Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Community stigma against people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and intervention stigma (e.g., toward naloxone) exacerbate the opioid overdose crisis. We examined the effects of the Communities that HEAL (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma by stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). METHODS: We collected three surveys from community coalition members in 66 communities across four states participating in HCS. Communities were randomized into Intervention (Wave 1) or Wait-list Control (Wave 2) arms. We conducted multilevel linear mixed models to compare changes in primary outcomes of community stigma toward people treated for OUD, naloxone, and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) by arm from time 1 (before the start of the intervention) to time 3 (end of the intervention period in the Intervention arm). FINDINGS: Intervention stakeholders reported a larger decrease in perceived community stigma toward people treated for OUD (adjusted mean change (AMC) -3.20 [95% C.I. -4.43, -1.98]) and toward MOUD (AMC -0.33 [95% C.I. -0.56, -0.09]) than stakeholders in Wait-list Control communities (AMC -0.18 [95% C.I. -1.38, 1.02], p = 0.0007 and AMC 0.11 [95% C.I. -0.09, 0.31], p = 0.0066). The relationship between intervention status and change in stigma toward MOUD was moderated by rural-urban status (urban AMC -0.59 [95% CI, -0.87, -0.32], rural AMC not sig.) and state. The difference in stigma toward naloxone between Intervention and Wait-list Control stakeholders was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). INTERPRETATION: The CTH intervention decreased stakeholder perceptions of community stigma toward people treated for OUD and stigma toward MOUD. Implementing the CTH intervention in other communities could decrease OUD stigma across diverse settings nationally. FUNDING: US National Institute on Drug Abuse.

BACKGROUND: State medical cannabis laws may lead patients with chronic noncancer pain to substitute cannabis in place of prescription opioid or clinical guideline-concordant nonopioid prescription pain medications or procedures. OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of state medical cannabis laws on receipt of prescription opioids, nonopioid prescription pain medications, and procedures for chronic noncancer pain. DESIGN: Using data from 12 states that implemented medical cannabis laws and 17 comparison states, augmented synthetic control analyses estimated laws' effects on receipt of chronic noncancer pain treatment, relative to predicted treatment receipt in the absence of the law. SETTING: United States, 2010 to 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 583 820 commercially insured adults with chronic noncancer pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, nonopioid prescription pain medication, or procedure for chronic noncancer pain; volume of each treatment type; and mean days' supply and mean morphine milligram equivalents per day of prescribed opioids, per patient in a given month. RESULTS: In a given month during the first 3 years of law implementation, medical cannabis laws led to an average difference of 0.05 percentage points (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21 percentage points), 0.05 percentage points (CI, -0.13 to 0.23 percentage points), and -0.17 percentage points (CI, -0.42 to 0.08 percentage points) in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, any nonopioid prescription pain medication, or any chronic pain procedure, respectively, relative to what we predict would have happened in that month had the law not been implemented. LIMITATIONS: This study used a strong nonexperimental design but relies on untestable assumptions involving parallel counterfactual trends. Statistical power is limited by the finite number of states. Results may not generalize to noncommercially insured populations. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

BACKGROUND: In the Veterans Health Administration (VA), Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) clinics offer mental health services embedded in primary care, a strategy shown to reduce overall specialty mental health clinic burden while facilitating prompt referrals when indicated. Among newly initiated patients, same-day access to PC-MHI from primary care increases subsequent specialty mental health engagement. However, the impact of virtual care on the association between same-day access to PC-MHI and subsequent mental health engagement remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of same-day access to PC-MHI and virtual care use on specialty mental health engagement. METHODS: We used administrative data from 3066 veterans who initiated mental health care at a large, California VA PC-MHI clinic during 3/1/2018 to 2/28/2022 and had no previous mental health visits for at least 2 years prior to the index appointment. We conducted Poisson regression analyses to examine the effects of same-day access to PC-MHI, virtual access to PC-MHI and their combined effect on subsequent specialty mental health engagement. RESULTS: Same-day access to PC-MHI from primary care was positively associated with specialty mental health engagement (IRR = 1.19; 95% CI 1.14-1.24). Virtual access to PC-MHI was negatively associated with specialty mental health engagement (IRR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.79-0.87). The positive effect of same-day access on specialty mental health engagement was smaller among patients who initiated PC-MHI in a virtual visit (IRR = 1.07) compared to in-person visits (IRR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.22-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: Although same-day access to PC-MHI increased overall specialty mental health engagement, the magnitude of this effect varied between in-person and virtual modalities. More research is needed to understand mechanisms of the association between virtual care use, same-day access to PC-MHI, and specialty mental health engagement.