Literature Collection
11K+
References
9K+
Articles
1400+
Grey Literature
4600+
Opioids & SU
The Literature Collection contains over 11,000 references for published and grey literature on the integration of behavioral health and primary care. Learn More
Use the Search feature below to find references for your terms across the entire Literature Collection, or limit your searches by Authors, Keywords, or Titles and by Year, Type, or Topic. View your search results as displayed, or use the options to: Show more references per page; Sort references by Title or Date; and Refine your search criteria. Expand an individual reference to View Details. Full-text access to the literature may be available through a link to PubMed, a DOI, or a URL. References may also be exported for use in bibliographic software (e.g., EndNote, RefWorks, Zotero).
This grey literature reference is included in the Academy's Literature Collection in keeping with our mission to gather all sources of information on integration. Grey literature is comprised of materials that are not made available through traditional publishing avenues. Often, the information from unpublished resources can be limited and the risk of bias cannot be determined.
OBJECTIVE: In 2019, Pennsylvania established a voluntary financial incentive program designed to increase the engagement in addiction treatment for Medicaid patients with opioid use disorder after emergency department (ED) encounters. In this qualitative study involving hospital leaders, the authors examined decisions leading to participation in this program as well as barriers and facilitators that influenced its implementation. METHODS: Twenty semistructured interviews were conducted with leaders from a diverse sample of hospitals and health systems across Pennsylvania. Interviews were planned and analyzed following the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. An iterative approach was used to analyze the interviews and determine key themes and patterns regarding implementation of this policy initiative in hospitals. RESULTS: The authors identified six key themes that reflected barriers and facilitators to hospital participation in the program. Participation in the program was facilitated by community partners capable of arranging outpatient treatment for opioid use disorder, incentive payments focusing hospital leadership on opioid treatment pathways, multidisciplinary planning, and flexibility in adapting pathways for local needs. Barriers to program participation concerned the implementation of buprenorphine prescribing and the measurement of treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A financial incentive policy encouraged hospitals to enact rapid system and practice changes to support treatment for opioid use disorder, although challenges remained in implementing evidence-based treatment-specifically, initiation of buprenorphine-for patients visiting the ED. Analysis of treatment outcomes is needed to further evaluate this policy initiative, but new delivery and payment models may improve systems to treat patients who have an opioid use disorder.
Background: Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) has been linked to dopamine and the neurological reward centers. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) is an enzyme involved in the production of many neurotransmitters such as dopamine. As such, MTHFR variants that lead to decreased production of neurotransmitters may play a role in OUD. However, lacunae exist for characterizing the prevalence of the MTHFR mutations in an OUD population. The objective of this study was to determine prevalence of the MTHFR gene mutations in a rural Tennessean population with OUD. Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort of individuals with OUD that evaluated the prevalence of MTHFR variants. Patients were categorized as normal, homozygous C677T, heterozygous C677T, homozygous A1298C, or heterozygous A1298C. The primary outcome was a qualitative comparison of the prevalence of each of the MTHFR variants in our cohort to the publicly reported MTHR polymorphism prevalence. Secondary outcomes include race and ethnicity differences as well as stimulant use differences for each of the variants. Results: A total of 232 patients undergoing care for opioid use disorder were included in the study. Of those included, 30 patients had a normal MTHFR allele and 202 had a variant MTHFR allele. Overall, the prevalence of any MTHFR variant was 87.1% (95% CI 82.6-91.4%). When comparing those with a normal MTHFR allele to those with any MTHFR variant, there was no difference in age, sex, race and ethnicity, or stimulant use. Conclusion: The overall prevalence of MTHFR variants in patients with opioid use disorders is high.