Literature Collection

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opioid use and overdose remain a central and worsening public health emergency in the United States and abroad. Efforts to expand treatment have struggled to match the rising incidence of opioid use disorder (OUD), and treating patients in primary care settings represents one of the most promising opportunities to meet this need. Learning collaboratives (LCs) are one evidence-based strategy to improve implementation of medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in primary care. METHODS: We developed and studied a multidisciplinary MOUD learning collaborative involving six underserved primary care clinics. We used a mixed-methods approach to assess needs, develop curriculum, and evaluate outcomes from these clinics. RESULTS: We recruited six clinics to participate in the collaborative. Half had an established MOUD program. Approximately 80% of participants achieved their organizational quality improvement goals for the collaborative. After the collaborative, participants also reported a significant increase in their perceived competence to implement/improve a MOUD program (pre-LC competence=2.80, post-LC competence=6.33/10, P=.02). The most consistent barrier we identified was stigma around OUD and its effects on patients' ability to access services and staff/provider ability to provide services. The most frequent enablers of program success were trainee interest, organizational leadership support, and a dedicated MOUD care team. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations used clinical and systems improvement knowledge to enhance their existing programs or to take steps to create new programs. All participants identified the need for additional staff/clinician training, especially to overcome stigma around OUD. The outcomes demonstrated the crucial importance of long-term organizational support for program success.

INTRODUCTION: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are evidence-based treatments, yet can be controversial among some populations. This study provides a systematic review of prejudice and discrimination toward MOUD, a form of "intervention stigma," or stigma associated with a particular medical treatment. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was used in PsychInfo and PubMed to identify studies published between 1998 and 2018. Studies that empirically examined stigma toward MOUD were included if the manuscript was of moderate or high quality. Studies were analyzed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The search yielded 972 studies, of which 28 were included. Most studies utilized qualitative methods to examine intervention stigma toward methadone or buprenorphine, with one including naltrexone. Studies demonstrated that intervention stigma among healthcare providers was influenced by lack of training and abstinent treatment preferences. Providers equated MOUD with illicit substance use and at times refused to care for MOUD patients. Stigma among peer patients seeking treatment was also influenced by abstinent treatment preferences, and among the general public stigma was influenced by lack of MOUD knowledge. Intervention stigma was also driven at the policy level by high regulation of methadone, which fueled diversion and hindered social functioning among patients. Few studies indicated how to reduce intervention stigma toward MOUD. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention stigma affects both provision and perceptions of methadone and buprenorphine, decreasing access and utilization of MOUD. Future research should further develop and test MOUD stigma reduction interventions in a variety of social contexts to improve access to care and reduce patient barriers.

Background Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) are associated with important public health benefits. Program changes implemented in response to COVID-19 hold promise as ongoing strategies to improve MOUD treatment. Methods: MOUD patients on buprenorphine or methadone, providers, government regulators, and persons who use drugs not in MOUD were recruited in the Northeast region of the United States between June and October of 2020 via advertisements, fliers, and word of mouth. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Interviews were professionally transcribed and thematically coded by two independent coders. Results: We conducted interviews with 13 people currently on buprenorphine, 11 currently on methadone, 3 previously on buprenorphine, 4 previously on methadone, and 6 who used drugs but had never been on MOUD. In addition, we interviewed MOUD providers, clinic staff, and government officials at agencies that regulate MOUD. Most participants found increased take-home doses, home medication delivery, and telehealth implemented during COVID-19 to be favorable, reporting that these program changes reduced travel time to clinics, facilitated retention in care, and reduced stigma associated with clinic attendance. However, some participants reported negative consequences of COVID-19, most notably, decreased access to basic resources, such as food, clothing, and harm reduction materials that had previously been distributed at some MOUD clinics. Conclusion: Access to and retention in MOUD can be lifesaving for persons using drugs. COVID-19-impelled program changes, including increased take-home doses, home medication delivery, and telehealth generally improved participants' experiences with MOUD. Making these permanent could improve retention in care.

Increases in stimulant drug use (such as methamphetamine) and related deaths creates an imperative for community settings to adopt evidence-based practices to help people who use stimulants. Contingency management (CM) is a behavioral intervention with decades of research demonstrating efficacy for the treatment of stimulant use disorder, but real-world adoption has been slow, due to well-known implementation barriers, including difficulty funding reinforcers, and stigma. This paper describes the training and technical assistance (TTA) efforts and lessons learned for two state-wide stimulant-focused CM implementation projects in the Northwestern United States (Montana and Washington). A total of 154 providers from 35 community-based service sites received didactic training in CM beginning in 2021. Seventeen of these sites, ten of eleven in Montana (90.9%) and seven of 24 in Washington (29.2%), went on to implement contingency management programs adherent to their state's established CM protocol and received ongoing TTA in the form of implementation coaching calls. These findings illustrate that site-specific barriers such as logistical fit precluded implementation in more than 50% of the trained sites; however, strategies for site-specific tailoring within the required protocol aided implementation, resulting in successful CM program launch in a diverse cross-section of service sites across the states. The lessons learned add to the body of literature describing CM implementation barriers and solutions.

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is common among incarcerated persons and risk of overdose and other adverse drug-related consequences is high after release. Recognizing their potential to reduce these risks, some correctional systems are expanding access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This study explored the experiences and perspectives of formerly incarcerated individuals on MOUD use while incarcerated and after release. Methods: We interviewed 53 individuals with self-reported OUD who were released from New Jersey state prisons. Interviews explored motivations to use MOUD while incarcerated and after release, and experiences with prison-based MOUD and transition to community-based care. We performed cross-case analysis to examine common and divergent perspectives across participants. Results: A common reason for accepting prerelease MOUD was recognition of its effectiveness in preventing drug use, overdose, and other drug-related consequences. Participants who chose not to use MOUD often were focused on being completely medication-free or saw themselves as having relatively low-risk of substance use after a prolonged period without opioid use. A few participants reported challenges related to prison-based MOUD, including logistical barriers, stigma, and once-daily buprenorphine dosing. Most participants effectively transitioned to community-based care, but challenges included insurance lapses and difficulty locating providers. Conclusions: Many formerly incarcerated persons with OUD recognize the value of MOUD in supporting recovery, but some hold negative views of MOUD or underestimate the likelihood that they will return to drug use. Patient education on risks of post-release overdose, the role of MOUD in mitigating risk, and MOUD options available to them could increase engagement. Participants' generally positive experiences with MOUD support the expansion of correctional MOUD programs.

BACKGROUND: Most people with mental disorders, including those with severe and chronic disorders, are treated solely by their general practitioner (GP). Nevertheless, specialised mental health care may be required for specific patients. Notably, the accessibility of mental health specialist care is mainly complicated by (a) long waiting times for an appointment with specialists, (b) long travel distances to specialists, particularly in rural and remote areas, and (c) patients' reservations about mental health specialist care (including fear of being stigmatised by seeking such care). To mitigate those barriers, technology-based integrated care models have been proposed. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mental health specialist video consultations model versus treatment as usual in patients with depression or anxiety disorders in primary care. METHODS: In an individually randomised, prospective, two-arm superiority trial with parallel group design, N = 320 patients with anxiety and/or depressive disorder will be recruited in general practices in Germany. The intervention includes a newly developed treatment model based on video consultations with focus on diagnostics, treatment planning, and short-term intervention by mental health specialists. We will systematically compare the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and adverse effects of this new model with usual care by the GP: the primary outcome is the absolute change in the mean depressive and anxiety symptom severity measured on the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS) from baseline to 6 months after baseline assessment. Follow-up in both groups will be conducted by blinded outcome assessors at 6 months and 12 months after baseline. The main analysis will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. We will optimise the likelihood of treatment effectiveness by strict inclusion criteria for patients, enhanced intervention integrity, and conducting a process evaluation. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first confirmatory study on a video-based, integrated care model for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders in GP patients in Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, United States National Institutes of Health NCT04316572 . Prospectively registered on 20 March 2020.

Background: Treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly effective, but access is limited and care is often fragmented. Treatment in primary care can improve access to treatment and address psychiatric and physical co-morbidities in a holistic, efficient, and non-stigmatizing way. The Collaborative Care Model (CCM) of behavioral health integration into primary care has been widely disseminated and shown to improve outcomes and lower costs when studied for depression, but its use in treating substance use disorders has not been well documented. Methods: We used a mixed-methods approach to examine the impact of implementing multidisciplinary treatment of OUD in our health system's five primary care clinics using the framework of the CCM, with care shared between the primary care clinician (PCP), behavioral health clinician, and medical assistant. The implementation included staff education, creation of electronic health record tools, and implementation support, and was evaluated using data from the electronic health record, the medical staff office, and a clinician survey. Results: Over the last 2 years of implementation, the number of waivered providers increased from 11 to 35, providers prescribing for 5 or more patients increased from 2 to 18, and patients initiated on buprenorphine increased from 4/month to 18/month. 180-day treatment retention was 53%, and 81% of patients had consistently negative urine drug testing. Psychiatric and medical comorbidities were common, 70 and 44%, respectively. Although PCPs who prescribed buprenorphine found working in this model enjoyable and effective, the majority of non-waivered PCPs remained reluctant to participate. Conclusions: In our experience, treatment of OUD in primary care utilizing the CCM effectively addresses OUD and commonly comorbid anxiety and depression, and leads to an expansion of treatment. Successful implementation of OUD treatment requires addressing negative attitudes and perceptions.