Literature Collection

The unintentional consumption of fentanyl is a serious health risk for people who use illicit drugs. In an ongoing community-based study regarding polysubstance use among people who use opioids, we found that 17 of 58 (29%) of participants who did not endorse fentanyl use in the past thirty days tested positive for fentanyl during point-of-care urinalysis (UA). This paper describes the reactions and experiences of participants who were informed they had consumed fentanyl unintentionally, as well as how the research team handled the unanticipated occurrence of discordant results. Consistent with other recent studies, we found that people learning of unintentional fentanyl use expressed strong concerns about accidental overdose. It was common for participants to reflect on recent substance use experiences that were atypical and might have involved fentanyl, as well as to examine sources of recent drug purchases. While not all participants were surprised that they had unintentionally consumed fentanyl, all felt that learning their positive results was important due to risk of overdose. Research and medical staff have an opportunity to promote awareness of possible contamination by sharing and discussing UA test results with people who use drugs in non-judgmental manner. In addition to the widely promoted harm reduction strategy of testing drugs with fentanyl test strips, self-administered point-of-care UA, particularly after an unexpected reaction to using a drug, could provide useful information for people buying and using illicit drugs.

Background: Ohio's opioid epidemic continues to progress, severely affecting its rural Appalachian counties-areas marked by high mortality rates, widespread economic challenges, and a history of extreme opioid overprescribing. Substance use may be particularly prevalent in the region due to interactions between community and interpersonal trauma. Purpose/Objectives: We conducted qualitative interviews to explore the local context of the epidemic and the contributing role of trauma. Methods: Two interviewers conducted in-depth interviews (n = 34) with stakeholders in three rural Appalachian counties, including healthcare and substance use treatment professionals, law enforcement officials, and judicial officials. Semi-structured interview guides focused on the social, economic, and historical context of the opioid epidemic, perceived causes and effects of the epidemic, and ideas for addressing the challenge. Results: Stakeholders revealed three pervasive forms of trauma related to the epidemic in their communities: environmental/community trauma (including economic and historical distress), physical/sexual trauma, and emotional trauma. Traumas interact with one another and with substance use in a self-perpetuating cycle. Although stakeholders in all groups discussed trauma from all three categories, their interpretation and proposed solutions differed, leading to a fragmented epidemic response. Participants also discussed the potential of finding hope and community through efforts to address trauma and substance use. Conclusions: Findings lend support to the cyclical relationship between trauma and substance use, as well as the importance of environmental and community trauma as drivers of the opioid epidemic. Community-level and trauma-informed interventions are needed to increase stakeholder consensus around treatment and prevention strategies, as well as to strengthen community organization networks and support community resilience. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2021.1887248.

Purpose: This article summarizes lessons learned from five AHRQ grants to implement Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) in rural primary care practices. Methods: Lessons learned were extracted from quarterly and annual grantee progress reports, minutes from quarterly virtual meetings, and minutes and notes from annual grantee in-person meetings. The lessons learned were drafted by the authors and reviewed by the grantees for accuracy. Results: The experience of these projects suggest that recruiting providers in rural areas and engaging them to initiate and sustain provision of MOUD is very difficult. Innovative approaches and providing supports are required for supporting providers to overcome barriers. Implications: Implementation of MOUD in rural primary care is challenging but success is more likely if implementers are attentive to the needs of individual providers, are flexible and tailor implementation to the local situation, and provide on-going support.