Literature Collection

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.

Untreated co-occurring mental health disorders (MHD) and substance use disorders (SUD) are associated with negative treatment outcomes. This study explored the experiences and perspectives of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) who were using methamphetamine while undergoing methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) regarding barriers and facilitators to accessing MHD services. We conducted 30 in-depth interviews with MMT participants with varying levels of MHD severity, assessed using the 21-item Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS-21). Barriers to seeking MHD services included lack of awareness, fear of additional stigma and extra burden to families, unaddressed poly-substance use, and lack of specialized professionals. Benefits of integrating MHD services into MMT clinics included improved diagnosis, streamlined referrals, and reduced logistical challenges. Key facilitators identified included supportive family members, healthcare professionals, and digital platforms. Integrating MHD care into MMT, emphasizing family involvement, staff training, and digital platforms, holds promise to improve MHD diagnosis, referral, and treatment.

BACKGROUND: There is an increased risk of mood changes in perimenopause, and evidence that patients and GPs may overlook this association. Evidence also shows that GPs have a lack of confidence in managing perimenopausal symptoms. AIM: To examine clinical consultations for patients in the perimenopausal age range who were presenting with mental health symptoms, and the experiences of GPs providing care to such patients. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative study was undertaken in one integrated care system in south-west England. It involved 18 women aged 45-55 years, who had consulted with their GP about a mental health symptom in the previous 6 months, and 11 GPs. METHOD: Participants were recruited between February 2023 and August 2023. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, and thematic analysis was used to identify recurring patterns and key insights regarding consultation practices, patient-GP communication, and gaps in education and training. RESULTS: Women either did not recognise perimenopause or were uncertain whether it contributed to their mental health symptoms, and felt inhibited or embarrassed about raising the issue. GPs reported using variable approaches to asking about perimenopausal symptoms and acknowledged that there were gaps in their training. Time constraints and the stigma surrounding menopause further hindered consultations. CONCLUSION: Addressing mental health symptoms during perimenopause requires a proactive and informed approach in primary care. Improved GP training on menopause, coupled with patient education to increase awareness and confidence, could improve consultations and the management of mental health symptoms experienced during perimenopause.

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.

The opioid overdose epidemic continues to disproportionately impact underserved rural areas throughout the nation, with many of these rural areas experiencing greater opioid-related mortality rates than their urban counterparts. With limited treatment infrastructure and resources, two rural communities in Southeast Utah utilized community-based participatory research collaboration principles to develop, implement, and evaluate a series of evidence-based community opioid education events. This practical and quantitative study surveying 123 participants describes the collaborative efforts of two rural communities in addressing the devastating impacts of the opioid overdose epidemic and reflects on the success of the events via descriptive analysis of summary data. These events increased participants' reported perceptions of and knowledge in four main education areas: stigma reduction, prevention and treatment awareness, naloxone education and use, and resource location awareness. Post-event surveys further supported these results, revealing improved learning in each of these four areas, indicating increased knowledge toward opioid use disorder treatments and stigma reduction. In addition, participants identified key takeaways such as local resource awareness and dismantling stigma as effective strategies to reduce the negative effects of the opioid overdose epidemic. This model for rural community education supports previous research and serves as an effective strategy of public health practice to address the opioid overdose epidemic on a local level.

Background: The opioid crisis is a public health emergency in the United States, particularly in rural Pennsylvania. Stigma in rural communities is a treatment barrier and impacts harm reduction programming availability.Objectives: The current study utilized an observational, cross-sectional design to examine latent subgroups of stigma and differences in support for harm reduction strategies (i.e., safe injection facilities, syringe services programs, fentanyl test strips, Naloxone distribution). Participants included rural Pennsylvanians (n = 252), taken from a statewide survey of opioid use disorder (OUD) stigma. Participants reported OUD public stigma (i.e., attitudes/perceptions about OUD, willingness to engage with individuals with OUD) and support for harm reduction strategies.Results: Latent class analysis identified 4 stigma classes: 1) high stigma (HS), 2) high judgment/low stigmatizing behavior (HJ/LB), 3) high stigmatizing behavior/low stigmatizing attitude (HB/LA), and 4) low stigma (LS). ANCOVAs identified subgroup differences in harm reduction support. The HS group indicated less support for safe injection sites, syringe services programs, and fentanyl test strips, compared to the HB/LA and LS groups. The HS group indicated less support for Naloxone distribution compared to the HJ/LB, HB/LA, and LS groups. Lastly, the HJ/LB group indicated less support for each program compared to the LS group.Conclusions/Importance: Findings highlight that OUD stigma profiles differ across rural Pennsylvania and are associated with varying support for harm reduction strategies. Individuals with less stigma report more support for harm reduction strategies. Interventions to implement harm reduction strategies should consider varying levels of stigma and use a targeted approach to inform implementation and messaging strategies.

Background: In the US, seventy percent of drug-related deaths are attributed to opioids. In response to the ongoing opioid crisis, New Jersey's (NJ) Medicaid program implemented the MATrx model to increase treatment access for Medicaid participants with opioid use disorder (OUD). The model's goals include increasing the number of office-based treatment providers, enhancing Medicaid reimbursement for certain treatment services, and elimination of prior authorizations for OUD medications.Objectives: To explore office-based addiction treatment providers' experiences delivering care in the context of statewide policy changes and their perspectives on treatment access changes and remaining barriers.Methods: This qualitative study used purposive sampling to recruit office-based New Jersey medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) providers . Twenty-two providers (11 females, 11 males) discussed treatment experiences since the policy changes in 2019, including evaluations of the current state of OUD care in New Jersey and perceived outcomes of the MATrx model policy changes.Results: Providers reported the MOUD climate in NJ improved as Medicaid implemented policies intended to reduce barriers to care and increase treatment access. Elimination of prior authorizations was noted as important, as it reduced provider burden and allowed greater focus on care delivery. However, barriers remained, including stigma, pharmacy supply issues, and difficulty obtaining injectable or non-generic medication formulations.Conclusion: NJ policies may have improved access to care for Medicaid beneficiaries by reducing barriers to care and supporting providers in prescribing MOUD. Yet, stigma and lack of psychosocial supports still need to be addressed to further improve access and care quality.

More than 2 million Americans have an opioid use disorder (OUD). Although untreated OUD is devastating, most persons who are treated achieve remission, particularly with opioid agonist therapy (OAT), which includes such medications as methadone and buprenorphine. Each year, 12.5 million buprenorphine prescriptions are filled in the United States and 350 000 persons receive methadone (1, 2). This growing population has unique health needs, with higher prevalence of conditions that may require organ transplant, such as hepatitis C. Yet, persons with OUD may be deemed ineligible for transplant, even when they are successfully treated with OAT (3, 4).

The field of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) has its roots in the principles, promulgated by Dame Cicely Saunders, that patient and family are the unit of care and that comprehensive integration of physical, psychological, social, and spiritual care is necessary to address suffering in all its dimensions. Although we aspire to provide comprehensive care for our patients, most hospice and palliative care (HPM) physicians lack basic competencies for identifying and managing patients with psychological distress and mental health distress and disorders, a growing segment of our clinical population. In this article, I argue that we are not living up to the founding values of our field in how we practice, how we educate our trainees, our research, and in how we pursue our own professional development as faculty. The history of our field, the nature of our clinical workforce, the culture of PC, and our educational programs all contribute to our current practice model, which is not adequate to meet the mental health needs of our patients. I propose strategies to address these challenges focused on enhancing integration between psychiatry/psychology and HPM, changes in fellowship education and faculty development, addressing the stigma against people with mental health diagnoses, and addressing system and cultural challenges that limit our ability to provide the kind of comprehensive, integrative care that our field aspires to.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for opioid use disorder involving opioid-based pharmacotherapies is considered most effective when accompanied by psychosocial interventions. Peer-led support groups are widely available and have been described by many as fundamental to the recovery process. However, some individuals using medications face stigma in these settings, which can be contradictory and counterproductive to their recovery. METHODS: This paper describes the development of the "Ability, Inspiration and Motivation" or "AIM" group, an alternative peer support group that aims to remove medication stigma from peer recovery. Qualitative interviews with staff, peers, and clients of a community-based buprenorphine treatment program were used to establish the core components of the curriculum to support client needs. RESULTS: Staff, peers, and clients of the buprenorphine program indicated a need and desire to establish a peer recovery group that recognizes persons on medication as being in recovery and destigmatizes use of medication to treat opioid addiction. A respectful environment, holistic perspective on health, spirituality, sharing, and celebration were all established as necessary pillars of the AIM group curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: The community-based effort to establish and develop the AIM group demonstrates that combining the strengths of a peer support with evidence-based medication treatment is both possible and desirable. Shifting the culture of peer recovery groups to support the use of medications may have implications for improving treatment retention and should be considered as a potential strategy to reduce the burden of the opioid epidemic.