Virtual Primary Care for People With Opioid Use Disorder: Scoping Review of Current Strategies, Benefits, and Challenges.

Abstract

Background: There is a pressing need to understand the implications of the rapid adoption of virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder. Potential impacts, including disruptions to opiate agonist therapies, and the prospect of improved service accessibility remain underexplored.

Objective: This scoping review synthesized current literature on virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder with a specific focus on benefits, challenges, and strategies.

Methods: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological approach for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting our findings. We conducted searches in MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, and Embase using our developed search strategy with no date restrictions. We incorporated all study types that included the 3 concepts (ie, virtual care, primary care, and people with opioid use disorder). We excluded research on minors, asynchronous virtual modalities, and care not provided in a primary care setting. We used Covidence to screen and extract data, pulling information on study characteristics, health system features, patient outcomes, and challenges and benefits of virtual primary care. We conducted inductive content analysis and calculated descriptive statistics. We appraised the quality of the studies using the Quality Assessment With Diverse Studies tool and categorized the findings using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Results: Our search identified 1474 studies. We removed 36.36% (536/1474) of these as duplicates, leaving 938 studies for title and abstract screening. After a double review process, we retained 3% (28/938) of the studies for extraction. Only 14% (4/28) of the studies were conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, and most (15/28, 54%) used quantitative methodologies. We summarized objectives and results, finding that most studies (18/28, 64%) described virtual primary care delivered via phone rather than video and that many studies (16/28, 57%) reported changes in appointment modality. Through content analysis, we identified that policies and regulations could either facilitate (11/28, 39%) or impede (7/28, 25%) the provision of care virtually. In addition, clinicians' perceptions of patient stability (5/28, 18%) and the heightened risks associated with virtual care (10/28, 36%) can serve as a barrier to offering virtual services. For people with opioid use disorder, increased health care accessibility was a noteworthy benefit (13/28, 46%) to the adoption of virtual visits, whereas issues regarding access to technology and digital literacy stood out as the most prominent challenge (12/28, 43%).

Conclusions: The available studies highlight the potential for enhancing accessibility and continuous access to care for people with opioid use disorder using virtual modalities. Future research and policies must focus on bridging gaps to ensure that virtual primary care does not exacerbate or entrench health inequities.