Literature Collection

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article are to present findings from recent qualitative research with patients in a combined perinatal substance use treatment program in Central Appalachia, and to describe and analyze participants' ambivalence about medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), in the context of widespread societal stigma and judgement. METHODS: We conducted research in a comprehensive outpatient perinatal substance use treatment program housed in a larger obstetric practice serving a large rural, Central Appalachian region. The program serves patients across the spectrum of substance use disorders but specifically offers medication-assisted treatment to perinatal patients with OUD. We purposively and opportunistically sampled patients receiving prescriptions for buprenorphine or buprenorphine-naloxone dual product, along with prenatal care and other services. Through participant-observation and semi-structured interviews, we gathered qualitative data from 27 participants, in a total of 31 interviews. We analyzed transcripts of interviews and fieldnotes using modified Grounded Theory. RESULTS: Participants in a combined perinatal substance use treatment program value supportive, non-judgmental care but report ambivalence about medication, within structural and institutional contexts of criminalized, stigmatized substance use and close scrutiny of their pregnancies. Women are keenly aware of the social and public consequences for themselves and their parenting, if they begin or continue medication treatment for OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Substance use treatment providers should consider the social consequences of medication treatment, as well as the clinical benefits, when presenting treatment options and recommendations to patients. Patient-centered care must include an understanding of larger social and structural contexts.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) experience a roughly 50% reduction in mortality risk relative to those not receiving medication. Longer periods of treatment are also associated with improved clinical outcomes. Despite this, patients often express desires to discontinue treatment and some view taper as treatment success. Little is known about the beliefs and medication perspectives of patients engaged in long-term buprenorphine treatment that may underlie motivations to discontinue. METHODS: This study was conducted at the VA Portland Health Care System (2019-2020). Qualitative interviews were conducted with participants prescribed buprenorphine for ≥2 years. Coding and analysis were guided by directed qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen patients engaged in office-based buprenorphine treatment completed interviews. While patients expressed strong enthusiasm for buprenorphine as a medication, the majority expressed the desire to discontinue, including patients actively tapering. Motivations to discontinue fell into 4 categories. First, patients were troubled by perceived side effects of the medication, including effects on sleep, emotion, and memory. Second, patients expressed unhappiness with being "dependent" on buprenorphine, framed in opposition to personal strength/independence. Third, patients expressed stigmatized beliefs about buprenorphine, describing it as "illicit," and associated with past drug use. Finally, patients expressed fears about buprenorphine unknowns, including potential long-term health effects and interactions with medications required for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recognizing benefits, many patients engaged in long-term buprenorphine treatment express a desire to discontinue. Findings from this study may help clinicians anticipate patient concerns and can be used to inform shared decision-making conversations regarding buprenorphine treatment duration.

Background Overdoses have surged in rural areas in the U.S. and globally for years, but harm reduction interventions have lagged. Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs are highly effective to prevent overdose mortality, but little is known about people who use drugs' (PWUD) experience with these interventions in rural areas. Here, we analyze qualitative data with rural PWUD to learn about their experiences with an OEND intervention, and about how their perceptions of their rural risk environments influenced the interventions' effects. Methods Twenty-nine one-on-one, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with rural PWUD engaged in the CARE2HOPE OEND intervention in Appalachian Kentucky. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted, guided by the Rural Risk Environment Framework. Results The OEND intervention transformed participants' roles locally, so they became an essential component of the local rural healthcare environment. The intervention provided access to naloxone and information, thereby increasing PWUD's confidence in naloxone administration. Through the intervention, over half of participants gained knowledge on naloxone (access points, administration technique) and on the criminal-legal environment as it pertained to naloxone. Most participants opted to accept and carry naloxone, citing factors related to the social environment (sense of responsibility to their community) and physical/healthcare environments (high overdose prevalence, suboptimal emergency response systems). Over half of participants described recent experiences administering intervention-provided naloxone. These experiences were shaped by features of the local rural social environment (anticipated negative reaction from recipients, prior naloxone conversations). Conclusions By providing naloxone paired with non-stigmatizing health and policy information, the OEND intervention offered the material and informational support that allowed participants to become a part of the healthcare environment. Findings highlight need for more outreach to rural PWUD on local policy that impacts them; tailored strategies to help rural PWUD engage in productive dialogue with peers about naloxone and navigate interpersonal conflict associated with overdose reversal; and opportunities for rural PWUD to formally participate in emergency response systems as peer overdose responders. Trial Registration The ClinicalTrials.gov ID for the CARE2HOPE intervention is NCT04134767. The registration date was October 19 (th) , 2019.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorder (SUD) is a chronic illness impacting more than 59 million Americans last year. Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a subset of SUD. The literature supports that healthcare providers frequently stigmatize patients with OUD. Individuals with OUD often feel shame associated with their disorder. Shame has been associated with maladaptive and avoidant behaviors. AIM: The aim of this qualitative descriptive study was to examine and describe the experiences of shame and health-seeking behaviors in individuals with OUD. METHODS: A qualitative exploratory design using focus groups with individuals in treatment for OUD was used to identify the issue of shame and its relationship to health-seeking behaviors. RESULTS: A systematic content analysis of discussions with 11 participants in four focus groups revealed four major themes and associated subthemes: Avoidance of Preventive Care (belief providers are judgmental); the Hidden Disorder (keeping secrets); Constraints of Shame (justification for the continuation of drug usage); and Trust in MOUD (Medication for Opioid Use Disorder) Providers. The feeling of shame leads to a reluctance to engage in health-promoting actions, such as scheduling appointments with primary care providers and dentists. CONCLUSION: Healthcare practitioners must prioritize providing a safe, nonstigmatizing environment for patients with SUD/OUD. This includes establishing trust and rapport, providing education, collaboration with psychiatric mental health specialists and other healthcare providers, and the offering support and resources to help patients manage their condition to achieve optimal health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Citizens affected by substance use disorders are high-risk populations for both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related mortality. Relevant vulnerabilities to COVID-19 in people who suffer substance use disorders are described in previous communications. The COVID-19 pandemic offers a unique opportunity to reshape and update addiction treatment networks. MAIN BODY: Renewed treatment systems should be based on these seven pillars: (1) telemedicine and digital solutions, (2) hospitalization at home, (3) consultation-liaison psychiatric and addiction services, (4) harm-reduction facilities, (5) person-centered care, (6) promote paid work to improve quality of life in people with substance use disorders, and (7) integrated addiction care. The three "best buys" of the World Health Organization (reduce availability, increase prices, and a ban on advertising) are still valid. Additionally, new strategies must be implemented to systematically deal with (a) fake news concerning legal and illegal drugs and (b) controversial scientific information. CONCLUSION: The heroin pandemic four decades ago was the last time that addiction treatment systems were updated in many western countries. A revised and modernized addiction treatment network must include improved access to care, facilitated where appropriate by technology; more integrated care with addiction specialists supporting non-specialists; and reducing the stigma experienced by people with SUDs.

EPOSIM is a community-based participatory research study which used the Photovoice method with people who inject drugs (PWID) ahead of a possible opening of a drug consumption room (DCR) in Marseille, France. It aimed to identify the strategies used by PWID when injecting, and the risks they take when they have no safe private space to inject in the area they live in. A total of 7 PWID participated in the full study process. The 189 photographs they took provided us with a good understanding of their injection practices in public places. The main results highlighted the spatiality and materiality of injecting experience in a context where no DCR was available. They also showed the relevance of Photovoice to valorize the voices of PWID when implementing a DCR. Through the showcasing of their photographs at various public exhibitions, the participants seized the opportunity to use Photovoice to make their voices heard beyond the group formed for the study, in order to show the different forms of stigma and insalubrious contexts which they faced on a daily basis. Furthermore, the photographs taken demonstrated that having only health and safety records is not enough to fully understand PWID injection practices. Future studies must take into account PWID perceptions of their relationship with injecting in public spaces and with the management of stigma. The questions of pleasure and comfort must also be explored in evaluation studies of harm reduction measures, for example, DCR.

Syringe services programs (SSPs) complement substance use disorder treatment in providing services that improve the health of people who use drugs (PWUD). Buprenorphine treatment is an effective underutilized opioid use disorder treatment. Regulations allow buprenorphine prescribing from office-based settings, potentially including SSPs although few studies have examined this approach. Our objective was to assess the attitudes among PWUD toward the potential introduction of buprenorphine treatment in an SSP. Methods: In this qualitative study, we recruited 34 participants who were enrolled at a New York City-based SSP to participate in one of seven focus group sessions. The focus group facilitators prompted participants to share their thoughts in five domains: attitudes toward (1) medical clinics; (2) harm reduction in general; (3) SSP-based buprenorphine treatment; (4) potential challenges of SSP-based treatment; and (5) logistical considerations of an SSP-based buprenorphine treatment program. Four researchers analyzed focus group transcripts using thematic analysis. Results: Of the 34 participants, most were white (68%), over the age of 40 years old (56%), and had previously tried buprenorphine (89%). Common themes were: 1) The SSP is a supportive community for people who use drugs; 2) Participants felt less stigmatized at the SSP than in general medical settings; 3) Offering buprenorphine treatment could change the SSP's culture; and 4) SSP participants receiving buprenorphine may be tempted to divert their medication. Participants offered suggestions for a slow intentional introduction of buprenorphine treatment at the SSP including structured appointments, training medical providers in harm reduction, and program eligibility criteria. Conclusion: Overall, participants expressed enthusiasm for onsite buprenorphine treatment at SSPs. Research on SSP-based buprenorphine treatment should investigate standard buprenorphine treatment outcomes but also any effects on the program itself and medication diversion. Implementation should consider cultural and environmental aspects of the SSP and consult program staff and participants.

BACKGROUND: Intentional or accidental drug-overdose is a leading cause of mortality in U.S. women of child-bearing age. Opioid use during pregnancy is not only associated with maternal overdose, but with low birth weight at term and neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Buprenorphine was approved as a medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in the United States in 2002 and is for many women, a preferred treatment option versus methadone. Buprenorphine is relatively safe during pregnancy and is associated with lower rates of NAS than methadone. Given the importance of MOUD during pregnancy, relatively little information exists regarding patients' questions and concerns about buprenorphine treatment, including the psychological challenges they face. AIMS: The purpose of the study was to describe the perinatal concerns of women with opioid use disorder who posted to an online suboxone forum. METHODS: Qualitative descriptive design to analyze some 170 posts from mothers with OUD to an online Suboxone(®) support forum over the period 2016-2021. RESULTS: The analysis of the interview data revealed 4 important themes: (a) Stigma resulting in self-deprecation, low self-esteem, and low self-efficacy; (b) stigma from family members and loved ones; (c) stigma from the medical profession; and (d) stigma from the community at-large (social stigma). CONCLUSIONS: There is compelling evidence to emphasize the importance of open communication and support between medical personnel and patients to ensure optimal outcomes for mother and baby.

BACKGROUND: Stigma is a barrier to the uptake of buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder. Harm reduction treatment models intend to minimize this stigma by organizing care around non-judgmental interactions with people who use drugs. There are few examples of implementing buprenorphine treatment using a harm reduction approach in a primary care setting in the USA. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study by interviewing leadership, staff, and external stakeholders at Respectful, Equitable Access to Compassionate Healthcare (REACH) Medical in Ithaca, NY. REACH is a freestanding medical practice that provides buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder since 2018. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 participants with the objective of describing REACH's model of care. We selected participants based on their position at REACH or in the community. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using content analysis, guided by the CDC Evaluation Framework. RESULTS: REACH provided buprenorphine, primary care, and mental health services in a low-threshold model. We identified three themes related to delivery of buprenorphine treatment. First, an organizational mission to provide equitable and low-stigma healthcare, which was a key to organizational identity. Second, a low-threshold buprenorphine treatment approach that was critical, but caused concern about over-prescribing and presented logistical challenges. Third, creation and retention of a harm reduction-oriented workforce by offering value-based work and by removing administrative barriers providers may face elsewhere to providing buprenorphine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A harm reduction primary care model can help reduce stigma for people who use drugs and engage in buprenorphine treatment. Further research is needed to evaluate whether this model leads to improved patient outcomes, can overcome community stakeholder concerns, and is sustainable.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness (SMI) are at greater risk of earlier mortality due to physical health problems including cardiovascular disease (CVD). There is limited work exploring whether physical health interventions for people with SMI can be embedded and/or adopted within specific healthcare settings. This information is necessary to optimise the development of services and interventions within healthcare settings. This study explores the barriers and facilitators of implementing a nurse-delivered intervention ('PRIMROSE') designed to reduce CVD risk in people with SMI in primary care, using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), a theory that explains the dynamics of embedding or 'normalising' a complex intervention within healthcare settings. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between April-December 2016 with patients with SMI at risk of CVD who received the PRIMROSE intervention, and practice nurses and healthcare assistants who delivered it in primary care in England. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Emergent themes were then mapped on to constructs of NPT. RESULTS: Fifteen patients and 15 staff participated. The implementation of PRIMROSE was affected by the following as categorised by the NPT domains: 1) Coherence, where both staff and patients expressed an understanding of the purpose and value of the intervention, 2) Cognitive participation, including mental health stigma and staff perceptions of the compatibility of the intervention to primary care contexts, 3) Collective action, including 3.1. Interactional workability in terms of lack of patient engagement despite flexible appointment scheduling. The structured nature of the intervention and the need for additional nurse time were considered barriers, 3.2. Relational integration i.e. whereby positive relationships between staff and patients facilitated implementation, and access to 'in-house' staff support was considered important, 3.3. Skill-set workability in terms of staff skills, knowledge and training facilitated implementation, 3.4. Contextual integration regarding the accessibility of resources sometimes prevented collective action. 4) Reflexive monitoring, where the staff commonly appraised the intervention by suggesting designated timeslots and technology may improve the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions for physical health in people with SMI could consider the following items to improve implementation: 1) training for practitioners in CVD risk prevention to increase practitioners knowledge of physical interventions 2) training in SMI to increase practitioner confidence to engage with people with SMI and reduce mental health stigma and 3) access to resources including specialist services, additional staff and time. Access to specialist behaviour change services may be beneficial for patients with specific health goals. Additional staff to support workload and share knowledge may also be valuable. More time for appointments with people with SMI may allow practitioners to better meet patient needs.

Background: At the start of the pandemic, relaxation of buprenorphine prescribing regulations created an opportunity to create new models of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) delivery and care. To expand and improve access to MOUD, we adapted and implemented the Tele-Harm Reduction (THR) intervention; a multicomponent, telehealth-based and peer-driven intervention to promote HIV viral suppression among people who inject drugs (PWID) accessing a syringe services program (SSP). This study examined buprenorphine initiation and retention among PWID with opioid use disorder who received the adapted THR intervention at the IDEA Miami SSP.Methods: A retrospective chart review of participants who received the THR intervention for MOUD was performed to examine the impact of telehealth on buprenorphine retention. Our primary outcome was three-month retention, defined as three consecutive months of buprenorphine dispensed from the pharmacy.Results: A total of 109 participants received the adapted THR intervention. Three-month retention rate on buprenorphine was 58.7%. Seeing a provider via telehealth at baseline or any follow up visit (aOR = 7.53, 95% CI: [2.36, 23.98]) and participants who had received an escalating dose of buprenorphine after baseline visit (aOR = 8.09, 95% CI: [1.83, 35.87]) had a higher adjusted odds of retention at three months. Participants who self-reported or tested positive for a stimulant (methamphetamine, amphetamine, or cocaine) at baseline had a lower adjusted odds of retention on buprenorphine at three months (aOR = 0.29, 95% CI: [0.09, 0.93]).Conclusions: Harm reduction settings can adapt dynamically to the needs of PWID in provision of critical lifesaving buprenorphine in a truly destigmatising approach. Our pilot suggests that an SSP may be an acceptable and feasible venue for delivery of THR to increase uptake of buprenorphine by PWID and promote retention in care.KEY MESSAGESThe Tele-Harm Reduction intervention can be adapted for initiating and retaining people who inject drugs with opioid use disorder on buprenorphine within a syringe services program setting. Using telehealth was associated with increased three-month buprenorphine retention. Baseline stimulant use was negatively associated with three-month buprenorphine retention.

: In September 2016, the American Academic of Pediatrics released a policy statement that adolescents with opioid use disorder should be offered pharmacotherapy with buprenorphine/naloxone, methadone, or naltrexone. In our clinical practice, however, we have encountered the perception among patients, families, and clinicians alike that medications should be used as a last resort. That we should wait until things get worse is a discarded approach. As addiction specialists, it is imperative that we prevent and identify risky use and use disorders, then intervene early and offer timely, evidence-based treatment. We suggest that adolescents deserve special attention and that specific efforts should be made to reduce the stigma associated with treating adolescents with opioid use disorder with medications to optimize those efforts.