Search

Introduction: To expand access to naloxone, the state of Illinois implemented a standing order allowing registered pharmacies to dispense the drug without an individual prescription. To participate under the standing order, pharmacies were required to opt in through a formal registration process. In our study we aimed to evaluate the availability and price of naloxone at registered pharmacies.Methods: This was a prospective, de-identified, cross-sectional telephone survey. Trained interviewers posed as potential customers and used a standardized script to determine the availability of naloxone between February–December, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as a pharmacy indicating it carried naloxone, currently had naloxone in stock, and was able to dispense it without anindividual prescription.Results: Of 948 registered pharmacies, 886 (93.5%) were successfully contacted. Of those, 792 (83.4%) carried naloxone, 659 (74.4%) had naloxone in stock, and 472 (53.3%) allowed purchase without a prescription. Naloxone nasal spray (86.4%) was the formulation most commonly stocked. Chain pharmacies were more likely to carry naloxone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97–5.01, P < 0.01) and have naloxone in stock (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76–4.20, P < 0.01), but no more likely to dispense it without a prescription. Pharmacies in higher population areas (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99–0.99, P < 0.05) and rural areas adjacent to metropolitan areas (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 025–0.98, P < 0.05) were less likely to have naloxone available without a prescription. Associations of naloxone availability based on other urbanicity designations, overdose count, and overdose rate were not significant.Conclusion: Among pharmacies in Illinois that formally registered to dispense naloxone without a prescription, the availability of naloxone remains limited. Additional interventions may be needed to maximize the potential impact of a statewide standing order.

BackgroundAsian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) sexual and gender minorities (SGM) face unique challenges in mental health and accessing high-quality health care.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for shared decision making (SDM) between AAPI SGM and providers, especially surrounding mental health.Research designInterviews, focus groups, and surveys.SubjectsAAPI SGM interviewees in Chicago (n=20) and San Francisco (n=20). Two focus groups (n=10) in San Francisco.MeasuresParticipants were asked open-ended questions about their health care experiences and how their identities impacted these encounters. Follow-up probes explored SDM and mental health. Participants were also surveyed about attitudes towards SGM disclosure and preferences about providers. Transcripts were analyzed for themes and a conceptual model was developed.ResultsOur conceptual model elucidates the patient, provider, and encounter-centered factors that feed into SDM for AAPI SGM. Some participants shared the stigma of SGM identities and mental health in their AAPI families. Their AAPI and SGM identities were intertwined in affecting mental health. Some providers inappropriately controlled the visibility of the patient's identities, ignoring or overemphasizing them. Participants varied on whether they preferred a provider of the same race, and how prominently their AAPI and/or SGM identities affected SDM.ConclusionsProviders should understand identity-specific challenges for AAPI SGM to engage in SDM. Providers should self-educate about AAPI and SGM history and intracommunity heterogeneity before the encounter, create a safe environment conducive to patient disclosure of SGM identity, and ask questions about patient priorities for the visit, pronouns, and mental health.

Background: The United States' (US) opioid overdose epidemic has evolved into a combined stimulant/opioid epidemic, a pattern driven in part by mitigating opioid overdose risk, variable substance availability, and personal preferences. This study aimed to investigate the association between self-reported substance preference (heroin or methamphetamine) and behavioral/health outcomes among individuals who used both heroin and methamphetamine in the rural US. Methods: The Rural Opioid Initiative is a consortium of 8 research cohorts from 10 states and 65 rural counties that recruited individuals reporting past 30-day injection of any substance or opioid substance use by any route from 1/2018 to 3/2020. Analyses were restricted to participants ⩾18 years, who self-reported either heroin or methamphetamine as their preferred substance and past 30-day use of both heroin and methamphetamine. We examined cross-sectional associations between preferred substance (heroin versus methamphetamine) and behavioral and health outcomes using random effects meta-analysis with adjusted regression models. Results: Among 1239 participants, 61% (n = 752) reported heroin as their preferred substance. Adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, methamphetamine preference was associated with lower prevalence ratios for current naloxone possession (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 0.68; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] = 0.59-0.78; P -value ⩽.001), of ever being told they had the hepatitis C virus (HCV; aPR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.61-0.85; P -value ⩽.001) and a personal history of overdose (aPR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.73-0.90; P -value ⩽.001). Conclusion: In our study analyzing associations between preferred substance and various behavioral and health outcomes amongst people who use both heroin and methamphetamine, a majority of participants preferred heroin. Methamphetamine preference was associated with lower prevalence of naloxone possession, ever being told they had HCV, and prior history of an overdose. This study underscores the need for targeted harm reduction services for people who prefer methamphetamine in rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issues: To date, there has been no synthesis of research addressing the scale and nuances of the opioid epidemic in racial/ethnic minority populations in the United States that considers the independent and joint impacts of dynamics such as structural disadvantage, provider bias, health literacy, cultural norms and various other risk factors. Approach: Using the "risk environment" framework, we conducted a scoping review on PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar of peer‐reviewed literature and governmental reports published between January 2000 and February 2024 on the nature and scale of opioid use, opioid prescribing patterns, and fatal overdoses among racial/ethnic minorities in the United States, while also examining macro, meso and individual‐level risk factors. Key Findings: Results from this review illuminate a growing, but fragmented, literature lacking standardisation in racial/ethnic classification and case reporting, specifically in regards to Indigenous and Asian subpopulations. This literature broadly illustrates racial/ethnic minorities' increasing nonmedical use of opioids, heightened burdens of fatal overdoses, specifically in relation to polydrug use and synthetic opioids, with notable elevations among Black/Latino subgroups, in addition uneven opioid prescribing patterns. Moreover, the literature implicates a variety of unique risk environments corresponding to dynamics such as residential segregation, provider bias, overpolicing, acculturative stress, patient distrust, and limited access to mental health care services and drug treatment resources, including medications for opioid use disorder. Implications: There has been a lack of rigorous, targeted study on racial/ethnic minorities who use opioids, but evidence highlights burgeoning increases in usage, especially polydrug/synthetic opioid use, and disparities in prescriptions and fatal overdose risk‐phenomena tied to multi‐level forms of entrenched disenfranchisement. Conclusion: There is a need for further research on the complex, overlapping risk environments of racial/ethnic minorities who use opioids, including deeper inclusion of Indigenous and Asian individuals, and efforts to generate greater methodological synergies in population classification and reporting guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of patient-provider communication. Little is known about the role of SDM in health disparities among Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) sexual and gender minorities (SGM). We illustrate how issues at the intersection of AAPI and SGM identities affect SDM processes and health outcomes. We discuss experiences of AAPI SGM that are affected by AAPI heterogeneity, SGM stigma, multiple minority group identities, and sources of discrimination. Recommendations for clinical practice, research, policy, community development, and education are offered.

: Introduction: Incident HIV infections persist in the United States (U.S.) among marginalized populations. Targeted and cost‐efficient testing strategies can help in reaching HIV elimination. This analysis compares the effectiveness and cost of three HIV testing strategies in a high HIV burden area in the U.S. in identifying new HIV infections. Methods: We performed a cost analysis comparing three HIV testing strategies in Chicago: (1) routine screening (RS) in an inpatient and outpatient setting, (2) modified partner services (MPS) among networks of the recently HIV infected and diagnosed, and (3) a respondent drive sampling (RDS)‐based social network (SN) approach targeting young African‐American men who have sex with men. All occurred at the same academic medical centre during the following times: routine testing, 2011 to 2016; MPS, 2013 to 2016; SN: 2013 to 2014. Costs were in 2016 dollars and included personnel, HIV testing, training, materials, overhead. Outcomes included cost per test, HIV‐positive test and new diagnosis. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of population demographics. Results: The RS programme completed 57,308 HIV tests resulting in 360 (0.6%) HIV‐positive tests and 165 new HIV diagnoses (0.28%). The MPS completed 146 HIV tests, resulting in 79 (54%) HIV‐positive tests and eight new HIV diagnoses (5%). The SN strategy completed 508 HIV tests, resulting in 210 (41%) HIV‐positive tests and 37 new HIV diagnoses (7.2%). Labour accounted for the majority of costs in all strategies. The estimated cost per new HIV diagnosis was $16,773 for the RS programme, $61,418 for the MPS programme and $15,683 for the SN testing programme. These costs were reduced for the RS and MPS strategies in sensitivity analyses limiting testing efficacy to the highest prevalence patient populations ($2,841 and $33,233 respectively). Conclusions: The SN strategy yielded the highest proportion of new diagnoses, followed closely by the MPS programme. Both the SN strategy and RS programme were comparable in the cost per new diagnosis. A simultaneous approach that consists of RS in combination with SN testing may be most effective for identifying new HIV infections in settings with heterogeneous epidemics with both high rates of HIV prevalence and HIV testing., INTRODUCTION The United States (U.S.) continues to experience new HIV infections; the number of new HIV diagnoses remains stable at around 40,000 cases per year [1]. U.S. Health and Human [...]