Search

Rates of opioid use disorder and associated deaths remain alarmingly high. Measures to address the epidemic have included reductions in opioid prescribing, in part guided by the Centers for Disease Control Opioid Prescribing Guideline (CDCG). While reductions in over-prescribing have occurred, these measures have also resulted in decreased access and adverse outcomes for some stable opioid-treated chronic pain patients. The TOWard SafER Opioid Prescribing (TOWER) intervention was designed to support HIV primary care providers in use of the CDCG and in decision-making and patient–provider communication regarding safe opioid prescribing. Eleven HIV primary care providers and 40 of their patients were randomized into intervention and control groups. Transcripts from 21 patient visits were analyzed, focusing on opioid and pain-related communications. Findings from this research indicate greater alignment with the CDCG among visits carried out with providers in the TOWER intervention group. However, control group visits were notably consistent with guideline recommendations in several key areas. Differences observed between the intervention and control group visits demonstrate intervention strengths, as well as areas where additional work needs to be done to ensure prescribing and communication consistent with the CDCG.

It is widely acknowledged that the growing opioid epidemic and associated increase in overdose deaths necessitates a reexamination of processes and procedures related to opioid prescription for the treatment of chronic pain. However, the perspectives of patients, including those at highest risk for opioid-related harms, are largely missing from this reexamination. To partially address the gap in patient input, we conducted a pair of one-day public deliberations on opioid prescribing in the context of HIV care, as part of a larger study on opioid prescribing and patient-provider communication. Results included recommendations and perspectives from people living with HIV that detail how providers can best assess patient needs, communicate regarding opioid-related treatment and monitoring, and reduce the risk of misuse. Participants emphasized the importance of building trust with patients and taking an extensive patient history prior to making decisions about whether to initiate or end an opioid prescription. This trust—together with an understanding of the origin of a patient’s pain, history of drug use and other therapies tried—was perceived as essential to effective monitoring and pain management, as well as promotion of positive health outcomes. Ensuring that such patient perspectives are incorporated into the operationalization of guidelines for safe opioid prescribing may help to improve outcomes and quality of care for people living with HIV.

Background The 2016 U.S. Centers for Disease Control Opioid Prescribing Guideline (CDC Guideline) is currently being revised amid concern that it may be harmful to people with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy (CP-LTOT). However, a methodology to faithfully implement the CDC guideline, measure prescriber adherence, and systematically test its effect on patient and public health outcomes is lacking. We developed and tested a CDC Guideline implementation strategy (termed TOWER), focusing on an outpatient HIV-focused primary care setting. Methods TOWER was developed in a stakeholder-engaged, multi-step iterative process within an Information, Motivation and Behavioral Skills (IMB) framework of behavior change. TOWER consists of: 1) a patient-facing opioid management app (OM-App); 2) a progress note template (OM-Note) to guide the office visit; and 3) a primary care provider (PCP) training. TOWER was evaluated in a 9-month, randomized-controlled trial of HIV-PCPs (N = 11) and their patients with HIV and CP-LTOT (N = 40). The primary outcome was CDC Guideline adherence based on electronic health record (EHR) documentation and measured by the validated Safer Opioid Prescribing Evaluation Tool (SOPET). Qualitative data including one-on-one PCP interviews were collected. We also piloted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reflective of domains identified as important by stakeholders (pain intensity and function; mood; substance use; medication use and adherence; relationship with provider; stigma and discrimination). Results PCPs randomized to TOWER were 48% more CDC Guideline adherent (p Conclusions CDC-guideline adherence can be promoted and measured, and is not associated with worsening of outcomes for people with HIV receiving LTOT for CP. Future work would be needed to document scalability of these results and to determine whether CDC-guideline adherence results in a positive effect on public health. Trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03669939. Registration date: 9/13/2018

Context The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a record number of deaths in the United States and tremendous economic and personal strain. During 2020, in anticipation of a vaccine to slow the spread of disease, local and state governments in the United States developed plans for vaccine prioritization, given a limited initial supply. Recognizing the challenges inherent in prioritization, the New York City (NYC) health department sought guidance from members of the public about the fairest approach to early-stage vaccine distribution. Objective To solicit recommendations from NYC residents on priorities regarding vaccine access for essential worker occupations, considering risk factors and preferred approaches to fairness. Implementation Five public deliberations were conducted with NYC residents (N = 91). Participants heard presentations on the COVID-19 vaccine, the local distribution of illness and death, and approaches to fairness in the context of deliberating on priorities for 6 essential worker occupations and 4 risk factors. Discussions were transcribed, and transcriptions were coded and analyzed using preidentified and emergent themes. Pre- and post-surveys, focused on factors relevant to prioritization, were administered during each public deliberation. Results Recommendations for prioritization emphasized risk of severe morbidity and mortality, and work and neighborhood conditions with fewer protections (eg, in-person work, exposure to many people). Participants prioritized elementary schoolteachers, grocery store workers, and bus drivers, underlying health conditions, and neighborhood of residence. Participants focused on equity, recognizing that those at highest risk were largely low-income populations of color and individuals living in low-resourced neighborhoods. Conclusions Participants' focus on equity, and acknowledgment of racial and ethnic disparities, revealed a nuanced understanding of the broader determinants of health. Recommendations reinforced the NYC health department's approach to vaccine distribution. Public health implications Results from these public deliberations confirmed community support for approaches prioritizing health equity, recognizing both societal and personal factors affecting vulnerability to poor health.

Context: Internal revenue service provisions require not-for-profit hospitals to provide “community benefit.” In addition, the Affordable Care Act requires these hospitals to conduct community health needs assessments that involve appropriate stakeholders. These requirements signal government interest in creating opportunities for developing programs that are well tailored and responsive to the needs of the communities served. Gaining meaningful input from residents is a critical aspect of these processes. Objective: To implement public deliberations that explore local resident priorities for use of a hospital's community benefit resources to prevent chronic disease. Methods: Public deliberation is a method of community engagement that can provide guidance to decision makers on value-laden issues when technical solutions alone are inadequate to provide direction or set priorities. Three deliberations featuring presentations by experts and discussions among participants were convened with a cross section of residents in Brooklyn, New York. Participants were asked whether new hospital initiatives should prioritize: clinical prevention, community-based interventions, or action on broader policies affecting population health. Pre- and postsurveys, as well as qualitative methods, were used to assess knowledge and attitudes. Results: Postdeliberation, participants had significant changes in knowledge, particularly on the impact of education on health. Participants prioritized community-based and policy interventions over expanding clinical prevention capacity. Conclusions: Public deliberation offers a method to probe informed constituent views of how a hospital can best promote its community's health. Informed local residents felt that hospitals should frame health-promoting activities more broadly than is current practice. Not-for-profit hospitals gain significant tax advantages. Increased insurance rates suggest that some hospitals will experience savings in uncompensated care that can be used to promote health more broadly. Vetting priorities for the use of new resources with informed community members can be accomplished through public deliberation. These results suggest community support for nonclinical approaches to disease prevention.

There is a significant evidence base for the Diabetes Prevention Program, a lifestyle intervention to prevent onset of type 2 diabetes among high-risk individuals; however, translation of this intervention for men has been challenging. This report presents outcomes of the pilot study of an adapted 16-week diabetes prevention program entitled “ Power Up for Health.” The study goal was to better engage men of color with prediabetes from disadvantaged neighborhoods of New York City. It was implemented at five different recreation centers located in predominantly low-income neighborhoods across New York City. The curriculum was facilitated by male lifestyle coaches only; one group was conducted in Spanish. Primary outcome was weight loss from baseline to 16 weeks. Other measures included lifestyle activities, depressive symptoms, and self-reported health status. Men ( N = 47) were screened by telephone. Of the 29 eligible men who began the program, 25 attended at least 4 sessions (52% non-Latino Black, 32% Latino, mean age 51.7 ± SD 9.9 years, mean body mass index 35 ± SD 6.9 kg/m2). End of program outcomes ( n = 23) varied by site and included a mean weight loss of 3.8% (9.7 lbs); 3 of the 5 sites had a mean weight loss of 5.6%, meeting the national goal of 5%–7%. Men ( n = 23) attended a mean of 11.6 of 16 sessions. Improvement in depressive symptoms, healthy eating and exercise, and health status were also seen. While recruitment was challenging with many lessons learned, the adapted men’s diabetes prevention program shows promise of success for participants and their coaches.

Many people with HIV (PWH) experience chronic pain that limits daily function and quality of life. PWH with chronic pain have commonly been prescribed opioids, sometimes for many years, and it is unclear if and how the management of these legacy patients should change in light of the current US opioid epidemic. Guidelines, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (CDCG), provide recommendations for the management of such patients but have yet to be translated into easily implementable interventions; there is also a lack of strong evidence that adhering to these recommendations improves patient outcomes such as amount of opioid use and pain levels. Herein we describe the development and preliminary testing of a theory-based intervention, called TOWER (TOWard SafER Opioid Prescribing), designed to support HIV primary care providers in CDCG-adherent opioid prescribing practices with PWH who are already prescribed opioids for chronic pain. TOWER incorporates the content of the CDCG into the theoretical and operational framework of the Information Motivation and Behavioral Skills (IMB) model of health-related behavior. The development process included elicitation research and incorporation of feedback from providers and PWH; testing is being conducted via an adaptive feasibility clinical trial. The results of this process will form the basis of a large, well-powered clinical trial to test the effectiveness of TOWER in promoting CDCG-adherent opioid prescribing practices and improving outcomes for PWH with chronic pain. Keywords: Chronic pain, Opioids, HIV

The National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) has been effectively translated to various community and clinical settings; however, regardless of setting, enrollment among men and lower-income populations is low. This study presents participant perspectives on Power Up for Health, a novel NDPP pilot adaption for men residing in low-income communities in New York City. We conducted nine interviews and one focus group with seven participants after the program ended. Interview and focus group participants had positive perceptions of the program and described the all-male aspect of the program and its reliance on male coaches as major strengths. Men felt the all-male adaptation allowed for more open, in-depth conversations on eating habits, weight loss, body image, and masculinity. Participants also reported increased knowledge and changes to their dietary and physical activity habits. Recommendations for improving the program included making the sessions more interactive by, for example, adding exercise or healthy cooking demonstrations. Overall, findings from the pilot suggest this NDPP adaptation was acceptable to men and facilitated behavior change and unique discussions that would likely not have occurred in a mixed-gender NDPP implementation.

While the Caribbean has the second highest global human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence, insufficient attention has been paid to contributing factors of the region's elevated risk. Largely neglected is the potential role of drugs in shaping the Caribbean HIV/acquired immune deficiency syndrome epidemic. Caribbean studies have almost exclusively focused on drug transportation and seldom acknowledged local user economies and drug-related health and social welfare consequences. While tourism is consistently implicated within the Caribbean HIV epidemic, less is known about the intersection of drugs and tourism. Tourism areas represent distinct ecologies of risk often characterised by sex work, alcohol consumption and population mixing between lower and higher risk groups. Limited understanding of availability and usage of drugs in countries such as the Dominican Republic (DR), the Caribbean country with the greatest tourist rates, presents barriers to HIV prevention. This study addresses this gap by conducting in-depth interviews with 30 drug users in Sosua, a major sex tourism destination of the DR. A two-step qualitative data analysis process was utilised and interview transcripts were systematically coded using a well-defined thematic codebook. Results suggest three themes: (1) local demand shifts drug routes to tourism areas, (2) drugs shape local economies and (3) drug use facilitates HIV risk behaviours in tourism areas.