Substance use & addiction journal最新文献

{"title":"Perceptions of Primary Care Among Women in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Vanessa L Short, Kathleen Spritzer, Gregory A Jaffe, Matt Sabitsky, Diane Abatemarco, Kim McLaughlin, Dennis J Hand, Meghan Gannon","doi":"10.1177/29767342241253129","DOIUrl":"10.1177/29767342241253129","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Underutilization of primary care and receipt of preventive health services have been reported among women with opioid use disorder. The aim of this study was to describe perceptions of primary care among women in treatment for opioid use disorder.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between May and June 2022, 27 women who were receiving treatment for opioid use disorder from one opioid treatment program participated in this study. Participants completed one data collection session which involved a brief questionnaire followed by a semi-structured interview. Participants were asked questions about their overall experience with primary care as well as perceived facilitators and barriers to primary care utilization and quality. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three themes emerged from the interviews within the domain of \"Facilitators to Primary Care,\" including: (1) coordination of care, (2) continuity of care, and (3) relationship with health care providers. Four themes emerged from the interviews within the domain of \"Barriers to Primary Care,\" including: (1) perceived judgment from health care providers, (2) childcare needs, (3) issues related to location, and (4) issues related to time.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Approaches to primary care that help alleviate barriers to care and highlight the aspects of care that are valued may improve quality and utilization of care, thus enhancing the health and well-being of a vulnerable population.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140923528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Association of Opioid and Concurrent Benzodiazepine, Skeletal Muscle Relaxant, and Gabapentinoid Usage on Healthcare Expenditure and Resource Utilization: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study, 2009 to 2019.","authors":"Aryana Sepassi, Meng Li, Kangho Suh, Britney Stottlemyer, Mark Bounthavong","doi":"10.1177/29767342241247372","DOIUrl":"10.1177/29767342241247372","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare providers may be utilizing central nervous system (CNS) depressants to reduce opioid use due to recent changes in public policy. Combination use of these agents with opioids increases the risk of respiratory depression and death. Healthcare expenditures by individuals using these drug combinations have not been previously quantified. We sought to characterize healthcare costs and expenditures associated with a population reporting concurrent CNS depressants and opioid use compared with nonopioid analgesics in the United States from 2009 to 2019.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A serial cross-sectional design was used to compare the healthcare expenditures of adult Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents who were prescribed nonopioid analgesics, opioids only, opioids/benzodiazepines (BZD), opioids/BZD/skeletal muscle relaxants (SMR), or opioids/gabapentin (gaba) using pooled data from 2009 to 2019. Expenditure (cost and resource utilization) categories included inpatient, outpatient, office-based, and prescription medicine. Average marginal effects were used to compare survey-weighted annual costs and resource utilizations across the groups as compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents, adjusted for covariates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A weighted total of 34 241 838 individuals were identified. Most were opioid-only respondents (46.5%), followed by nonopioid analgesic (43.4%), opioid/BZD (5.3%), opioid-gaba (3.5%), and opioid/BZD/SMR respondents (1.3%). In comparison to the study groups with nonopioid analgesics, opioid-gaba users had the highest significant incremental cost difference among the different pairings (+$11 684, <i>P</i> < .001). Opioid-gaba, opioid/BZD, and opioid/BZD/SMR respondents had significantly higher inpatient, emergency department, and prescription drug costs and use compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents. Opioid-only respondents had higher outpatient and office-based costs and visits compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As healthcare providers seek to utilize fewer opioids for pain management, attention must be paid to ensuring safe and effective use of concurrent CNS depressants to mitigate high healthcare costs and burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140878386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Characterizing the Use of Healthcare Access Supports Among People Who Use Drugs in Vancouver, Canada, 2017 to 2020: A Cohort Study.","authors":"Kanna Hayashi, Gabrielle Rabu, Zishan Cui, Sukhpreet Klaire, Fahmida Homayra, Michael-John Milloy, Bohdan Nosyk","doi":"10.1177/29767342241249870","DOIUrl":"10.1177/29767342241249870","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For structurally marginalized populations, including people who use drugs (PWUD), equitable access to healthcare can be achieved through healthcare access supports. However, few studies characterized utilization of formal (eg, outreach workers, healthcare professionals) and informal (eg, friends/family) supports. Therefore, we sought to estimate the prevalence of and factors associated with receiving each type of support among PWUD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from 2 prospective cohort studies of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, in 2017 to 2020. We constructed separate multivariable generalized linear mixed-effects models to identify factors associated with receiving each of the 3 types of supports (ie, healthcare professionals, outreach workers/peer navigators, and informal supports) compared to no supports.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 996 participants, 350 (35.1%) reported receiving supports in the past 6 months at baseline, through informal supports (6.2%), outreach workers (14.1%), and healthcare professionals (20.9%). In multivariable analyses, HIV positivity, chronic pain, and avoiding healthcare due to the past mistreatment were positively associated with receiving supports from each of healthcare professionals and outreach workers. Men were less likely to receive any types of the supports (all <i>P</i> < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Utilization of healthcare access supports was relatively low in this sample. However, formal supports appeared to have reached PWUD exhibiting more comorbidities and experiencing discrimination in healthcare. Further efforts to make formal supports more available would benefit PWUD with unmet healthcare needs, particularly men.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141159305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Impact of Perceived Access and Treatment Knowledge on Medication Preferences for Opioid Use Disorder.","authors":"Kaitlyn Jaffe, Shivam Patel, Liying Chen, Stephanie Slat, Amy Bohnert, Pooja Lagisetty","doi":"10.1177/29767342241254591","DOIUrl":"10.1177/29767342241254591","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) are effective, but most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive treatment. Prior research has explored patients' structural barriers to access and perceptions of MOUD. Little research has considered treatment knowledge and perceptions outside of the patient population. Members of the public without OUD themselves (eg, family, friends) can significantly influence treatment decisions of persons with OUD. Considering these gaps, we conducted an original survey with a diverse sample of US adults to explore knowledge and preferences toward OUD treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an online survey with 1505 White, Black, and Latino/a Americans including a small percentage (8.5%) with self-reported lifetime OUD. The survey used vignettes to describe hypothetical patients with OUD, provide basic treatment information (ie, methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, nonmedication treatment), and then assessed treatment preferences. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between covariates of interest (eg, perceived access, knowledge, demographics) and preference for MOUD versus nonmedication treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 523 White, 502 Black, and 480 Latino/a respondents. Across racial/ethnic subsamples, respondents had the greatest knowledge of nonmedication treatments, with Black (72.7%) and Latino/a (70.2%) respondents having significantly greater knowledge compared to White respondents (61.8%). However, after viewing the vignette, a greater proportion of respondents chose methadone (35.8%) or buprenorphine (34.8%) as their first-choice treatment for hypothetical patients. Multivariable logistic regression suggested that among Black respondents, those with knowledge of nonmedication treatment were more likely to choose MOUD than those without knowledge (odds ratio = 2.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.34-4.34). Perceived treatment access did not affect treatment choice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Across racial groups, knowledge and perceived access to nonmedication treatment was greater than for MOUD, but many still selected MOUD as a first-choice treatment. Significant findings emphasized the importance of treatment knowledge around decision-making, highlighting opportunities for tailored education efforts to improve uptake of evidence-based treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141201503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Average Daily Dose Trajectories for Episodes of Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.","authors":"Corey J Hayes, Bradley C Martin, Katherine J Hoggatt, Michael A Cucciare, Teresa J Hudson, Adam J Gordon","doi":"10.1177/29767342241263161","DOIUrl":"10.1177/29767342241263161","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-dose (≥24 mg) buprenorphine daily doses (BDD) may be important in treating patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to improve retention and prevent overdose, particularly in the context of increased illicit fentanyl use. This study sought to: (1) identify trajectories for average BDD among patients initiating buprenorphine treatment for OUD and (2) assess patient characteristics associated with these identified trajectories.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Buprenorphine treatment episodes among patients in the US Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) from federal fiscal years 2006 to 2020 were identified. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) was used to identify BDD trajectories based on weekly averages of BDD over the 180 days after buprenorphine episode initiation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 79 303 buprenorphine treatment episodes among 44 583 patients were included in the analytic sample. GBTM identified 9 latent trajectories for BDD: (1) moderate dose, early discontinuation (10.1%), (2) moderate dose, delayed discontinuation (4.5%), (3) moderate dose, moderate-paced discontinuation (5.2%), (4) low-moderate dose, delayed discontinuation (7.0%), and (5) low-moderate dose, early discontinuation (21.1%), (6) low dose retention (9.6%), (7) low-moderate dose retention (16.7%), (8) moderate dose retention (18.6%), and (9) high dose retention (7.4%). Patient BDD can broadly be characterized as low [2-4 mg/day], low-moderate (6-8 mg/day), moderate (12-18 mg/day), and high dose (≥ 24 mg/day). Patients with episodes in the high BDD trajectory have the lowest social risk (eg, lowest rate of past-year history of homelessness) and the lowest diagnosed rate of physical and mental health-related comorbidities compared to those following other trajectories.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>BDD ranges widely and patient characteristics are significantly different between those episodes following differing BDD trajectories. Future research on the association between BDD and subsequent patient outcomes (eg, overdose) needs to carefully consider these differences in baseline characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141790814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing HIV Testing and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Substance Use Treatment Programs: Perspectives of Non-medical Staff.","authors":"Maria Christina Herrera, Anjali Mahajan, Stephen Bonett, Shoshana Aronowitz, Jose Bauermeister, Daniel Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.1177/29767342241274077","DOIUrl":"10.1177/29767342241274077","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People with substance use disorder (SUD) are at increased risk of HIV infection. HIV testing and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are evidence-based practices to prevent HIV infection, yet these approaches are not regularly provided in SUD treatment programs. To address this evidence-to-practice gap, this study aimed to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing PrEP services in SUD treatment programs from the perspective of non-medical staff and administrators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted from February to June 2022 with non-medical staff (N = 10) and administrators (N = 11) from 3 academic and 8 community-based SUD treatment programs in Philadelphia. Interview guides were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Qualitative descriptive techniques were used to examine interview data and identify key facilitators and barriers, which were grouped within CFIR domains and constructs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 11 SUD treatment programs, 5 provided PrEP services. Most interviewees at programs without PrEP services reported high levels of receptivity to implementing PrEP and identified leadership engagement as a key determinant, but several lacked comfort with PrEP counseling. Inner setting facilitators included compatibility with workflows (eg, intake assessments), alignment with cultures of holistic care, and programs' longstanding community trust. Inner setting barriers included limited time to discuss PrEP, insufficient resources and staff (eg, phlebotomy), perception of clients' HIV risk, and lower prioritization of HIV prevention versus other services. Intervention facilitators included robust evidence and addressing costs through grants and drug pricing programs, and barriers included the time needed to initiate PrEP, loss to follow-up, and HIV stigma.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Successful implementation of HIV testing and PrEP in SUD treatment programs requires addressing multi-level barriers. Including perspectives of non-medical staff and administrators is important for implementation. Potential strategies include supporting organizational networks, leveraging peer specialists' expertise, and packaging PrEP to better meet client priorities and needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142134994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"\"Politics Versus Policy\": Qualitative Insights on Stigma and Overdose Prevention Center Policymaking in the United States.","authors":"Kristin Koehm, Joseph G Rosen, Jesse L Yedinak Gray, Jessica Tardif, Erin Thompson, Ju Nyeong Park","doi":"10.1177/29767342241253663","DOIUrl":"10.1177/29767342241253663","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Federal, state, and municipal governments in the United States have been reluctant to authorize overdose prevention centers (OPCs), which are evidence-based approaches for preventing overdose deaths and blood-borne pathogen transmission.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From July 2022 to February 2023, we explored how stigma manifests in OPC policymaking by conducting in-depth interviews with 17 advocates, legislators, service providers, and researchers involved with OPC advocacy and policymaking in Rhode Island, California, Pennsylvania, and New York.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that although jurisdictions differed in their OPC policymaking experiences, stigma manifested throughout the process, from planning to authorization. Participants described OPCs as a tool for destigmatizing overdose and substance use, yet confronted institutionalized stigma and discriminatory attitudes toward people who use drugs (PWUD) and harm reduction from multiple sources (eg, politicians, media, and members of the public). Opposition toward OPCs and harm reduction approaches more broadly intersected with public discourse on crime, homelessness, and public disorder. Employed stigma-mitigation strategies included humanizing PWUD, publicizing the benefits of OPCs to the wider community, and strategically engaging media.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings illustrate the importance of understanding stigma at different stages of the policymaking process to better facilitate authorization and eventual implementation of OPCs in the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11458346/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141159278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Post-Overdose Extended-Release Buprenorphine Initiation Facilitated by a Partnership Between Emergency Medical Services and an Outpatient Substance Use Disorder Observation Unit.","authors":"Jessica L Taylor, Jacqueline Gott, Karrin Weisenthal, Paige Colicchio, Sophia Dyer, Miriam S Komaromy","doi":"10.1177/29767342241249386","DOIUrl":"10.1177/29767342241249386","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People who experience a nonfatal opioid overdose and receive naloxone are at high risk of subsequent overdose death but experience gaps in access to medications for opioid use disorder. The immediate post-naloxone period offers an opportunity for buprenorphine initiation. Limited data indicate that buprenorphine administration by emergency medical services (EMS) after naloxone overdose reversal is safe and feasible. We describe a case in which a partnership between a low-barrier substance use disorder (SUD) observation unit and EMS allowed for buprenorphine initiation with extended-release injectable buprenorphine after naloxone overdose reversal.</p><p><strong>Case: </strong>A man in his 40's with severe opioid use disorder and numerous prior opioid overdoses experienced overdose in the community. EMS was activated and he was successfully resuscitated with intranasal naloxone, administered by bystanders and EMS. He declined emergency department (ED) transport and consented to transport to a 24/7 SUD observation unit. The patient elected to start buprenorphine due to barriers attending opioid treatment programs daily. His largest barrier was unsheltered homelessness. His severe opioid withdrawal symptoms were successfully treated with 16/4 mg sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone and 300 mg extended-release injectable buprenorphine (XR-buprenorphine), without precipitated withdrawal. Two weeks later, he reported no interval fentanyl use.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We describe the case of a patient successfully initiated onto XR-buprenorphine in the immediate post-naloxone period via a partnership between an outpatient low-barrier addiction programs and EMS. Such partnerships offer promise in expanding buprenorphine access and medication choice, particularly for the high-risk population of patients who decline ED transport.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140913658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Stress Exposure and PTSD in a Cross-Sectional Residential Substance Use Treatment Sample.","authors":"Rebecca L Schacht, Laurel E Meyer, Kevin R Wenzel, Meghan E Mette, Samantha K Berg, Christa R Lewis, Jennifer L Carrano, Marc Fishman","doi":"10.1177/29767342241248978","DOIUrl":"10.1177/29767342241248978","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Aim 1 of this cross-sectional, observational study with people in residential treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) was to document stress exposure. Aim 2 was to assess potential sociodemographic and health differences based on probable posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) status. Aim 3 was to assess relative contributions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-congruent versus DSM-incongruent stressors (Criterion A vs non-Criterion A) to mental and physical health. We hypothesized that both types of stressors would significantly contribute to impairment across indicators and that DSM-congruent stressor exposure would be more strongly associated with impairment than DSM-incongruent exposure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed exposure to DSM-congruent traumatic stressors and DSM-incongruent life stressors, PTSD and depressive symptoms, emotion regulation difficulties, substance use recovery capital, and physical/mental health-related quality of life among 136 people in residential SUD treatment who were 64% men, 36% women; 49% white, 41% Black, 11% multiracial/another race; 18% lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB+); mean age = 39.82 (standard deviation = 12.24) years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants reported experiencing a mean of 9.76 (SD = 6.11) DSM-congruent events. Those with probable PTSD were younger and more likely to be LGB+ than those without probable PTSD (<i>P</i> < .05). Experiencing higher numbers of DSM-congruent events was associated with more severe PTSD and depressive symptoms, emotion regulation difficulties, and lower physical health-related quality of life (<i>P</i> < .05). DSM-incongruent stressor exposure was not independently associated with any indicators. Recovery capital was not associated with either type of stress exposure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Stressful event exposure among people in residential SUD treatment is very high. Those who are younger or LGB+ in residential SUD treatment may be at greater risk of developing PTSD. DSM-congruent stressors are more consistently associated with mental health indicators than are DSM-incongruent stressors. Prioritizing treatment targets and identifying implementable treatment strategies can be challenging with this complex population.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140878387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"U.S. Healthcare Workers' Perspective of Outpatient Provision of Methadone: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Sara E Hernandez, Aaron M Gilson, Te-Lien Ku, Michele Gassman, James H Ford","doi":"10.1177/29767342241262115","DOIUrl":"10.1177/29767342241262115","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A recent National Institute on Drug Addiction Call to Action focused on expanding methadone treatment access for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). One research priority identified was optimal educational and support structures, including training to provide methadone across multiple healthcare settings (e.g., primary care, opioid treatment programs [OTPs], pharmacies) and healthcare workers (HCWs) (e.g., providers, pharmacists). This scoping review sought to better understand HCWs' knowledge, attitudes, and stigma as it relates to methadone provision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science) were searched for publications between 2010 and 2022 using keywords-methadone, HCW, outpatient setting, knowledge, attitudes, and stigma, focusing on HCWs in general and pharmacists specifically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,747 articles were identified and 14 met inclusion criteria for review. Settings included OTPs (n = 4), specialty addiction treatment clinics (n = 3), community pharmacies (n = 2), and multiple settings (n = 5). All articles (n = 14) examined methadone-related attitudes. Despite approval of methadone in 1972 to treat OUD, four articles illustrated continued methadone-related stigma held by HCWs. In response to COVID-19-related policy changes allowing methadone take-home flexibility, OTP clinicians expressed a range of attitudes concerning patient risk and potential program liability around diversion and misuse. One article assessing knowledge suggested that, even when most pharmacists correctly answered knowledge questions, a significant minority had misunderstandings that could undermine effective treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given the current imbalance between methadone treatment demand and availability, there is a critical need to expand outpatient methadone services. Pharmacists partnering with OTPs represent a logical but underutilized access point. We identified key areas to improve HCWs methadone-related knowledge, attitudes, and stigma. Future research should explore the impact of outpatient pharmacy-OTP and other expansion services, and systematic training, education, and evaluation of methadone-related understanding, including assessment tools to measure knowledge, attitudes, and stigma.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141790816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}