Search

Background: Ever since alexithymia was defined in the 1970s, robust associations have been observed between alexithymia and a variety of symptoms of psychopathology. Alexithymia is now widely regarded as an important transdiagnostic risk factor, and it is frequently assessed in clinical and research settings. However, despite this strong interest, it remains unclear exactly why (i.e., by which mechanisms) alexithymia is linked to psychopathology. In this paper, we hypothesise that alexithymia is linked to affective disorder symptoms because alexithymia impairs people's ability to regulate their emotions, and we empirically test this hypothesis.Method: We administered a battery of psychometric measures to 501 adults in the United States, and examined the direct and indirect effects between alexithymia (Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire), emotion regulation ability (Perth Emotion Regulation Competency Inventory), and affective disorder symptoms (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21).Results: In the Pearson bivariate correlation matrix, alexithymia, emotion regulation difficulties, and affective disorder symptoms were all significantly correlated. In the modelling of direct and indirect effects, alexithymia was indirectly associated with affective disorder symptoms through emotion regulation difficulties (no significant direct effect).Limitations: Our online survey data were all self-report data and cross-sectional. Future longitudinal work would be beneficial.Conclusions: Our findings support contemporary theorising that alexithymia is linked to affective disorder symptoms via emotion regulation difficulties. These results help to clarify the mechanisms by which alexithymia may predispose people to affective disorder symptoms, and highlight the importance of considering the roles of alexithymia and emotion regulation in case conceptualisations and treatment planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Side effects of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) such as weight gain contribute to their stigma. Substantial evidence suggests that women have a more severe side effect profile to MOUD than men, and concerns about weight gain during treatment are prevalent. However, the few studies reporting sex differences in weight gain during treatment show conflicting results and are restricted to methadone. In addition, little is known about possible sex differences in weight gain to buprenorphine, which is the most commonly prescribed MOUD in the United States.Methods: To address these issues, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the few studies reporting longitudinal data on sex differences in body mass index (BMI) gain during methadone treatment (Study 1). In a separate study, we also re-analyzed data from trial CTN-0030 of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trial Network (NIDA CTN), which involved a 12-week buprenorphine treatment regimen (Study 2; n = 360; 209 Male, 151 Female).Results: For Study 1, across all papers reporting longitudinal data (k = 4, n = 362 OUD patients), there were BMI increases that ranged from 2.2 to 5.4 BMI after at least one year of methadone treatment, but there were no significant sex differences in BMI increases (Standardized Mean Difference, Female > Male = 0.352, SE =0.270; 95 % CI = [-0.18 0.88]; p = .193). Study 2 showed no significant differences in weight before and after 12 weeks of buprenorphine treatment nor did it show sex differences in weight change with treatment (β = 2.34, p = .511).Conclusion: These analyses corroborate evidence of weight gain with methadone treatment but did not observe a sex-based disparity in weight gain with methadone or buprenorphine treatment for OUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The patient-provider relationship is considered a cornerstone to delivering high-value healthcare. However, in Medicaid managed care settings, disruptions to this relationship are disproportionately common. In this paper, I evaluate the impact of a primary provider's exit from a Medicaid managed care plan on adult beneficiary healthcare utilization and outcomes. Using an event study approach, I estimate a 5% decrease in the number of beneficiaries with primary care visits in the year following the exit, with slightly larger effects in terms of percentage points for patients with chronic conditions. Additionally, I observe a nearly 50% increase in the number of beneficiaries with a chronic condition who are hospitalized following a disruption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prescription opioids played a major role in the current opioid overdose epidemic. High rates of opioid prescribing and dispensing exposed many people to opioids, and high-dose opioid prescriptions (e.g., 90 morphine milligram equivalents [MME] per day) contributed to increases in opioid overdoses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention for States (PfS) program provided funding to jurisdictions ("PfS recipients") with a high burden of opioid-involved overdoses. This paper examines associations between strategies addressing high-dose opioid prescribing and changes in high-dose opioid dispensing.Methods: Monthly opioid dispensing data (2014-2019) from IQVIA Xponent were analyzed using longitudinal growth models (LGM) to compare high-dose opioid dispensing rates in the 29 jurisdictions that participated in PfS with rates in non-PfS jurisdictions. Additional models examined associations between specific PfS activities and changes in high-dose dispensing among PfS recipients.Results: High-dose dispensing rates decreased significantly in both PfS and non-PfS jurisdictions from 2014 to 2019. Rates of high-dose opioid dispensing rates in PfS jurisdictions were not significantly different than those in non-PfS jurisdictions (p = 0.07). Among PfS recipients, multiple activities were associated with decreases in high-dose dispensing rates over time, including moving towards real-time prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) reporting (p < 0.001) and implementation of opioid dispensing interventions for insurers/ health systems (p < 0.05).Conclusions: High-dose opioid dispensing rates decreased throughout the United States from 2014-2019. As the drug epidemic continues to evolve, implementation of prevention activities by state and local partners is important. These findings highlight two potential prevention strategies and activities that jurisdictions can utilize. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]