Search

While the epidemiological literature recognizes associations between chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), opioid use disorder (OUD), and interpersonal trauma stemming from physical, emotional, sexual abuse or neglect, the complex etiologies and interplay between interpersonal and structural traumas in CNCP populations are under-examined. Research has documented the relationship between experiencing multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and the likelihood of developing an OUD as an adult. However, the ACEs framework is criticized for failing to name the social and structural contexts that shape ACE vulnerabilities in families. Social scientific theory and ethnographic methods offer useful approaches to explore how interpersonally- and structurally-produced traumas inform the experiences of co-occurring CNCP, substance use, and mental health. We report findings from a qualitative and ethnographic longitudinal cohort study of patients with CNCP (n = 48) who received care in safety-net settings and their primary care providers (n = 23). We conducted semi-structured interviews and clinical and home-based participant observation from 2018 to 2020. Here we focus our analyses on how patients and providers explained and situated the role of patient trauma in the larger clinical context of reductions in opioid prescribing to highlight the political landscape of the United States opioid overdose crisis and its impact on clinical interactions. Findings reveal the disproportionate burden structurally-produced, racialized trauma places on CNCP, substance use and mental health symptoms that shapes patients’ embodied experiences of pain and substance use, as well as their emotional experiences with their providers. Experiences of trauma impacted clinical care trajectories, yet providers and patients expressed limited options for redress. We argue for an adaptation of trauma-informed care approaches that contextualize the structural determinants of trauma and their interplay with interpersonal experiences to improve clinical care outcomes.

BackgroundClinicians' bias related to patients' race and substance use history play a role in pain management. However, patients' or clinicians' understandings about discriminatory practices and the structural factors that contribute to and exacerbate these practices are underexamined. We report on perceptions of discrimination from the perspectives of patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and a history of substance use and their clinicians within the structural landscape of reductions in opioid prescribing in the United States.MethodsWe interviewed 46 clinicians and 94 patients, using semi-structured interview guides, from eight safety-net primary care clinics across the San Francisco Bay Area from 2013 to 2020. We used a modified grounded theory approach to code and analyze transcripts.ResultsClinicians discussed using opioid prescribing guidelines with the goals of increased opioid safety and reduced bias in patient monitoring. While patients acknowledged the validity of clinicians' concerns about opioid safety, they indicated that clinicians made assumptions about opioid misuse towards Black patients and patients suspected of substance use. Clinicians discussed evidence of discrimination in opioid prescribing at the clinic-wide level; racialized stereotypes about patients likely to misuse opioids; and their own struggles to overcome discriminatory practices regarding CNCP management.ConclusionWhile clinicians and patients acknowledged opioid safety concerns, the practical application of opioid prescribing guidelines impacted how patients perceived and engaged with CNCP care particularly for patients who are Black and/or report a history of substance use. We recommend healthcare system and clinic-level interventions that may remediate discriminatory practices and associated disparities.

Background: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States (US) was already facing an epidemic of opioid overdose deaths. Overdose deaths continued to surge during the pandemic. To limit COVID-19 spread and to avoid disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including buprenorphine and methadone, US federal and state agencies granted unprecedented exemptions to existing MOUD guidelines for Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs), including loosening criteria for unsupervised take-home doses. We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate the impact of these policy changes on MOUD treatment experiences for providers and patients at an OTP in California. Methods: We interviewed 10 providers (including two physicians, five social worker associates, and three nurse practitioners) and 20 patients receiving MOUD. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed all interviews to identify emergent themes. Results: Patient participants were middle-aged (median age 51 years) and were predominantly men (53%). Providers discussed clinical decision-making processes and experiences providing take-homes. Implementation of expanded take-home policies was cautious. Providers reported making individualized decisions, using patient factors to decide if benefits outweighed risks of overdose and misuse. Decision-making factors included patient drug use, overdose risk, housing status, and vulnerability to COVID-19. New patient groups started receiving take-homes and providers noted few adverse events. Patients who received take-homes reported increased autonomy and treatment flexibility, which in turn increased likelihood of treatment stabilization and engagement. Patients who remained ineligible for take-homes, usually due to ongoing non-prescribed opioid or benzodiazepine use, desired greater transparency and shared decision-making. Conclusion: Federal exemptions in response to COVID-19 led to the unprecedented expansion of access to MOUD take-homes within OTPs. Providers and patients perceived benefits to expanding access to take-homes and experienced few adverse outcomes, suggesting expanded take-home policies should remain post-COVID-19. Future studies should explore whether these findings are generalizable to other OTPs and assess larger samples to quantify patient-level outcomes resulting from expanded take-home policies.

Background: Children, especially disadvantaged children in poor countries, were expected to be among the "biggest victims" of the Covid pandemic. Economic burdens, decreased nutritious foods, reduced medical care, school closures, and ill‐health or death of family members were predicted to increase child undernutrition and developmental delays, and diminish home child‐rearing quality. Methods: A planned nutrition intervention could not be implemented due to Covid restrictions. However, three surveys (pre‐Covid [December 2019], July 2021, and September 2021) in 280 Nepali households (309 parent‐dyads, 368 children, 6–66 months old) collected demographics, child anthropometry and development (Ages and Stages Questionnaire‐3 [ASQ‐3]), and home child‐rearing quality (caregiver engagement, learning resources, adult supervision [UNICEF's Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey]). Mixed‐effect regression models adjusted for household (wealth, maternal education) and child factors (age, gender) and survey round. Results: Height, mid‐upper‐arm circumference, and head circumference measurements improved over time. The total ASQ‐3 score did not change: Communication scores increased while fine motor and personal‐social scores declined. Girls' growth and development worsened more than boys. Caregiver engagement (especially mothers') generally declined, but learning resource availability increased. More children were left unsupervised at Round 2 than Round 1 or 3. Conclusions: In this sample, some aspects of child growth, development, and home child‐rearing quality improved while others declined. Better understanding of these changes in child well‐being and the family environment during the pandemic could provide insight on how to protect children during future crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the impact on child diet and growth of a multisectoral community intervention v. nutrition education and livestock management training alone.Design: Longitudinal community-based randomized trial involving three groups of villages assigned to receive: (i) Full Package community development activities, delivered via women's groups; (ii) livestock training and nutrition education alone (Partial Package); or (iii) no intervention (Control). Household surveys, child growth monitoring, child and household diet quality measures (diet diversity (DD), animal-source food (ASF) consumption) were collected at five visits over 36 months. Mixed-effect linear regression and Poisson models used survey round, treatment group and group-by-round interaction to predict outcomes of interest, adjusted for household- and child-specific characteristics.Setting: Banke, Nepal.Participants: Households (n 974) with children aged 1-60 months (n 1333).Results: Children in Full Package households had better endline anthropometry (weight-for-age, weight-for-height, mid-upper-arm-circumference Z-scores), DD, and more consumption of ASF, after adjusting for household- and child-specific characteristics. By endline, compared with Partial Package or Control groups, Full Package households demonstrated preferential child feeding practices and had significantly more improvement in household wealth and hygiene habits.Conclusions: In this longitudinal study, a comprehensive multisectoral intervention was more successful in improving key growth indicators as well as diet quality in young children. Provision of training in livestock management and nutrition education alone had limited effect on these outcomes. Although more time-consuming and costly to administer, incorporating nutrition training with community social capital development was associated with better child growth and nutrition outcomes than isolated training programmes alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]