Substance use & addiction journal最新文献

Objective: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine has proven efficacy, but many patients are reluctant to begin this treatment. This study evaluated SafetyNet, a program using a 2-person, recovery coach and paramedic (RCP) intervention postoverdose to reduce subsequent opioid overdose, engage patients in medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and reduce illicit drug use.

Methods: We conducted a prospective nonrandomized study in individuals who experienced opioid overdoses, received naloxone, but subsequently declined buprenorphine initiation in the ED. Each participant was followed by an RCP team that performed a brief negotiation interview (BNI) to motivate engagement in treatment, peer-recovery coaching to encourage recovery-related activities, and health education around medical concerns by trained paramedics. Participants were followed-up at 30 and 180 days. The primary hypothesized outcome was reduction in overdose events; the secondary hypothesized outcomes were engagement in MOUD and reduction in opioid positive urine tests.

Results: Eighty-one patients were enrolled and received BNIs; 45 (56%; 95% CI: 44-67) had at least 1 follow-up encounter. Twenty participants (25%; 95% CI: 16-36) had at least 1 overdose during follow-up. Fifty-five participants (68%; 95% CI: 57-78) were confirmed to have engaged in some form of medication treatment. Differences in subsequent overdose events (P = .95), engagement in MOUD (P = .49), and rates of opioid-positive urine toxicology rates within 30 days (P = .44) and between 31 and 180 days (P = .46) were not significantly different when comparing those who did and did not follow-up.

Conclusion: There were no differences in rates of subsequent overdose, MOUD engagement, or positive urine toxicology screens in our intervention. However, 68% of participants engaged in outpatient MOUD, a treatment associated with fewer overdose events, particularly fatal ones. Substantial limitations occurred due to the COVID pandemic, and sample size estimates were not met. Further research is needed to investigate potential benefits of the SafetyNet program.

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) affects millions of individuals each year in the United States. Patient retention in medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment is suboptimal. This study examines and quantifies the associations between each additional month of buprenorphine or methadone use and nonprescribed opioid use.

Methods: Data were obtained from an 18-month longitudinal, observational cohort study of patients (age ≥ 18 years) treated for OUD. Patients completed a baseline self-reported questionnaire between March 2018 and December 2019 and were asked to complete follow-up questionnaires at approximately 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-months post-baseline until May 2021. Patients treated with buprenorphine or methadone, without taking other MOUD at least 12 months prior to baseline, were included. Outcomes included past 30-day use of prescription opioids nonmedically, heroin, or illegally made fentanyl. A multivariable, multilevel regression model with a binomial distribution and a logit link was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: This study included 353 patients taking buprenorphine (mean [standard deviation, SD] age 39 [11] years; 226 [64%] female), and 785 patients taking methadone (mean [SD] age 42 [12] years; 392 [50%] female). Each additional month of MOUD treatment was associated with a 25% decrease in the odds of past 30-day nonprescribed opioid use for patients taking buprenorphine (aOR [95% CI] = 0.75 [0.68-0.83]), and a 17% decrease for patients taking methadone (aOR = 0.83 [0.79-0.87]). The COVID-19 pandemic (aOR = 9.29 [2.96-29.17]; aOR = 3.19 [1.74-5.86]) and MOUD adverse reaction experiences (aOR = 3.07 [1.11-8.48]; aOR = 2.51 [1.01-6.22]) were significantly associated with higher odds of nonprescribed opioid use among buprenorphine and methadone groups.

Conclusion: Among patients treated with buprenorphine or methadone, with each additional treatment month since baseline, those who continued with treatment appeared to be more likely to report 17% to 25% decreased odds of past 30-day nonprescribed opioid use. Our findings can be used by clinicians in the shared decision-making process with patients, emphasizing the value of sustained retention in MOUD.

Background: With US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding, from 2018 to 2022, 4 large healthcare systems (n = 53 health centers across 7 states) serving people of reproductive age trained staff and provided implementation support for alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI). This cross-site evaluation explores each healthcare system's implementation approach to implement SBI, reduce excessive alcohol use, and prevent prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.

Methods: The SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment) Program Matrix framed the multilevel strategies to implement alcohol SBI programs from 2018 to 2022. Qualitative and quantitative data sources examined outcomes, guided by one logic model, through systems-level process data and provider-level performance metrics. Data analyses utilized frequencies and means for quantitative data and themes for qualitative data according to an established framework.

Results: Successful approaches within systems included using electronic health records, flexible implementation and workflow protocols, customized training and technical assistance programs, quality assurance feedback loops, and stakeholder buy-in. Centralized management structures were efficient in standardizing implementation across health centers. Decentralized management structures used tailored approaches, enhancing provider/staff SBI acceptance. Across systems, 1259 staff (eg, clinicians, medical assistants) were trained to provide alcohol SBI services and reported pre-post training increases in self-efficacy in performing brief intervention; skills in PAE counseling; and confidence in screening. Fifty-three (48 providing data) health centers implemented alcohol SBI, screening 106 826 patients over the study period with most of the 10 087 patients who screened positive for excessive alcohol use receiving a BI.

Conclusions: Maximizing the use of technology, employing flexibility in program delivery, and institutionalizing processes and protocols improved workflow, efficiency, and program reach. Ongoing partnership and stakeholder communication identify areas for ongoing improvement, engagement, and best practices for sustainability around substance use screening, which are essential with increases in substance use since the pandemic.

Background: The increasing prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders is a critical public health issue. Two behaviors, consuming alcohol and using less effective pregnancy prevention, may result in alcohol-exposed pregnancies (AEPs) in individuals who can become pregnant. In the context of alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) services, cutoff scores on widely used alcohol risk assessments (eg, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, U.S. version [USAUDIT]) may fail to identify individuals whose relatively low alcohol consumption may still put them at risk for an AEP due to their pregnancy prevention method.

Methods: To identify this gap in alcohol SBI service delivery, we examined data from 2 reproductive healthcare systems implementing alcohol SBI, to explore the prevalence of individuals who met both of the following risk conditions: reported any alcohol use on the USAUDIT and a pregnancy prevention method less than 88% effective. Electronic health records for individuals aged 18 to 49 presenting for preventive care in 2021 were analyzed.

Results: Of 11 567 screened, 7638 reported some alcohol use, but screened at a lower-risk level and were not flagged to receive an alcohol-focused brief intervention (BI). Of these, 1477 were using a method of pregnancy prevention that was less than 88% effective. In addition, 118 of the 1676 who screened positive on the USAUDIT were using less effective contraception and did not receive a BI. In summary, the number of individuals at risk of an AEP who did not receive an alcohol BI was 1595 (13.8%) of the total patients screened for at-risk alcohol use.

Conclusions: There is a need for system modifications to assess multiple behaviors simultaneously and alert providers when a combination of behaviors increases a specific health risk, such as an AEP. Tailored alcohol BIs that include the risks/benefits of various pregnancy prevention methods to reduce AEPs provide opportunities to enhance the reach of standard alcohol SBI services.

Background: Xylazine, an adulterant in local drug supplies, has been detected in approximately 30% of opioid samples submitted for testing in Massachusetts. A better understanding of local risks, harms, and use preferences is needed to combat xylazine-related impacts on local communities.

Methods: Through the STOP-OD Lowell study, we aimed to assess local xylazine awareness through in-depth interviews with local community stakeholders (n = 15) and local people who use drugs (PWUD; n = 15) and surveys with local PWUD (n = 94). The qualitative interviews focused on the current drug landscape and knowledge of adulterants in Lowell, and the results informed subsequent survey design. Through our survey, we examined whether PWUD were aware of xylazine and their willingness to use xylazine test strips.

Results: Most community stakeholders and PWUD had limited awareness about the presence and impact of xylazine as an adulterant. Forty-seven (50%) survey respondents were aware of xylazine. When provided with more information about xylazine, 65% of all respondents expressed a willingness to use xylazine test strips. PWUD who had received naloxone training, reported using with others, and using tester shots were more willing to use xylazine test strips.

Conclusion: Our findings are congruent with existing literature that indicates that there is limited awareness of xylazine among PWUD, and they consider xylazine an unwanted adulterant. We also found that PWUD who use other harm reduction measures are more willing to use xylazine test strips. The increase in xylazine warrants additional community-level interventions such as wound management and local testing infrastructure. Further research is needed to understand better the impacts associated with xylazine use, effective harm reduction techniques, and perceptions of xylazine test strips.

Background: Few patient-facing educational materials and interventions exist for the prevention of injection drug use-related infective endocarditis (IDU-IE). We developed a patient and clinician-informed website for patients about IDU-IE to promote education and prevention strategies.

Methods: This mixed-methods study integrated surveys and semi-structured interviews with patients and clinician to develop a patient website about IDU-IE. Patient participants included hospitalized adults with an opioid use disorder, history of injection drug use, and an injection drug use-related infection. Interprofessional healthcare clinicians including trainees participated. A baseline survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients to understand knowledge of IDU-IE and preferences in educational materials content and format. Interviews were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis. Results informed development of the patient website. Finally, patients and clinicians provided 2 rounds of survey feedback after reviewing the website, assessing the likelihood of using and recommending it to others, helpfulness of information in the website sections, and content satisfaction.

Results: Patient participants (n = 15) reported low baseline understanding of injection practice and risk of IDU-IE. After reviewing the website (n = 17), patients reported they were very likely to recommend the website as a reference for themselves (mean of 4.3; 4 = very likely) and for others (mean = 4.3). They found the following sections, on average, to be very helpful (4 = very helpful): complications from injection drug use (4.4), safer injection practice (4.4), and information about infective endocarditis (4.4). Patients on average were satisfied with the website content overall (4.8). Clinicians (n = 27) reported, on average, being very likely to recommend this website to a patient (4.4) and to use the website to counsel patients (4.1).

Conclusions: A patient and clinician-informed website on IDU-IE is acceptable for patients and clinicians to use as a patient education resource to help prevent IDU-IE-related harms.

Background: Addressing the negative impact of substance use disorders (SUDs) on individuals, families, and communities is a public health priority. Most treatments and interventions require engagement with a healthcare provider or someone who can offer recovery support. The need for interventions that facilitate self-management of relapse triggers at the moment they occur is also critical. Our study aimed to explore the user experience of individuals using a just-in-time smartphone episodic resonance breathing (eRPB) intervention to address stress, anxiety, and drug cravings.

Methods: We conducted an 8-week pilot study of the eRPB with 30 individuals in recovery from SUD. Data on 3 indicators of user experience-acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility-were collected using survey questions (n = 30) and semi-structured interviews (n = 11). We performed univariate analysis on the survey data and deductive thematic analysis on the qualitative data.

Results: A majority of the survey respondents agreed that the application (app) was acceptable (> 77%), appropriate (> 82%), and feasible (> 89%). Several interview participants stated that the app helped them relax and manage stress and cravings and expressed appreciation for the simplicity of its design. Participants also reported barriers to feasibility (such as forgetting to use the app) and recommendations for improvement (such as the addition of motivational messages).

Conclusions: Our findings show that individuals in recovery from SUD had highly positive experiences with the eRPB app. A positive user experience may improve adherence to the intervention and, ultimately, the self-management of stress, anxiety, and craving relapse triggers.

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) has arguably the highest mortality rate of mental health conditions; opiate-related deaths are identified as the number one cause of accidental deaths in Canada and the United States. Specialized care for OUD is often described as lacking, fractured, and with frequent periods of disengagement. Digital health strategies may support connection to evidence-based resources even during periods of disengagement. However, sustained engagement in digital interventions remains a barrier, and as such, experts recommend using co-design approaches to develop interventions.

Methods: The current study outlines the results from a qualitative co-design project that engaged 6 lived experts and 8 clinical experts in a series of focus groups and interviews to adapt an existing intervention for use in OUD. Focus groups and interviews were recorded and transcribed before undergoing thematic analysis. This co-design process is the first stage of a larger project that will lead to the development of a novel digital health intervention for OUD populations.

Results: Transcripts underwent thematic analysis, and themes were divided into Crosscutting Themes, Feasibility and Engagement, and Specific Features. Each theme was divided into specific subthemes, which were reviewed by the design team and informed the design of the digital health platform. Key resulting directions included creating a psychologically safe digital space, curating resources for OUD as a multifaceted condition, and being mindful of barriers to implementation from both lived and clinical expert perspectives. Specific features are discussed in detail in the article.

Conclusion: Lived experts and clinicians strongly supported integrating digital tools into OUD care. Ongoing work is needed to better understand the role of technology in existing OUD structures as well as the implementation of key features such as digital peer support and creating effective and safe social connections. This study also validates co-design as an essential step in digital health development.

Background: Over 3 million Americans have an opioid use disorder (OUD), and only a fraction receive treatment. Public opinion is crucial in enacting evidence-based policies. Few studies have examined the public's perception of blame for the ongoing opioid overdose epidemic directed at distinct groups. We assessed US adults' perceived blameworthiness for the epidemic and examined factors that may influence the perceived blameworthiness.

Methods: We conducted a national survey in 2022 using the AmeriSpeak® panel to assess US adults' perception of blame toward individuals with an OUD and external contributors. Of the 3335 eligible panel members invited to participate, 1233 (37%) completed the survey. We developed a measure of knowledge and understanding of OUD, with a higher value indicating a greater understanding of the nature of OUD and recovery-including knowledge and beliefs on evidence-based treatment and relapse. We analyzed the relationships between sources of blame, knowledge, and understanding of OUD, and individual-level correlates.

Results: Higher score of knowledge and understanding of OUD was associated with lower odds of blaming individuals with OUD (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.51, 1.05]) and greater odds of blaming external contributors: healthcare providers (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = [1.05, 2.12]), pharmaceutical companies (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = [1.50, 3.15]), and health insurance companies (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = [0.97, 2.09]). Those who are female, non-Hispanic White, Democrat, have higher education, or have friends or family who misused opioids tended to score higher in knowledge and understanding of OUD.

Conclusions: Perceived blameworthiness for the opioid overdose epidemic is related to knowledge and understanding of OUD. Public health campaigns with a bipartisan agenda to increase evidence-informed knowledge about OUD targeting people of color and with lower education may help reduce the blame toward people with an OUD, which in turn may increase support for evidence-informed policies.