Claudia Santelices, Warren Ferguson, Rebecca Rottapel, Ekaterina Pivovarova, Elizabeth Evans, Thomas Stopka, Peter Friedmann
{"title":"基于监狱的mod治疗的患者观点:监禁后返回社区的个人观点。","authors":"Claudia Santelices, Warren Ferguson, Rebecca Rottapel, Ekaterina Pivovarova, Elizabeth Evans, Thomas Stopka, Peter Friedmann","doi":"10.1186/s40352-025-00319-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Massachusetts passed legislation in 2018 to mandate provision of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in select jails to address the high risk of opioid overdose after release. Since 2019, we have conducted a Type-1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study of this program. We present findings on the perspectives and experiences of persons treated in these jails.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted qualitative analyses of semi-structured interviews that were conducted in 2022 with 38 adults released to the community who had been treated with MOUD while living in one of eight Massachusetts jails. The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework informed development of the interview guide and analysis of qualitative data. Deductive and inductive strategies were used for coding and analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants were 41.5 years old; predominantly male; 84.2% white, 23.7% Hispanic/Latino and 7.9% Black; and most continued taking MOUD. Thematic analysis focused on four code reports: Perception of Addiction/MOUD, Barriers/Facilitators, Impact of MOUD in Jails, and Stigma. Participants perceived that MOUD helped to prevent relapse. Prompt and consistent access to medication, and respectful treatment by healthcare and carceral staff were highlighted as facilitators. In contrast, some participants perceived that policy-centered rather than patient-centered treatment drove timing of medication initiation or response to medication changes. Insufficient staffing and the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to treatment delays. Overall, individuals incarcerated in jails that have expanded treatment eligibility to include earlier induction with MOUD generally felt more positive about their experience than individuals reporting delayed induction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants valued the ability of jail based MOUD programs to help clients achieve recovery from OUD. Their perceptions highlight the intrinsic value of MOUD programs that promote and support wellbeing through a person-centered approach to treatment. Participants stressed that MOUD programs should be patient-centered and guided by patients' symptoms and needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":37843,"journal":{"name":"Health and Justice","volume":"13 1","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016191/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient perspectives of jail based MOUD treatment: views of individuals who have returned to the community following incarceration.\",\"authors\":\"Claudia Santelices, Warren Ferguson, Rebecca Rottapel, Ekaterina Pivovarova, Elizabeth Evans, Thomas Stopka, Peter Friedmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40352-025-00319-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Massachusetts passed legislation in 2018 to mandate provision of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in select jails to address the high risk of opioid overdose after release. Since 2019, we have conducted a Type-1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study of this program. We present findings on the perspectives and experiences of persons treated in these jails.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted qualitative analyses of semi-structured interviews that were conducted in 2022 with 38 adults released to the community who had been treated with MOUD while living in one of eight Massachusetts jails. The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework informed development of the interview guide and analysis of qualitative data. Deductive and inductive strategies were used for coding and analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants were 41.5 years old; predominantly male; 84.2% white, 23.7% Hispanic/Latino and 7.9% Black; and most continued taking MOUD. Thematic analysis focused on four code reports: Perception of Addiction/MOUD, Barriers/Facilitators, Impact of MOUD in Jails, and Stigma. Participants perceived that MOUD helped to prevent relapse. Prompt and consistent access to medication, and respectful treatment by healthcare and carceral staff were highlighted as facilitators. In contrast, some participants perceived that policy-centered rather than patient-centered treatment drove timing of medication initiation or response to medication changes. Insufficient staffing and the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to treatment delays. Overall, individuals incarcerated in jails that have expanded treatment eligibility to include earlier induction with MOUD generally felt more positive about their experience than individuals reporting delayed induction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants valued the ability of jail based MOUD programs to help clients achieve recovery from OUD. Their perceptions highlight the intrinsic value of MOUD programs that promote and support wellbeing through a person-centered approach to treatment. Participants stressed that MOUD programs should be patient-centered and guided by patients' symptoms and needs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and Justice\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016191/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00319-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00319-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Patient perspectives of jail based MOUD treatment: views of individuals who have returned to the community following incarceration.
Background: Massachusetts passed legislation in 2018 to mandate provision of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in select jails to address the high risk of opioid overdose after release. Since 2019, we have conducted a Type-1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study of this program. We present findings on the perspectives and experiences of persons treated in these jails.
Methods: We conducted qualitative analyses of semi-structured interviews that were conducted in 2022 with 38 adults released to the community who had been treated with MOUD while living in one of eight Massachusetts jails. The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework informed development of the interview guide and analysis of qualitative data. Deductive and inductive strategies were used for coding and analyses.
Results: Participants were 41.5 years old; predominantly male; 84.2% white, 23.7% Hispanic/Latino and 7.9% Black; and most continued taking MOUD. Thematic analysis focused on four code reports: Perception of Addiction/MOUD, Barriers/Facilitators, Impact of MOUD in Jails, and Stigma. Participants perceived that MOUD helped to prevent relapse. Prompt and consistent access to medication, and respectful treatment by healthcare and carceral staff were highlighted as facilitators. In contrast, some participants perceived that policy-centered rather than patient-centered treatment drove timing of medication initiation or response to medication changes. Insufficient staffing and the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to treatment delays. Overall, individuals incarcerated in jails that have expanded treatment eligibility to include earlier induction with MOUD generally felt more positive about their experience than individuals reporting delayed induction.
Conclusions: Participants valued the ability of jail based MOUD programs to help clients achieve recovery from OUD. Their perceptions highlight the intrinsic value of MOUD programs that promote and support wellbeing through a person-centered approach to treatment. Participants stressed that MOUD programs should be patient-centered and guided by patients' symptoms and needs.
期刊介绍:
Health & Justice is open to submissions from public health, criminology and criminal justice, medical science, psychology and clinical sciences, sociology, neuroscience, biology, anthropology and the social sciences, and covers a broad array of research types. It publishes original research, research notes (promising issues that are smaller in scope), commentaries, and translational notes (possible ways of introducing innovations in the justice system). Health & Justice aims to: Present original experimental research on the area of health and well-being of people involved in the adult or juvenile justice system, including people who work in the system; Present meta-analysis or systematic reviews in the area of health and justice for those involved in the justice system; Provide an arena to present new and upcoming scientific issues; Present translational science—the movement of scientific findings into practice including programs, procedures, or strategies; Present implementation science findings to advance the uptake and use of evidence-based practices; and, Present protocols and clinical practice guidelines. As an open access journal, Health & Justice aims for a broad reach, including researchers across many disciplines as well as justice practitioners (e.g. judges, prosecutors, defenders, probation officers, treatment providers, mental health and medical personnel working with justice-involved individuals, etc.). The sections of the journal devoted to translational and implementation sciences are primarily geared to practitioners and justice actors with special attention to the techniques used.