Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are evidence-based treatments, yet can be controversial among some populations. This study provides a systematic review of prejudice and discrimination toward MOUD, a form of "intervention stigma," or stigma associated with a particular medical treatment. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was used in PsychInfo and PubMed to identify studies published between 1998 and 2018. Studies that empirically examined stigma toward MOUD were included if the manuscript was of moderate or high quality. Studies were analyzed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The search yielded 972 studies, of which 28 were included. Most studies utilized qualitative methods to examine intervention stigma toward methadone or buprenorphine, with one including naltrexone. Studies demonstrated that intervention stigma among healthcare providers was influenced by lack of training and abstinent treatment preferences. Providers equated MOUD with illicit substance use and at times refused to care for MOUD patients. Stigma among peer patients seeking treatment was also influenced by abstinent treatment preferences, and among the general public stigma was influenced by lack of MOUD knowledge. Intervention stigma was also driven at the policy level by high regulation of methadone, which fueled diversion and hindered social functioning among patients. Few studies indicated how to reduce intervention stigma toward MOUD. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention stigma affects both provision and perceptions of methadone and buprenorphine, decreasing access and utilization of MOUD. Future research should further develop and test MOUD stigma reduction interventions in a variety of social contexts to improve access to care and reduce patient barriers.

BACKGROUND: This proof-of-concept study tested the feasibility and acceptability of INTEGRATE-D, an implementation support intervention for primary care clinics to improve the psychosocial care of patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Cluster randomized controlled pragmatic trial, with a parallel, convergent mixed methods design. Two Intervention Clinics (ICs) were offered tailored training on American Diabetes Association (ADA)-recommended psychosocial care and facilitation to identify and support clinical change. Two Control Clinics (CCs) received no intervention. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: intervention acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: process-of-care metrics (eg, depression screening, diabetes management) and clinical outcomes measures (PHQ-9 and A1C). Qualitative data were collected to assess implementation and experience with the intervention. RESULTS: ICs were offered training and received 15-months of facilitation. To accommodate COVID-19-related safety restrictions, the intervention was changed to be delivered virtually (eg, remote facilitation and training sessions). Despite an adapted delivery and COVID-19 and staffing stressors, clinics exposed to INTEGRATE-D found it to be acceptable, well-aligned with clinics' needs, and feasible. Qualitative data suggest COVID-19 stressors tempered feasibility. The effect of INTEGRATE-D on process and clinical outcome measures were mixed. Several factors, including differences in ICs and CCs not addressed in randomization and delivery of a less intensive intervention due to the pandemic, may help explain these results. CONCLUSIONS: Given the growing number of people with type 2 diabetes and the importance of psychosocial care for these patients, INTEGRATE-D warrants further pilot-testing with a larger sample of clinics and patients, and under conditions where in-person facilitation and expanded training is possible.

Background: Concurrent with the opioid overdose crisis there has been an increase in hospitalizations among people with opioid use disorder (OUD), with one in ten hospitalized medical or surgical patients having comorbid opioid-related diagnoses. We sought to conduct a systematic review of hospital-based interventions, their staffing composition, and their impact on outcomes for patients with OUD hospitalized for medical or surgical conditions. Methods: Authors searched PubMed MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL from January 2015 through October 2020. The authors screened 463 titles and abstracts for inclusion and reviewed 96 full-text studies. Seventeen articles met inclusion criteria. Extracted were study characteristics, outcomes, and intervention components. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Methodological Quality Rating Scale. Results: Ten of the 17 included studies were controlled retrospective cohort studies, five were uncontrolled retrospective studies, one was a prospective quasi-experimental evaluation, and one was a secondary analysis of a completed randomized clinical trial. Intervention components and outcomes varied across studies. Outcomes included in-hospital initiation and post-discharge connection to medication for OUD, healthcare utilization, and discharge against medical advice. Results were mixed regarding the impact of existing interventions on outcomes. Most studies focused on linkage to medication for OUD during hospitalization and connection to post-discharge OUD care. Conclusions: Given that many individuals with OUD require hospitalization, there is a need for OUD-related interventions for this patient population. Interventions with the best evidence of efficacy facilitated connection to post-discharge OUD care and employed an Addiction Medicine Consult model.

Mental health and substance use disorders can negatively affect physical health, illness management, care access, and quality of life. These behavioral health conditions are prevalent and undertreated among people with HIV and may worsen outcomes along the entire HIV Care Continuum. This narrative review of tested interventions for integrating care for HIV and behavioral health disorders summarizes and contextualizes findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted in the past decade. We sought to identify gaps in research that hinder implementing evidence-based integrated care approaches. Using terms from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration-Health Resources & Services Administration standard framework for integrated health care, we searched PubMed and PsycInfo to identify peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-analyses of intervention studies to integrate behavioral health and HIV published between 2010 and 2020. Among 23 studies identified, only reviews and meta-analyses that described interventions from the United States designed to integrate BH services into HIV settings for adults were retained, leaving six studies for narrative review by the study team. Demonstrated benefits from the relatively small literature on integrated care interventions include improved patient- and service-level outcomes, particularly for in-person case management and outreach interventions. Needed are systems-level integration interventions with assessments of long-term outcomes on behavioral health symptoms, HIV viral suppression, HIV transmission rates, and mortality. HIV, primary care, and other providers must include behavioral health as a part of overall healthcare and must play a central role in behavioral health care delivery. Research is needed to guide their way.