Search

IntroductionThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had devastating consequences for persons with opioid use disorder (OUD). Yet, little is known about how people seeking treatment for OUD perceive the risks of COVID-19 and how their perception interplays with their health behaviours.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted from September 2021 to March 2022 with 32 patients seeking medication treatment for OUD (MOUD) in Southern California. All interviews were conducted virtually and lasted between one and two hours. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two qualitative researchers independently conducted a content analysis of the transcripts to identify themes.ResultsThree primary themes were identified: (1) perceptions and beliefs about COVID-19 susceptibility and severity; (2) perceptions of COVID-19 risk compared to substance use behaviours; and (3) vaccine hesitancy. Participants were mixed in their beliefs of susceptibility to contracting COVID-19 and the severity of the disease if contracted. Some participants reported taking precautions to mitigate their chances of acquiring COVID-19, and other participants reported that COVID was not a big concern as substance use took priority. For many of the participants, COVID-19 concerns were overshadowed by the risk of overdosing on substances and other risky substance use behaviour. Most of the participants (n = 23; 72%) had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine by the time of the interview, but over half (n = 19; 59%) expressed vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy was driven by concerns about the unknown long-term side effects and potential interactions of the vaccine with MOUD.ConclusionsOur study provides insight into COVID-19 prevention measures as well as vaccination perceptions and hesitancy among people who received treatment for OUD.Key messagesParticipants expressed diverse perceptions of the seriousness of COVID-19, with some taking precautions to mitigate their chances of acquiring COVID-19 and others perceiving that the risk of contracting COVID-19 was less than the risk of overdosing.Substance use, social isolation, vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 risk behaviours should be studied as co-occurring phenomena that have potentially overlapping relationships that can influence behaviours that impact health and well-being.

PurposeThe use of telemedicine (TM) has accelerated in recent years, yet research on the implementation and effectiveness of TM-delivered medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) has been limited. This study investigated the feasibility of implementing a care coordination model involving MOUD delivered via an external TM provider for the purpose of expanding access to MOUD for patients in rural settings.MethodsThe study tested a care coordination model in 6 rural primary care sites by establishing referral and coordination between the clinic and a TM company for MOUD. The intervention spanned approximately 6 months from July/August 2020 to January 2021, coinciding with the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Each clinic tracked patients with OUD in a registry during the intervention period. A pre-/post-intervention design (N = 6) was used to assess the clinic-level outcome as patient-days on MOUD based on patient electronic health records.FindingsAll clinics implemented critical components of the intervention, with an overall TM referral rate of 11.7% among patients in the registry. Five of the 6 sites showed an increase in patient-days on MOUD during the intervention period compared to the 6-month period before the intervention (mean increase per 1,000 patients: 132 days, P = .08, Cohen's d = 0.55). The largest increases occurred in clinics that lacked MOUD capacity or had a greater number of patients initiating MOUD during the intervention period.ConclusionsTo expand access to MOUD in rural settings, the care coordination model is most effective when implemented in clinics that have negligible or limited MOUD capacity.

BackgroundOpioid use and opioid overdose deaths are at an all-time high and evidence-based treatments for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) are underutilized. Therefore, we sought to understand experiences and perceptions of abuses in the for-profit substance use disorder treatment industry that could potentially put people with OUD at an increased risk for an overdose.MethodsOne-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted from November 2018 to May 2019 in Southern California with 20 people with OUD and 20 professionals who work in the substance use disorder (SUD) treatment field. A grounded theory approach was conducted to discover emerging patterns from the data.ResultsThree major themes emerged:1) financial and material enticements, 2) encouraging substance use in the for-profit treatment sector, and 3) contributors to overdose risk. Participants reported that patient brokers would pay for plane tickets and offer financial incentives (e.g., money) to attract individuals to SUD treatment, capitalizing on insurance profits despite initial expenses. Participants reported being encouraged to use drugs before treatment to meet insurance conditions, thus jeopardizing genuine recovery efforts and adding to the temptation of drug use. Many participants linked patient brokering to increased overdose deaths, emphasizing the dangerous practices of brokers providing drugs, promoting relapse, and creating a revolving door of treatment, which compounds the overdose risk after periods of abstinence.ConclusionsPatient brokering and unethical abuses in the for-profit treatment industry have caused some people with OUD to seek treatment for money and housing instead of seeking treatment to stop opioid use. The harmful treatment environment was seen as a barrier to care and an unwanted obstacle to overcome on the path to recovery.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has changed the landscape of healthcare service delivery. This review aims to describe telemedicine-delivered substance use disorder (SUD) treatments and services along the cascade of care in the U.S. after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA literature review was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (Wiley). English-language articles that describe any healthcare services for patients with SUDs using telemedicine in the U.S. since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic were identified (N = 33). We narratively summarized telemedicine-based service provision along the cascade of SUD care, such as screening/assessment, prescription, monitoring, recovery support, and other services.ResultsSoon after the onset of COVID-19 and mandated restrictions, cadres of healthcare providers from different specialties mobilized to ramp up video- and audio-based services to remotely treat patients with SUDs. Medication prescription (48.5%) and individual counseling (39.4%) were the most frequently reported services delivered via telemedicine. Other steps of SUD care delivered by telemedicine characterized in our review included SUD screening and assessment (30.3%), induction (21.2%), medication management (27.3%), monitoring (27.3%), recovery support (15.2%), and referral (24.2%). Feasibility issues and challenges to implementing telemedicine included patients' lack of access to technology and health insurance coverage, providers' capacity limits and concerns, and clinics' financial and office-space constraints.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has offered a window of opportunity to advance telemedicine expertise by formalizing clinical guidance and routinizing provider in-service training in virtual SUD treatment. Findings suggest enhanced efforts to reduce disparities in telemedicine-based services.

BackgroundComputerized, Internet-delivered interventions can be efficacious; however, uptake and maintaining sustained client engagement are still big challenges. We see the development of effective engagement strategies as the next frontier in online health interventions, an area where much creative research has begun. We also argue that for engagement strategies to accomplish their purpose with novel targeted populations, they need to be tailored to such populations (ie, content is designed with the target population in mind). User-centered design frameworks provide a theoretical foundation for increasing user engagement and uptake by including users in development. However, deciding how to implement this approach to enage users in mental health intervention development is challenging. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to get user input and feedback on acceptability of messaging content intended to engage suicidal individuals. MethodsIn March 2013, clinic intake staff distributed flyers announcing the study, “Your Feedback Counts” to potential participants (individuals waiting to be seen for a mental health appointment) together with the Patient Health Questionnaire. The flyer explained that a score of two or three (“more than half the days” or “nearly every day” respectively) on the suicide ideation question made them eligible to provide feedback on components of a suicide prevention intervention under development. The patient could access an anonymous online survey by following a link. After providing consent online, participants completed the anonymous survey. ResultsThirty-four individuals provided data on past demographic information. Participants reported that they would be most drawn to an intervention where they knew that they were cared about, that was personalized, that others like them had found it helpful, and that included examples with real people. Participants preferred email invitations with subject lines expressing concern and availability of extra resources. Participants also provided feedback about a media prototype including a brand design and advertisement video for introducing the intervention. ConclusionsThis paper provides one model (including development of an engagement survey, audience for an engagement survey, methods for presenting results of an engagement survey) for including target users in the development of uptake strategies for online mental health interventions.

PurposeTo examine characteristics associated with disparities in digital access (i.e., access to high-speed Internet via a computer or smartphone) in American rural and urban households given that digital access has a direct impact on access to telemedicine-based services.MethodsUsing the 2019 American Community Survey, we analyzed the proportions of geographic area, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status according to device and high-speed Internet access. Maximum likelihood logit estimators estimated how these factors influenced device and high-speed Internet access.FindingsOf 105,312,959 households, 32.29% were without a desktop or laptop computer with high-speed Internet (WDW), 21.51% were without a smartphone with a data plan for wireless Internet (WSW), and 14.02% were without any digital access (WDA). Nonmetropolitan households were significantly more likely to be WDA than metropolitan households (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.83-1.91). Relative to non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks (OR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.56-1.64), American Indian or Alaska natives (OR = 2.00; 95% CI: 1.82-2.19), or Hispanics (OR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.66-1.74) were significantly more likely to be WDA. When compared to households with private health insurance coverage, households WDA were significantly more likely to have no insurance (OR = 2.44; 95% CI: 2.36-2.53) or public insurance coverage (OR = 3.78; 95% CI: 3.70-3.86). Households with any digital access reported higher income and more family members living at home. Using the same predictors, similar findings were reported for households WDW or WSW.ConclusionsSignificant disparities in digital access exist among nonmetropolitan households, racial/ethnic minority households, and lower-income households. The lack of digital access has implications for the accessibility of health care services via telemedicine and thus could exacerbate health disparities.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the U.S. health care system, including addiction treatment. The objective of this study is to describe the impact of COVID on the delivery of treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) from the perspectives of service providers.MethodsBetween May and September 2020, 61 service providers from 16 SUD treatment sites in California participated in virtual focus groups that lasted about an hour. We recorded the discussions and transcribed them verbatim. Two qualitative analysts independently conducted content analysis to identify themes from the transcripts.ResultsAt the beginning of the pandemic, service providers observed a slight decrease in patient admissions, followed by an uptick in patient flow due to increased mental health issues, alcohol use, and relapse. Many of the clinics adopted flexible service delivery modes, such as curbside dosing and extended take-home medication, to enable social distancing in clinic settings. Approximately half of the clinic encounters offered telemedicime, and a considerable proportion of patients preferred to use telephone-based services rather than video-based services. Internet instability and technical difficulties limited the use of telemedicine among their patients.ConclusionCOVID has been challenging for SUD treatment, but health care systems rapidly reacted with adjustments that may result in long-term changes in SUD service delivery. Telemedicine-based services have played a major role in ensuring uninterrupted patient care. Providers need organizational, technical, and logistical support to improve and sustain telemedicine services that increase access to quality care for their patients.

Telemedicine (TM) enabled by digital health technologies to provide medical services has been considered a key solution to increasing health care access in rural communities. With the immediate need for remote care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many health care systems have rapidly incorporated digital technologies to support the delivery of remote care options, including medication treatment for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). In responding to the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials and scientific communities strongly support and advocate for greater use of TM-based medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) to improve access to care and have suggested that broad use of TM during the pandemic should be sustained. Nevertheless, research on the implementation and effectiveness of TM-based MOUD has been limited. To address this knowledge gap, the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) funded (via the NIH HEAL Initiative) a study on Rural Expansion of Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder (Rural MOUD; CTN-0102) to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of adding TM-based MOUD to rural primary care for expanding access to MOUD. In preparation for this large-scale, randomized controlled trial incorporating TM in rural primary care, a feasibility study is being conducted to develop and pilot test implementation procedures. In this commentary, we share some of our experiences, which include several challenges, during the initial two-month period of the feasibility study phase. While these challenges could be due, at least in part, to adjusting to the COVID-19 pandemic and new workflows to accommodate the study, they are notable and could have a substantial impact on the larger, planned pragmatic trial and on TM-based MOUD more broadly. Challenges include low rates of identification of risk for OUD from screening, low rates of referral to TM, digital device and internet access issues, workflow and capacity barriers, and insurance coverage. These challenges also highlight the lack of empirical guidance for best TM practice and quality remote care models. With TM expanding rapidly, understanding implementation and demonstrating what TM approaches are effective are critical for ensuring the best care for persons with OUD.

Background and Aims: International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis codes are often used in research to identify patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), but their accuracy for this purpose is not fully evaluated. This study describes application of ICD‐10 diagnosis codes for opioid use, dependence and abuse from an electronic health record (EHR) data extraction using data from the clinics' OUD patient registries and clinician/staff EHR entries. Design: Cross‐sectional observational study. Setting: Four rural primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho, USA. Participants: 307 patients. Measurements This study used three data sources from each clinic: (1) a limited dataset extracted from the EHR, (2) a clinic‐based registry of patients with OUD and (3) the clinician/staff interface of the EHR (e.g. progress notes, problem list). Data source one included records with six commonly applied ICD‐10 codes for opioid use, dependence and abuse: F11.10 (opioid abuse, uncomplicated), F11.20 (opioid dependence, uncomplicated), F11.21 (opioid dependence, in remission), F11.23 (opioid dependence with withdrawal), F11.90 (opioid use, unspecified, uncomplicated) and F11.99 (opioid use, unspecified with unspecified opioid‐induced disorder). Care coordinators used data sources two and three to categorize each patient identified in data source one: (1) confirmed OUD diagnosis, (2) may have OUD but no confirmed OUD diagnosis, (3) chronic pain with no evidence of OUD and (4) no evidence for OUD or chronic pain. Findings F11.10, F11.21 and F11.99 were applied most frequently to patients who had clinical diagnoses of OUD (64%, 89% and 79%, respectively). F11.20, F11.23 and F11.90 were applied to patients who had a diagnostic mix of OUD and chronic pain without OUD. The four clinics applied codes inconsistently. Conclusions: Lack of uniform application of ICD diagnosis codes make it challenging to use diagnosis code data from EHR to identify a research population of persons with opioid use disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug overdoses are the leading cause of injury death in the United States with an estimated 105,752 individuals dying from an overdose in the United States in a 12-month period ending October 2021. Given that people who have opioid use disorder (OUD) are at an increased risk of death, it is crucial to assess risk factors associated with opioid overdose to improve interventions. We examine factors associated with non-fatal overdose among a suburban/exurban population with OUD in Southern California. Participants were recruited by convenience sampling (n = 355) and were interviewed between November 2017 to August 2018. Participants were eligible for the study if they had a history of pharmaceutical opioid use. A total of 198 (55.8%) participants reported at least one overdose in their lifetime. A total of 229 participants identified as male, 124 identified as female, and 2 identified as non-binary. When controlling for demographic factors, non-oral opioid administration at first opioid use (AOR 2.82, 95% CI 1.52-5.22), having a history of methadone detoxification, (AOR 2.23, 95% CI 1.27-3.91), history of buprenorphine detoxification (AOR 1.77, 95% CI 1.02-3.07), and history of 12 step attendance (AOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.12-3.20) were found to be independently and positively associated with lifetime opioid overdose. Detoxification with buprenorphine and methadone was found to be associated with having a non-fatal opioid overdose. Buprenorphine and methadone should not be prescribed as a detoxification medication as long-term use of medication for OUD results in better outcomes than medication that is used short-term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]