在北卡罗来纳州,以证据为基础的阿片类药物使用障碍治疗普遍缺乏,住院药物使用服务提供者通常也不鼓励这种治疗。

{"title":"在北卡罗来纳州,以证据为基础的阿片类药物使用障碍治疗普遍缺乏,住院药物使用服务提供者通常也不鼓励这种治疗。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.josat.2024.209474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the only treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) proven to reduce overdose mortality, yet access to this evidence-based treatment remains poor. The purpose of this cross-sectional audit study was to assess OAT availability at residential substance use services in North Carolina.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a state-wide inventory of residential substance use service providers in North Carolina and subsequently called all providers identified, posing as uninsured persons who use heroin, seeking treatment services. Program characteristics, as reported in phone calls, were systematically recorded. We used Fisher's exact tests to assess what program characteristics were associated with OAT availability and with staff making discouraging comments about OAT. We used unsupervised agglomerative clustering to identify facilities with similar characteristics.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 94 treatment providers identified, we successfully contacted and collected data from 66. Of those, only 7 (10.6 %) provide OAT on site; an additional 9 (13.6 %) allow OAT through an outside or community-based prescriber. Only 8 (12.1 %) providers were licensed to provide residential substance use treatment. Staff from 33 (50.0 %) providers made negative, discouraging, or stigmatizing remarks about OAT—for example, that OAT substitutes one addiction for another or does not constitute “true recovery.” OAT availability was positively associated with a provider holding a state license for any substance use-related service (41.9 % vs 8.6 %, <em>p</em> = 0.002) and offering 12-step programming (36.1 % vs. 10/0 %, <em>p</em> = 0.020). OAT availability was negatively associated with faith-based programming (6.1 % vs 42.4 %, <em>p</em> = 0.001), dress codes (5.3 % vs 50.0 %, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and mandates that residents work in a provider-owned and -operated commercial enterprise (5.0 % vs 32.6 %, <em>p</em> = 0.026). Cluster analysis revealed that the most common (<em>n</em> = 21) type of service provider in North Carolina is an unlicensed, faith-based organization that prohibits OAT, imposes a dress code, and mandates that residents work, often in provider-owned and -operated commercial enterprises.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Evidence-based treatments for OUD are largely unavailable at providers of residential substance use services in North Carolina. The prohibition of OAT occurs most often among providers who are unlicensed and impose labor and/or 12-step mandates on residents. Changes to state licensure requirements and exemptions may help improve OAT availability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73960,"journal":{"name":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949875924001863/pdfft?md5=3e0a80349e3d0a3c7d590b7f366b8d7e&pid=1-s2.0-S2949875924001863-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder is widely unavailable and often discouraged by providers of residential substance use services in North Carolina\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.josat.2024.209474\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the only treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) proven to reduce overdose mortality, yet access to this evidence-based treatment remains poor. The purpose of this cross-sectional audit study was to assess OAT availability at residential substance use services in North Carolina.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a state-wide inventory of residential substance use service providers in North Carolina and subsequently called all providers identified, posing as uninsured persons who use heroin, seeking treatment services. Program characteristics, as reported in phone calls, were systematically recorded. We used Fisher's exact tests to assess what program characteristics were associated with OAT availability and with staff making discouraging comments about OAT. We used unsupervised agglomerative clustering to identify facilities with similar characteristics.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 94 treatment providers identified, we successfully contacted and collected data from 66. Of those, only 7 (10.6 %) provide OAT on site; an additional 9 (13.6 %) allow OAT through an outside or community-based prescriber. Only 8 (12.1 %) providers were licensed to provide residential substance use treatment. Staff from 33 (50.0 %) providers made negative, discouraging, or stigmatizing remarks about OAT—for example, that OAT substitutes one addiction for another or does not constitute “true recovery.” OAT availability was positively associated with a provider holding a state license for any substance use-related service (41.9 % vs 8.6 %, <em>p</em> = 0.002) and offering 12-step programming (36.1 % vs. 10/0 %, <em>p</em> = 0.020). OAT availability was negatively associated with faith-based programming (6.1 % vs 42.4 %, <em>p</em> = 0.001), dress codes (5.3 % vs 50.0 %, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and mandates that residents work in a provider-owned and -operated commercial enterprise (5.0 % vs 32.6 %, <em>p</em> = 0.026). Cluster analysis revealed that the most common (<em>n</em> = 21) type of service provider in North Carolina is an unlicensed, faith-based organization that prohibits OAT, imposes a dress code, and mandates that residents work, often in provider-owned and -operated commercial enterprises.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Evidence-based treatments for OUD are largely unavailable at providers of residential substance use services in North Carolina. The prohibition of OAT occurs most often among providers who are unlicensed and impose labor and/or 12-step mandates on residents. Changes to state licensure requirements and exemptions may help improve OAT availability.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73960,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949875924001863/pdfft?md5=3e0a80349e3d0a3c7d590b7f366b8d7e&pid=1-s2.0-S2949875924001863-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949875924001863\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949875924001863","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:阿片类药物激动剂治疗(OAT)是唯一被证明能降低阿片类药物使用障碍(OUD)过量死亡率的治疗方法,但获得这种循证治疗的机会仍然很少。这项横断面审计研究的目的是评估北卡罗来纳州药物使用寄宿服务机构是否提供阿片类激动剂治疗:我们对北卡罗来纳州的住院药物使用服务提供者进行了一次全州范围的清查,随后打电话给所有被确认的提供者,假扮成没有保险的海洛因使用者寻求治疗服务。我们系统地记录了电话中报告的项目特征。我们使用费雪精确检验来评估哪些项目特征与是否提供 OAT 以及工作人员是否对 OAT 发表不鼓励性评论有关。我们使用无监督聚类法来识别具有相似特征的机构:在确定的 94 家治疗机构中,我们成功联系并收集了 66 家机构的数据。其中,只有 7 家(10.6%)在现场提供 OAT;另外 9 家(13.6%)允许通过外部或社区处方提供 OAT。只有 8 家(12.1%)医疗机构获得了提供住院药物使用治疗的许可。有 33 家(50.0%)提供机构的工作人员对 OAT 发表了负面、不鼓励或污名化的言论--例如,OAT 用一种毒瘾替代另一种毒瘾,或并不构成 "真正的康复"。提供 OAT 与提供者持有州政府颁发的药物使用相关服务执照(41.9% 对 8.6%,p = 0.002)和提供 12 步计划(36.1% 对 10/0%,p = 0.020)呈正相关。提供 OAT 与基于信仰的计划(6.1% 对 42.4%,p = 0.001)、着装规范(5.3% 对 50.0%,p 结论:OAT 的提供与基于信仰的计划呈负相关:北卡罗来纳州的住院药物使用服务提供者大多无法提供基于证据的 OUD 治疗。禁止使用 OAT 的服务提供者大多没有执照,并对住院者强制执行劳动和/或 12 步疗法。修改州执照要求和豁免规定可能有助于改善 OAT 的可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder is widely unavailable and often discouraged by providers of residential substance use services in North Carolina

Introduction

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the only treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) proven to reduce overdose mortality, yet access to this evidence-based treatment remains poor. The purpose of this cross-sectional audit study was to assess OAT availability at residential substance use services in North Carolina.

Methods

We conducted a state-wide inventory of residential substance use service providers in North Carolina and subsequently called all providers identified, posing as uninsured persons who use heroin, seeking treatment services. Program characteristics, as reported in phone calls, were systematically recorded. We used Fisher's exact tests to assess what program characteristics were associated with OAT availability and with staff making discouraging comments about OAT. We used unsupervised agglomerative clustering to identify facilities with similar characteristics.

Results

Of the 94 treatment providers identified, we successfully contacted and collected data from 66. Of those, only 7 (10.6 %) provide OAT on site; an additional 9 (13.6 %) allow OAT through an outside or community-based prescriber. Only 8 (12.1 %) providers were licensed to provide residential substance use treatment. Staff from 33 (50.0 %) providers made negative, discouraging, or stigmatizing remarks about OAT—for example, that OAT substitutes one addiction for another or does not constitute “true recovery.” OAT availability was positively associated with a provider holding a state license for any substance use-related service (41.9 % vs 8.6 %, p = 0.002) and offering 12-step programming (36.1 % vs. 10/0 %, p = 0.020). OAT availability was negatively associated with faith-based programming (6.1 % vs 42.4 %, p = 0.001), dress codes (5.3 % vs 50.0 %, p < 0.001), and mandates that residents work in a provider-owned and -operated commercial enterprise (5.0 % vs 32.6 %, p = 0.026). Cluster analysis revealed that the most common (n = 21) type of service provider in North Carolina is an unlicensed, faith-based organization that prohibits OAT, imposes a dress code, and mandates that residents work, often in provider-owned and -operated commercial enterprises.

Conclusion

Evidence-based treatments for OUD are largely unavailable at providers of residential substance use services in North Carolina. The prohibition of OAT occurs most often among providers who are unlicensed and impose labor and/or 12-step mandates on residents. Changes to state licensure requirements and exemptions may help improve OAT availability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of substance use and addiction treatment
Journal of substance use and addiction treatment Biological Psychiatry, Neuroscience (General), Psychiatry and Mental Health, Psychology (General)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Parent SMART: Effects of residential treatment and an adjunctive parenting intervention on behavioral health services utilization. “Yeah, this is not going to work for me”–The impact of federal policy restrictions on methadone continuation upon release from jail or prison A community-academic partnership to develop an implementation support package for overdose prevention in permanent supportive housing Factors affecting problem-solving court team decisions about medications for opioid use disorder Is naloxone where it needs to be? Using spatial analytics to examine equitable distribution of community-based naloxone sites
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1