Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine has emerged as a popular evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder. Unfortunately, psychosocial stress, anxiety, pain, and co-morbid substance use increase patients' risk for relapse. We designed this study to compare the effects of complementing buprenorphine treatment with 24 weeks of a live-online Mindful Recovery Opioid Care Continuum (M-ROCC) group to a time and attention-matched, live-online Recovery Support Group (RSG) active control condition. METHODS: We plan to enroll a maximum of N = 280 and randomize at least N = 192 patients prescribed buprenorphine through referrals from office-based and telemedicine buprenorphine treatment providers and social media advertisements. Participants will be randomly assigned to M-ROCC or RSG and will be blinded to their treatment condition. The primary outcome for this study will be biochemically confirmed periods of abstinence from illicit opioids, as measured by self-reported use and randomly collected, video-observed oral fluid toxicology testing during the final 12 weeks of study participation. Secondary outcomes include changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety and pain interference scores between baseline and week 24. RESULTS: The trial was funded by the National Institutes of Health, HEAL Initiative through NCCIH (R33AT010125). Data collection is projected to end by September 2023, and we expect publication of results in 2024. CONCLUSION: If the M-ROCC intervention is found to be effective in this format, it will demonstrate that live-online mindfulness groups can improve outcomes and address common co-morbidities like anxiety and pain during buprenorphine treatment.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD. METHODS: A review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used. RESULTS: Seventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.

Migrants are at a higher risk for common mental health problems than the general population but are less likely to seek care. To improve access, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the integration of mental health services into primary care. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the types and characteristics of mental health services provided to migrants in primary care following resettlement in high-income countries. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Global Health, and other databases from 1 January 2000 to 15 April 2020. The inclusion criteria consisted of all studies published in English, reporting mental health services and practices for refugee, asylum seeker, or undocumented migrant populations, and were conducted in primary care following resettlement in high-income countries. The search identified 1627 citations and we included 19 studies. The majority of the included studies were conducted in North America. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed technology-assisted mental health screening, and one assessed integrating intensive psychotherapy and case management in primary care. There was a paucity of studies considering gender, children, seniors, and in European settings. More equity-focused research is required to improve primary mental health care in the context of global mental health.