Search

The availability and adoption of Syringe Services Programs (SSPs) depends heavily on the towns and counties charged with implementing and sustaining these programs. Suburban and rural areas especially lack the community and political support for SSPs. We examined key informant in-depth interview data among professionals providing harm reduction services as well as some health department directors, doctors, and law enforcement officers from a three-state (Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin) study. Results revealed the challenges and emerging solutions for expanding harm reduction services in suburban and rural areas. Additional comparisons of experiences of those working in urban areas were highlighted. Overall, there were widespread similarities in challenges across the three states for providing harm reduction services in rural and suburban settings. Findings revealed potential directions to address the identified barriers and community-supported ideas to improve harm reduction efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) created life‐disrupting stressors that disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities with devastating impacts that extend far beyond the burden of the disease itself, including joblessness, housing and food insecurity, educational system upheavals, isolation due to disrupted relationships, worsened mental health and substance use and violence. Socially interconnected community members are resources whose efforts can be mobilised to improve COVID‐19 coping within their social networks. This research examined the feasibility, acceptability, and reach of a social media‐based peer influencer intervention for COVID‐19 coping. Over a 9‐month period in 2020, the project enrolled 1253 social influencers in Milwaukee—primarily ethnic and racial minorities—who regularly received and passed along messages to members of their social networks that provided advice about COVID‐19 pandemic coping, economic survival, health protection, mental health, family needs, social justice and other impacts. Messages were shared by influencers with others over social media and also text messages, phone calls and conversations. Facebook social media tracking metrics objectively measured the community reach of social influencers' messages. Quantitative surveys and qualitative follow‐up interviews with a subset of influencers also measured the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Social media monitoring metrics showed that, by the end of the project, influencers' messages reached an average of 7978 unique individuals per week and had an average of 13,894 total views per week, with more than 140,000 total cumulative organic impressions. More than half of social influencers indicated that—beyond Facebook message sharing—they shared COVID‐19 prevention, care, and coping messages with social network members in conversations, phone calls and text messages. Social influencers reported that they valued having the opportunity to help community members to cope with pandemic stressors by conveying practical COVID‐19 coping advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) were designed to curb opioid misuse and diversion by tracking scheduled medications prescribed by medical providers and dispensed by pharmacies. The effects of PDMPs on opioid prescription, misuse and overdose rates have been mixed due in part to variability in states' PDMPs and difficulties measuring this complexity, and a lack of attention to implementation and enforcement of PDMP components. The current study uses qualitative interviews with key informants from 3 states with different PDMPs, Connecticut, Kentucky and Wisconsin to explore differences in the characteristics of the PDMPs in each state; how they are implemented, monitored and enforced; and unintended negative consequences of these programs., Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with key informants from each state representing the following sectors: PDMP and pain clinic regulation agencies, Medicaid programs, state licensing boards, pharmacies, emergency medicine departments, pain management clinics, first responders, drug courts, drug treatment programs, medication assisted treatment (MAT) providers, and harm reduction organizations. Interview guides explored participants' experiences with and opinions of PDMPs according to their roles. Data analysis was conducted using a collaborative, constant comparison method., Results: While all 3 states had mandated registration and reporting requirements, the states differed in the implementation and enforcement of these and the extent to which provider prescribing was monitored. These, in turn, influenced how medical providers perceived the PDMP and changed how providers prescribed opioids. Unintended consequences of state PDMPs included under-prescribing for pain and "dumping" patients who were long term users of opioids or who had developed opioid use disorders and may explain the increase in illicit heroin or opioid use., Conclusion: State PDMPs with similar mandates may differ greatly in implementation and enforcement. These differences are important to consider when determining the effects of PDMPs on opioid misuse and overdose., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests:The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2021.)