Substance use & addiction journal最新文献

Background: Peer recovery support services (PRSS) for substance use disorder (SUD) have expanded in the past 2 decades to be formally certified and reimbursed under Medicaid in almost every US state. This rapid expansion has been followed by a growth in research, but 2 persistent gaps remain: a lack of research on the peer workforce, and a lack of economic evaluation research. This systematic review examines the current literature on PRSS to summarize what is currently known about the SUD peer workforce and collect potential PRSS economic evaluation parameters, and clearly identify the current gaps in each category.

Methods: PRISMA methods were followed and a PROSPERO protocol was registered (CRD42022323516). The search included a database search of peer-reviewed journal articles and dissertations, and also a hand-search of conference presentations and evaluation reports. Manuscripts were categorized as either workforce development-related and/or those containing potential economic evaluation parameters.

Results: Forty-two total manuscripts were included, with 22 related to the peer workforce and 26 containing potential economic evaluation parameters. Manuscripts with workforce-related findings covered peer worker characteristics, characteristics of PRSS delivery, or peer worker training-related outcomes. Economic evaluation parameters were primarily costs related to service utilization patters with some limited reporting on peer worker pay, as well as multiple sources that can be used to estimate averted medical costs. Effectiveness parameters were primarily substance use related, as virtually all quality of life and life functioning parameters are not readily convertible to estimating quality-adjusted life years.

Conclusion: Future PRSS research can contribute to filling these gaps in the evidence base by addressing remaining questions about the interrelationship between peer worker job satisfaction, job tenure, and patient outcomes, as well as by using more consistent outcome measures, especially in the realm of quality of life and life functioning.

Background: Sexual minority populations experience higher rates of substance use and related problems, but little is known about their specific involvement in driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol (DUIA) and cannabis (DUIC) incidents.

Methods: Using data from the 2016 to 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, we used logistic regression models to estimate the interactive effects of sexual identity, race/ethnicity, and gender on past-year DUIA among adults who used alcohol and DUIC among adults who used cannabis, accounting for covariates. Using model estimates and linear combinations, we calculated the predicted probabilities of each outcome and compared sexual identity differences within and across race/ethnicity and gender.

Results: With few exceptions, the predicted probabilities of DUIA and DUIC were significantly higher among sexual minority women than heterosexual women of similar race/ethnicity. The results were more variable among men with the probabilities of DUIA and DUIC being significantly higher for some groups of sexual minority men and some groups having probabilities equal to or lower than similar heterosexual men. Some of the largest sexual minority gaps in DUIA and DUIC were observed among Hispanic and Other lesbian women and Black gay men.

Conclusions: Sexual minority individuals are more likely to report DUI than their heterosexual counterparts; however, the risk of DUI among sexual minority populations varies by racial/ethnic and gender subgroup. Our findings indicate the importance of applying an intersectional framework when addressing substance-use-related disparities and when designing effective DUI prevention interventions for sexual minority populations.

Background: Treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) has the potential to improve health and quality of life. Little is known about disparities in AUD treatment utilization at the intersection of race and gender. We examined disparities in AUD treatment utilization among those diagnosed with AUD in a community sample, by race, ethnicity, and gender, and whether disparities varied by insurance. We also examined whether criminal legal history and socioeconomic status moderated disparities in treatment.

Methods: We used data from the nationally representative 2017 to 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the most recent 3-year period available. The analytic sample included noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 to 64 who met criteria for past year AUD and identified as White, Black, or Latinx (n = 7782). We examined disparities in AUD treatment utilization by race, ethnicity, and gender subgroup and by insurance status, estimating weighted logistic regressions, and adjusting for indicators of clinical need in concordance with the Institute of Medicine definition of healthcare disparity.

Results: Only 5.4% of adults with AUD in the United States utilized AUD treatment in the past year. AUD treatment utilization did not significantly differ between White males and other racial, ethnic, and gender groups; however, we did identify disparities among Medicaid enrollees and those who were uninsured. Among Medicaid enrollees, Latinx females (3.2%) had lower treatment utilization than White males (9.3%, P < .05). Among uninsured individuals, Latinx males (1.8%) had lower treatment utilization than White males (6.2%, P < .05).

Conclusions: AUD treatment utilization was extremely low among adults in the United States aged 18 to 64 who met criteria for AUD. Ethnic and gender disparities in treatment utilization were revealed when examining differences in AUD treatment utilization by insurance status. Strategies for improving access to AUD treatment that address structural barriers to care are needed and should consider targeted approaches for Medicaid enrollees and those uninsured.

Background: Nonpharmaceutical fentanyl (NPF) is driving the national epidemic of opioid overdose deaths. Clinicians can play a role in fostering awareness of this growing risk and delivering interventions to reduce mortality. However, there is limited research assessing clinician knowledge, attitudes, and practices relating to NPF and harm reduction strategies.

Methods: A 34-question survey was designed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to NPF and harm reduction strategies of adult and pediatric hospital-based and emergency clinicians at a single academic medical center. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. Chi square and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.

Results: There were 136 survey responses. The majority (88%) of respondents correctly answered a question on NPF potency. Most respondents were aware that NPF exposure was very (84%) or somewhat likely (10%) for someone using illicit opioids and very (44%) or somewhat likely (46%) for nonopioid drugs. Respondents viewed overdose prevention as highly important for patients using illicit opioids (93%) and nonopioid drugs (86%) but few (21%) were very/extremely familiar with overdose prevention strategies and just over half (57%) were comfortable/very comfortable counseling about overdose prevention. There was wide variability in utilization of harm reduction/treatment strategies (7.3% frequently providing fentanyl test kits to 70% frequently prescribing naloxone). Higher levels of comfort and familiarity with overdose prevention were associated with more frequent counseling on harm reduction strategies. Pediatric-only clinicians had less familiarity (5% very/extremely familiar) and comfort (35% comfortable/very comfortable) with overdose prevention, and limited use of harm reduction strategies (0%-31% using each strategy frequently).

Conclusions: While clinicians had knowledge and awareness of NPF and rated overdose prevention as highly important, utilization of harm reduction and treatment strategies was variable. This study highlights opportunities for education and system-based support to improve clinician-driven harm reduction practices for patients at risk of overdose.

More than 25% of all arrests made nationwide are related to drug offenses, affecting almost 1.2 million people and their social networks. Furthermore, roughly 20% of people in jails and prisons across the United States are incarcerated for a drug offense and millions more are under community supervision for these charges. This criminalization of drug use has negatively affected the health and well-being of people who use drugs (PWUD) and their communities. Decriminalization-a process of removing criminal sanctions for a previously criminalized behavior-of drug use is central to harm reduction as it mitigates these negative consequences of drug use and supports the health of PWUD. As such, AMERSA supports the decriminalization of drug and paraphernalia possession for personal use for all currently illicit drugs and all associated equipment. AMERSA continues to strongly advocate for the funding of harm reduction strategies and addiction services to improve the health and well-being of PWUD since decriminalization without complementary funding for harm reduction services, addiction treatment services, and social safety nets will be incomplete.

Background: Addiction is a chronic, treatable disorder, yet it carries considerable stigma. Stigmatizing language biases how clinicians view patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) and negatively affects patient care. While national medical organizations have recommended educational initiatives to reduce the stigma associated with SUDs, studies of initiatives are lacking. We aimed to improve documentation of SUDs and reduce measured stigma by teaching standardized, non-stigmatizing language.

Methods: We created an online, 25-minute interactive curriculum about vocabulary for addiction and why language matters. Before and 8 weeks after completing the curriculum, internal medicine residents viewed a video encounter between a physician and a "challenging" simulated patient with opioid use disorder, then completed a case write-up and a SUD stigma survey. We analyzed the frequency of usage of stigmatizing terms and quantified participants' stigma levels.

Results: During the fall of 2020, UPMC Internal Medicine residents completed the curriculum. In all, 98 participants (out of ~150) completed the pre-curriculum assessment, and 39 completed the entire course. In pre-curriculum write-ups, stigmatizing terminology was used 4 times more often than clinical terminology (30 terms per 100 write-ups versus 7.6, P = .032). Clinical terminology was used 134% more often post-curriculum than pre-curriculum (24 terms per 100 write-ups vs 7.6), but this result was not significant. There was no difference between measured stigma levels pre- and post-curriculum. In total, 34/45 (75.6%) participants who completed the post-curriculum survey said that they learned new information, and 32/45 (71.1%) would recommend it to others.

Conclusions: There were trends toward improvement in language, including decreased use of stigmatizing terminology and increased usage of clinical terminology, though not statistically significant. The curriculum was well-received, but the study was limited in participation by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the simple design of the curriculum-a short, web-based module-allows for easy delivery to workers across the healthcare sector.

Background: People who use drugs and patients in substance use treatment may be placed at high risk for HIV due to mixing sex and drugs, potential engagement in sex work, and injection drug use. However, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adoption among these populations remains low. Methadone clinics, a main point of contact with the healthcare system for this population, are a missed opportunity to offer biomedical HIV prevention. Understanding provider and staff perceptions of patients' PrEP-related candidacy, acceptability, and adherence is a critical first step to informing PrEP implementation in substance use treatment settings.

Methods: Thirty semistructured interviews were conducted at 2 methadone clinics in Northern New Jersey between January and April 2019. Participants included methadone counselors, medical providers, front desk staff, intake coordinators, and other clinic staff members.

Results: Three major themes were identified: (1) provider and staff's perceptions of who would benefit most from PrEP, (2) perceptions of patients' acceptability of PrEP, and (3) perceptions of patients' ability to take a pill every day. Broadly, staff perceived younger patients to be better PrEP candidates than older patients, expressed cautious optimism that PrEP would be acceptable to their patient populations, and were mixed in terms of their perceptions of patients' ability to adhere to PrEP. Notably, staff largely did not mention patients who inject drugs as potential PrEP candidates, suggesting a missed opportunity.

Conclusion: To promote PrEP implementation in methadone clinics, staff and providers should receive training around screening for PrEP eligibility in order to maximize the benefits of PrEP for various subpopulations, especially those who inject. Importantly, discussions around sexual behavior and injection drug use must be approached in an open, non-stigmatizing manner. These findings can be used to inform future interventions to integrate PrEP services into substance use treatment settings.

Background: Opioid overdose rates continue to rise in the United States while access to treatment options remains limited. The X waiver, which allowed clinicians to prescribe buprenorphine, a medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), in an outpatient setting, was eliminated in December 2022 with hopes of increasing buprenorphine access. We used a quasi-experimental approach to evaluate how eliminating the X waiver affected buprenorphine prescribing in Pennsylvania.

Methods: Drawing on Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program data from July 1, 2016, to December 31, 2023, we used a difference-in-differences (DD) approach to assess changes in buprenorphine prescribing between Pennsylvania counties with the proportion of X-waivered providers per county population above the median versus counties with the proportion below the median, before and after the elimination of the X waiver. We also tested whether areas most affected by the opioid epidemic with the highest rates of opioid overdose were more impacted by the X-waiver elimination, using opioid overdose death rates from a pretreatment baseline period (2016-2018) for each county.

Results: Thirty-one counties were categorized as above the median and 32 as below the median. We did not observe a significant difference in the effects of eliminating the X waiver on buprenorphine dispensation (DD estimate: -0.6%, 95% CI: -7.5%-6.2%) between above versus below-the-median counties in Pennsylvania. We also did not find a significant effect of the X-waiver elimination on buprenorphine dispensation in counties most affected by the opioid epidemic (difference-in-difference-in-differences estimate 1.6%, 95% CI: -10.2%-13.4%).

Conclusions: We found no evidence that eliminating the X waiver had a significant impact on buprenorphine dispensing in Pennsylvania in counties with fewer waivered prescribers or higher fatal overdose rates. Additional efforts to increase buprenorphine use will likely need to address systemic barriers and stigma limiting MOUD access.

Introduction: Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is the most efficacious treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). MOUD uptake and continuation may be impacted by health concerns, including weight gain, and social factors, such as food insecurity, that vary between men and women. This study aimed to describe sex and gender differences in body mass index (BMI) and weight-related demographic, psychosocial, and clinical characteristics among adults receiving buprenorphine for OUD.

Methods: This secondary analysis used data from a cross-sectional survey and prospective medical record review study among adults (n = 77 female, n = 66 male) engaged in outpatient treatment receiving buprenorphine for OUD. Survey items assessed weight-related demographic and psychosocial variables. Clinical factors were collected via chart abstraction. Comparisons between male and female participants were made using χ², Mann Whitney U, and t-tests.

Results: Most participants were non-Latinx, Black (69.9%), with a mean age of 43.3 ± 12.3 years. Among females, 2.6% had a BMI <18.5 kg/m², 32.5% had a BMI from 18.5 kg/m² to <25 kg/m², 35.1% had a BMI from 25 kg/m² to <30, and 29.9% had a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher. Among males, 1.5% had a BMI <18.5 kg/m², 43.9% had a BMI from 18.5 kg/m² to <25 kg/m², 36.4% had a BMI from 25 kg/m² to <30, and 18.2% had a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher. Females had a higher median BMI than males (27.4 kg/m² [IQR: 23.3-32.1] vs 25.5 kg/m² [IQR: 22.2-29.4], P = .041). Females were more likely than males to be unemployed, receive nutrition-based public assistance, and be prescribed psychotropic medication.

Conclusions: Females had a greater BMI than males and experienced more weight-related social and clinical vulnerabilities. Understanding weight-related sex and gender differences in this population is important for informing multidisciplinary treatment approaches that promote MOUD uptake and continuation and center overall health in people with OUD.

Background: Several screening tools have been developed to identify youth with alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco/nicotine use disorders, although less attention has been paid to other substances, including the nonmedical use of prescription medication or prescription medication misuse.

Objective: To evaluate the proportion of youth reporting the use of substances other than alcohol, cannabis, and nicotine on 3 screening tools that have been developed and validated for identifying alcohol, cannabis, and nicotine use disorders among adolescent primary care patients.

Methods: Adolescents (N = 757) from primary care pediatric practices were randomized to complete substance use screening tools (Screening to Brief Intervention [S2BI, N = 242], Brief Screener for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs [BSTAD, N = 253], Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance Use [TAPS, N = 262]) and then complete a brief electronic assessment battery and a structured diagnostic interview that assessed for past-year use of opioids and benzodiazepines. A total of 716 adolescents with complete data for each screening tool and the structured interview were analyzed for this report.

Results: Rates of the nonmedical use of prescription medication or prescription medication misuse varied by tool: S2BI: 20 (8.5%), BSTAD: 4 (1.7%), and TAPS: 3 (1.3%). No participant endorsed benzodiazepine or opioid use on the World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module.

Conclusion: Rates of reporting the nonmedical use of prescription medication or prescription medication misuse vary by screen, and some exceed national estimates. Nonmedical use of prescription medication or prescription medication misuse may be more common than previously reported, although some responses may be false positives. Refining questions could elucidate an especially concerning behavior given widespread fentanyl contamination.