an earlier border study [35] noted that embarrassment, lack of confidence in treatment efficacy, and feeling no one would understand their problem were factors frequently cited by border residents who had thought about but failed to get help for substance problems.
Our finding of a border/non-border difference in help-seeking contrasts to some extent with another recent study of treatment utilization on and off the US border. In comparing an urban border sample from the four US border states with a combined sample of Hispanics from five large metropolitan areas in the US interior, Reingle Gonzalez et al. [57] found that 5.6 % of lifetime alcohol users had ever obtained help, with no difference between border and non-border residents; in contrast, our findings showed a small but significant difference in obtaining help between border substance users (4.6 %) and non-border substance users (7.6 %). While the difference between the two studies’ findings is small in absolute percentage terms, our conclusion of a border/non-border difference remained robust even after controlling for many of the same factors as the Reingle Gonzalez et al. study. It is possible that differences in the comparison sites chosen or heterogeneity among communities in the border area [68] account for the different conclusions.
On the Mexican side, our findings of lower receipt of help on the border corroborate findings from an earlier Mexican National Survey on Addictions, which showed lower use of treatment services in border cities, despite higher rates of substance use, as compared to elsewhere in Mexico [6].
Potential Limitations
This study contributes to the scant literature on border substance treatment-seeking by being able to compare border and non-border residents in the US as well as Mexico on both desire for and receipt of help. However, as a secondary analysis of existing data, our study was not able to include all potential predisposing and enabling factors relevant to help-seeking, notably treatment availability (there is little published information comparing availability in the study sites) and, perhaps most importantly, respondents’ perceived barriers to wanting or getting help.
Additionally, our analysis on the Mexican side was limited by the very low prevalence of the outcome variables. In Mexico, only 31 individuals in the non-border city and 34 in the border site expressed a desire for help, thus limiting the statistical power to identify all variables associated with that outcome and making it difficult to isolate determinants of receipt of help from determinants of desire for it.
Implications for Substance Treatment on the Border
The substantial gap between need and treatment on the border, where untreated substance problems can only exacerbate the other challenges and stresses of border living, presents a charge to local policy planners, program administrators and health educators to increase the proportion of those who get help, not only through enhancing access and availability but also by addressing low rates of desiring help, and increasing motivation to seek it. Future research should investigate whether there are border-specific barriers to wanting help, and how to minimize them. The substantial movement of individuals and strong mutual influences from one side of the border to the other also highlight the need to better understand the common as well as the unique implications of border residence on both sides. In the UMSARC study, for example, almost 20 % of US border residents had crossed into Mexico in the past year for the purpose of obtaining health care, so understanding motivations and barriers for substance treatment on both sides of the border is vital.
References
Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, Chou PS. Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence. Addiction. 2006;10(6):824–34.
Miller WR, Walters ST, Bennett ME. How effective is alcoholism treatment in the United States? J Stud Alcohol. 2001;62(2):211–20.
Miller WR, Wilbourne PL. Mesa Grande: a methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders. Addiction. 2002;97(3):265–77.
Timko C, DeBenedetti A, Billow R. Intensive referral to 12-step self-help groups and 6-month substance use disorder outcomes. Addiction. 2006;101:678–88.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. World drug report 2013. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/secured/wdr/wdr2013/World_Drug_Report_2013.pdf.
Borges G, Medina-Mora ME, Orozco R, Fleiz C, Villatoro J, Rojas E, Zemore S. Unmet needs for treatment of alcohol and drug use in four cities in Mexico. Salud Ment. 2009;32(4):327–33.
Grant BF, Goldstein RB, Saha TD, Chou SP, Jung J, Zhang H, Pickering RP, Ruan J, Smith SM, Huang B, Hasin DS. Epidemiology of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on alcohol and related conditions III. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(8):757–66.
Kessler RC, Zhao S, Katz SJ, Kouzis AC, Frank RG, Edlund M, Leaf P. Past-year use of outpatient services for psychiatric problems in the National Comorbidity Survey. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156:115–23.
Marín-Navarrete R, Templos-Nuñez L, Eliosa-Hernández A, Villalobos-Gallegos L, Fernández-Mondragón J, Pérez-López A, Galván-Sosa D, Verdeja RE, Alonso E, Feaster DJ, Horigian V. Characteristics of a treatment-seeking population in outpatient addiction treatment centers in Mexico. Subst Use Misuse. 2014;49:1784–94.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. The NSDUH report: substance use and mental health estimates from the 2013 national survey on drug use and health: overview of findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2014. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-SR200-RecoveryMonth-2014/NSDUH-SR200-RecoveryMonth-2014.htm.
Stinson FS, Grant BF, Dawson DA, Ruan WJ, Huang B, Saha T. Comorbidity between DSM-IV alcohol and specific drug use disorders in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on alcohol and related conditions. Alcohol Res Health. 2006;29(2):94–106.
Kohn R. Treatment gap in the Americas: technical document. Prepared for the pan American Health Organization (Table 3.6). Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization; 2013. http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&Itemid=270&gid=23178&lang=en.
Chartier KG, Caetano R. Trends in alcohol services utilization from 1991–1992 to 2001–2002: ethnic group differences in the U.S. population. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2011;35(8):1485–97.
Kaskutas LA, Weisner C, Caetano R. Predictors of help seeking among a longitudinal sample of the general population, 1984–1992. J Stud Alcohol. 1997;58:155–61.
Mancini MA, Salas-Wright CP, Vaughn MG. Drug use and service utilization among Hispanics in the United States. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2015. doi:10.1007/s00127-015-1111-5.
Perron BE, Mowbray OP, Glass JE, Delva J, Vaughn MG, Howard MO. Differences in service utilization and barriers among Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites with drug use disorders. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2009;4:3. http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/4/1/3.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. The NSDUH report: need for and receipt of substance use treatment among Hispanics. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2012. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH117/NSDUH117/NSDUHSR117HispanicTreatmentNeeds2012.pdf.
Schmidt L, Greenfield T, Mulia N. Racial and ethnic disparities in alcoholism treatment services. Alcohol Res Health. 2006;29(1):49–54.
Zemore SE, Mulia N, Ye Y, Gorges G, Greenfield TK. Gender, acculturation, and other barriers to alcohol treatment utilization among Latinos in three National Alcohol Surveys. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;36:446–56.
Zemore SE, Murphy RD, Mulia N, Gilbert PA, Martinez P, Bond J, Polcin DL. A moderating role for gender in racial/ethnic disparities in alcohol services utilization: results from the 2000 to 2010 National Alcohol Surveys. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2014;38(8):2286–96.
Caetano R, Clark CL. Trends in alcohol-related problems among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics: 1984–1995. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998;22(2):534–8.
Grant BF, Dawson DA, Stinson FS, Chou SP, Dufour MC, Pickering RP. The 12-month prevalence and trends in DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: United States, 1991–1992 and 2001–2002. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;74:223–34.
Zemore SE, Karriker-Jaffe KJ, Mulia N. Temporal trends and changing racial/ethnic disparities in alcohol problems: results from the 2000 to 2010 national alcohol surveys. J Addict Res Ther. 2013;4(4):160. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3848603/.
Caetano R. Alcohol-related health disparities and treatment-related epidemiological findings among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in the United States. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(8):1337–9.
Caetano R, Clark CL. Hispanics, Blacks and Whites driving under the influence of alcohol: results from the 1995 National Alcohol Survey. Accid Anal Prev. 2000;32:57–64.
Keyes KM, Liu XC, Cerda M. The role of race/ethnicity in alcohol-attributable injury in the United States. Epidemiol Rev. 2012;34:89–102.
Yoon Y-H, Yi H-Y, Thompson PC. Alcohol-related and viral hepatitis C-related cirrhosis mortality among Hispanic subgroups in the United States, 2000-2004. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2011;35:240–9.
Carrion AF, Ghanta R, Carrasquillo O, Martin P. Chronic liver disease in the Hispanic population of the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:834–41.
Gilliland FD, Becker TM, Samet JM, Key CR. Trends in alcohol-related mortality among New Mexico’s American Indians, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic whites. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1995;19(6):1572–7.
Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD. Deaths: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2013;61(4). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf.
Borges G, Zemore S, Orozco R, Cherpitel CJ, Ye Y, Bond J, Maxwell JC, Wallisch L. Co-occurrence of alcohol, drug use, DSM-5 alcohol use disorder, and symptoms of drug use disorder on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(4):679–87.
Caetano R, Mills B, Vaeth PA. Alcohol consumption and binge drinking among U.S.-Mexico border and non-border Mexican Americans. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012;36(4):677–85.
Caetano R, Vaeth PA, Mills BA, Rodriguez LA. Alcohol abuse and dependence among U.S.-Mexico border and non-border Mexican Americans. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013;37(5):847–53.
Cherpitel CJ, Ye Y, Bond J, Zemore SE, Gorges G, Greenfield TK. Border effects on DSM-5 alcohol use disorders on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;148:172–9.
Wallisch LS, Spence RT. Alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence in urban areas and colonias of the Texas-Mexico border. Hisp J Behav Sci. 2006;28(2):286–307.
Dutton RJ, Weldon M, Shannon J, Bowcock C. Survey of health and environmental conditions in Texas border counties and colonias. Technical report. Austin: Texas Department of Health; 2000. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/borderhealth/publications_reports.shtm.
Flores LE. Factors placing border youth at risk of substance abuse and traumatic stress. In: PowerPoint presentation at DDRAC border symposium, Austin TX, USA. 2009. www.dshs.state.tx.us (search on ‘border’ and ‘Flores’).
Maples M. Texas Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services—border DDRAC meeting. In: PowerPoint presented at the DDRAC border symposium, Austin, TX, USA. 2009. www.dhsh.state.tx.us (search on ‘border’ and ‘Maples’).
Cuddehe M. Myths and realities about drug addiction in Mexico. Lancet. 2011;377:15–6.
Shoichet CE, Brocchello M. 11 killed in attack at Mexico rehab center. CNN news article, June 5; 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/04/world/americas/mexico-attack/.
Borges G, Medina-Mora ME, Orozco R, Fleiz C, Cherpitel C, Breslau J. The Mexican migration to the United States and substance use in northern Mexico. Addiction. 2009;104:603–11.
Danelo DJ. Toward a U.S.-Mexico security strategy: the geopolitics of northern Mexico and the implications for U.S. policy. Philadelphia: Foreign Policy Research Institute; 2011. http://www.fpri.org/docs/media/Toward_a_US_Mexico_Security_Strategy_Danelo.pdf.
Lara F, Peña S. The challenge of poverty at the U.S.-Mexico border: identifying policy opportunities. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; 2011. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LARA%20POVERTY.pdf.
Lee E, Wilson CE, Lara-Valencia F, de la Parra CA, Van Schoik R, Patron-Soberno K, Olson EL, Selee A. The state of the border report: a comprehensive analysis of the U.S.-Mexico border. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; 2013. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-state-the-border-report.
Maxwell JC, Cravioto P, Galván F, Cortés Ramírez M, Wallisch LS, Spence RT. Drug use and risk of HIV/AIDS on the Mexico-USA border: a comparison of treatment admissions in both countries. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;82(Suppl. 1):S85–93.
Su D, Richardson C, Wen M, Pagán JA. Cross-border utilization of health care: evidence from a population-based study in South Texas. Health Serv Res. 2011;46(3):859–76.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 7th ed. Deerfield: AAPOR; 2011. p. 61.
Andersen R, Newman J. Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization. Milbank Q. 1973;51:93–124.
Babitsch B, Gohl D, von Lengerke T. Re-revisiting Andersen’s Behavioral model of health services use: a systematic review of studies from 1998–2011. GMS Psycho Soc Med. 2012;9:Doc11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3488807/.
Spence R, Wallisch L, Smith S. Treatment seeking in populations in urban and rural settings on the border. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007;31(6):1002–11.
Hasin DS, O’Brien CP, Auriacombe M, Borges G, Bucholz K, Budney A, Compton WM, Crowley T, Ling W, Petry NM, Schuckit M, Grant BF. DSM-5 criteria for substance use disorders: recommendations and rationale. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170:834–51.
Payan T. The three U.S.-Mexico border wars: drugs, immigration, and homeland security. Westport: Greenwood; 2006.
Coulthard M, Walker A, Morgan A. Assessing people’s perceptions of their neighbourhood and community involvement: a guide to questions for use in the measurement of social capital based on the General Household Survey module. London: NHS Health Development Agency; 2001. A version of the questionnaire can be accessed at http://www.nice.org.uk/proxy/?sourceUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nice.org.uk%2Fnicemedia%2Fdocuments%2Fpeoplesperceptions.pdf.
Richters JE, Martinez P. The NIMH community violence project: I. Children as victims and witnesses to violence. Psychiatry. 1993;56:7–21.
Byrnes HF, Miller BA, Aalborg AE, Keagy CD. The relationship between neighborhood characteristics and recruitment into adolescent family-based substance use prevention programs. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2012;39(2):174–89.
Moya EM, Shedlin MG. Policies and laws affecting Mexican-origin immigrant access and utilization of substance abuse treatment: obstacles to recovery and immigrant health. Subst Use Misuse. 2008;43:1747–69.
Reingle Gonzalez JM, Caetano R, Mills BA, Vaeth PAC. An assessment of individual-level factors associated with alcohol treatment utilization among Mexican Americans. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;47:347–52.
Orozco R, Borges G, Medina-Mora ME, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Breslau J. A cross-national study on prevalence of mental disorders, service use, and adequacy of treatment among Mexican and Mexican American populations. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(9):1610–8.
Medina-Mora ME, Borges G, Lara C, Benjet C, Blanco J, Fleiz C, Villatoro J, Rojas E, Zambrano J. Prevalence, service use, and demographic correlates of 12-month DSM-IV psychiatric disorders in Mexico: results from the Mexican National Comorbidity Survey. Psychol Med. 2005;35:1773–83.
Wu L-T, Kouzis AC, Schlenger WE. Substance use, dependence, and service utilization among the US uninsured nonelderly population. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:2079–85.
Ali MM, Teich JL, Mutter R. The role of perceived need and health insurance in substance use treatment: implications for the Affordable Care Act. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015;54:14–20.
Fausset R. Monterrey emerging from shadow of drug violence. Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2013. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/23/world/la-fg-mexico-monterrey-20131023.
Guerrero EG, Villatoro JA, Kong Y, Fleiz C, Vega WA, Strathdee SA, Medina-Mora ME. Barriers to accessing substance abuse treatment in Mexico: national comparative analysis by migration status. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2014;9:30. 2014. http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/9/1/30.
Borges G, Rafful C, Benjet C, Tancredi D, Saito N, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Medina-Mora ME, Breslau J. Mexican immigration to the US and alcohol and drug use opportunities: does it make a difference in alcohol and/or drug use? Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;125:S4–11.
Mills B, Caetano R, Vaeth P, Reingle J. Bar attendance and alcohol-related risks on the U.S.-Mexico border. In: Paper presented at 38th annual Research Society on Alcoholism Scientific Meeting, San Antonio, TX, USA, June 20–24. 2015.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Alcohol and highway safety: special report on race/ethnicity and impaired driving (DOT HS 811 336). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2010.
Caetano R, Mills B, Vaeth P, Reingle J. Drinking motives, attitudes and norms about drinking among US-Mexico border and non-border Mexican Americans. In: Paper presented at 38th annual Research Society on Alcoholism Scientific Meeting, San Antonio, TX, USA, June 20–24, 2015.
Collins K, Garcia JL. Social indicators and measuring sustainability. In: Lee E, Ganster P, editors. The U.S.-Mexican border environment: progress and challenges for sustainability. SCERP Monograph Series, No. 16; San Diego, CA: San Diego State University Press; 2012. p. 55–74. Out of print; available as download from Google Books.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Grant R01 AA01836540 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Cheryl Cherpitel, PI). Nate Marti, Ph.D., at the University of Texas, provided statistical consultation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wallisch, L., Zemore, S.E., Cherpitel, C.J. et al. Wanting and Getting Help for Substance Problems on Both Sides of the US-Mexico Border. J Immigrant Minority Health 19, 1174–1185 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-016-0442-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-016-0442-y