Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) utilizes telemedicine to connect a multidisciplinary team of experts with a -network of primary care physicians to enable rapid dissemination of evidence-based -guidelines and practices at scale. In this study, the Project ECHO model disseminated the Arizona Pain and Addiction Curriculum to providers in rural Arizona with the goal to educate providers on medication-assisted treatment (MAT). METHODS: Participants engaged in biweekly, virtual teleECHO sessions, and post-session surveys were used to collect data on provider satisfaction, self-efficacy, knowledge, barriers to change, and changes in practice behavior. RESULTS: Between February 2020 and November 2020, the MAT-ECHO program hosted 20 teleECHO sessions (N = 20) with 255 unique participating providers and delivered 877 learning hours. Analysis of a 6-month post-ECHO survey (N = 13) demonstrated that teleECHO sessions had broad geographic outreach. Participants had an average of 12 years of experience, 38 percent held NP/PA professional degrees, and 54 percent practiced in opioid treatment program settings. Assessment of job satisfaction and well-being revealed overall improved satisfaction among the small cohort of nonwaivered respondents (N = 8), except for meeting patient's needs. MAT-waivered respondents reported no post-session changes. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study demonstrated that teleECHO sessions were well attended, consisted of a diverse cohort with various degrees, and had broad geographic outreach; hence, the utilization of the teleECHO model has the potential to reach rural providers and subsequently increase the availability and -efficacy of MAT in rural America.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a highly effective medication for opioid use disorder that is underused by health care professionals (HCPs). Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) misinformation may be an important barrier to buprenorphine access, but most implementation strategies have aimed to reduce negative attitudes towards patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) rather than misinformation specific to buprenorphine use. In this study, we assessed the degree to which HCPs endorsed misinformation related to buprenorphine, and whether this is associated with willingness to provide care to patients with OUD. METHODS: In September-December of 2022, we surveyed HCPs practicing in Ohio (n = 409). Our primary outcomes included a previously validated 5-item measure of HCP willingness to treat patients with OUD, and three other measures of willingness. Our key independent variable was a study-developed 5-item measure of endorsement of misinformation related to buprenorphine, which assessed beliefs in buprenorphine's efficacy in managing withdrawal symptoms and reducing overdose deaths as well as beliefs about the role of buprenorphine in achieving remission. We computed descriptive and bivariable statistics and fit regression models predicting each outcome of interest. RESULTS: On average, HCPs scored 2.34 out of 5.00 (SD = 0.80) on the composite measure of buprenorphine misinformation. 48.41% of participants endorsed at least one piece of misinformation. The most endorsed items were that buprenorphine is ineffective at reducing overdose deaths (M = 2.75, SD =0 .98), and that its use substitutes one drug for another (M = 2.41, SD = 1.25). HCP endorsement of buprenorphine misinformation significantly and negatively predicted willingness to work with patients with OUD (b = - 0.34; 95% CI - 0.46, - 0.21); intentions to increase time spent with this patient population (b = - 0.36; 95% CI - 5.86, - 1.28); receipt of an X-waiver (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38, 0.77); and intention to get an X-waiver (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Misinformation is common among HCPs and associated with lower willingness to treat patients with OUD. Implementation strategies to increase MOUD use among HCPs should specifically counter misinformation related to buprenorphine. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05505227. Registered 17 August 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05505227.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for opioid misuse and treatment for opioid use disorder are critical for reducing morbidity and mortality. We sought to understand the extent of self-reported past 30-day buprenorphine use in various settings among women of reproductive age with self-reported nonmedical prescription opioid use being assessed for substance use problems. METHODS: The study collected data from individuals being assessed for substance use problems using the Addiction Severity Index-Multimedia Version in 2018-2020. We stratified the sample of 10,196 women ages 12-55 self-reporting past 30-day nonmedical prescription opioid use by buprenorphine use and setting type. We categorized setting types as: buprenorphine in specialty addiction treatment, buprenorphine in office-based opioid treatment, and diverted buprenorphine. We included each woman's first intake assessment during the study period. The study assessed number of buprenorphine products, reasons for using buprenorphine, and sources of buprenorphine procurement. The study calculated frequency of reasons for using buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder outside of a doctor-managed treatment, overall and by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Overall, 25.5 % of the sample used buprenorphine in specialty addiction treatment, 6.1 % used buprenorphine prescribed in office-based treatment, 21.7 % used diverted buprenorphine, and 46.7 % reported no buprenorphine use during the past 30 days. Among women who reported using buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, but not as part of a doctor-managed treatment, 72.3 % could not find a provider or get into a treatment program, 21.8 % did not want to be part of a program or see a provider, and 6.0 % reported both; a higher proportion of American Indian/Alaska Native women (92.1 %) reported that they could not find a provider or get into a treatment program versus non-Hispanic White (78.0 %), non-Hispanic Black (76.0 %), and Hispanic (75.0 %) women. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate screening for nonmedical prescription opioid use to assess need for treatment with medication for opioid use disorder is important for all women of reproductive age. Our data highlight opportunities to improve treatment program accessibility and availability and support the need to increase equitable access for all women.

BACKGROUND: For a decade, experts have suggested integrating mental health care into primary care to help bridge mental health Treatment Gap. General Practitioners (GPs) are the first port-of-call for many patients with mental ill-health. In Indonesia, the WHO mhGAP is being systematically introduced to its network of 10,000 primary care clinics as an add-on mental health training for pairs of GPs and Nurses, since the end of 2015. In one of 34 provinces, there exists an integrated care model: the co-location of clinical psychologists in primary care clinics. This trial evaluates patient outcomes among those provided mental health care by GPs with those treated by clinical psychologists in primary care. METHODS: In this partially-randomised, pragmatic, two-arm cluster non-inferiority trial, 14 primary care clinics were assigned to receive the WHO mhGAP training and 14 clinics with the co-location framework were assigned to the Specialist arm. Participants (patients) were blinded to the existence of the other pathway, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. All adult primary care patients who screened positive for psychiatric morbidity were eligible. GPs offered psychosocial and/or pharmacological interventions and Clinical Psychologists offered psychosocial interventions. The primary outcome was health and social functioning as measured by the HoNOS and secondary outcomes include disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, and resource use and costs evaluated from a health services perspective, at six months. RESULTS: 153 patients completed the outcome assessment following GP care alongside 141 patients following Clinical Psychologists care. Outcomes of GP care were proven to be statistically not inferior to Clinical Psychologists in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Economic analyses indicate lower costs and better outcomes in the Specialist arm and suggest a 50% probability of WHO mhGAP framework being cost-effective at the Indonesian willingness to pay threshold per QALY. CONCLUSION: General Practitioners supported by nurses in primary care clinics could effectively manage mild to moderate mental health issues commonly found among primary care patients. They provide non-stigmatising mental health care within community context, helping to reduce the mental health Treatment Gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02700490.

BACKGROUND: As the legalization of recreational cannabis becomes more widespread, its impact on individuals with substance use disorders must be studied. Amidst an ongoing opioid crisis, Canada's legalization of recreational cannabis in October 2018 provides an important setting for investigation. We examined changes to cannabis use patterns in patients receiving medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) following legalization. METHODS: This study includes cross-sectional data from 602 participants recruited 6 months pre-legalization and 788 participants recruited 6 months post-legalization, providing information on cannabis use. Regression analysis was used to estimate the association between legalization and cannabis use patterns. We collected longitudinal urine drug screens (UDSs) detecting cannabis-metabolites for 199 participants recruited pre-legalization and followed prospectively post-legalization. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the association between legalization and UDS results. RESULTS: Past-month cannabis use was self-reported by 54.8 and 52.3% of participants recruited pre- and post-legalization, respectively. Legalization was not associated with changes in any measured cannabis characteristics: cannabis use (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73-1.13), days of use/month (B -0.42, 95% CI - 2.05-1.21), money spent, or cannabis source. There was no association between legalization and prevalence of cannabis use on UDS (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.93-2.99) or percentage of cannabis-positive UDSs (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.01). Participants overwhelmingly reported that legalization would have no impact on their cannabis use (85.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Amongst patients treated for OUD, no significant change in cannabis use was observed following legalization; however, high rates of cannabis use are noted.