Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION: Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended for cervical cancer screening for women aged 30-65 years without a history of abnormal results. However, there is little clear guidance regarding effective strategies for implementing primary HPV screening. As part of an ongoing randomized trial comparing implementation strategies for primary HPV testing (a centrally administered + usual care strategy vs. centrally administered + locally tailored strategy), we evaluated clinician experiences and perceptions of large-scale implementation of primary HPV screening in an integrated healthcare system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with internal medicine, family medicine and obstetrics/gynecology clinicians to gain insight into fidelity to the interventions and implementation strategies, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and recommendations. Participants from both arms of the trial were recruited. Interview guides were developed with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We recruited physicians, licensed vocational nurses, and medical assistants after primary HPV screening had been implemented. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Using a team coding approach, we developed an initial coding structure refined during iterative analysis; data were subsequently organized thematically into domains, key themes, and sub-themes using thematic analysis, followed by framework analysis informed by CFIR. RESULTS: Thirty-two interviews were conducted. Participants in both arms of the trial noted high awareness, preparedness, buy-in, and fidelity to the new screening process. Initial barriers concerned specimen collection, proper ordering, and lab delays. An unanticipated barrier was the length of time needed to return lab results for reflexive cytology tests after a positive HPV result which reportedly increased patient anxiety. Participants in both arms reported fidelity to the centralized strategy (e.g., attending webinars, leadership announcements). In the local-tailored arm, few participants recalled the local-tailored resources. DISCUSSION: The centralized strategy was perceived as highly acceptable and feasible, and fidelity to the associated interventions appear to be facilitators of practice change. Recommendations for improving implementation included patient education, outreach and ongoing clinician training. Findings can be applied to other health systems and settings considering primary HPV screening implementation, particularly those within the U.S. or with a similar health care model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier #NCT04371887.

OBJECTIVE: At present there is no established optimal approach for transitioning opioid-dependent adults to extended-release injection naltrexone (XR-naltrexone) while preventing relapse. The authors conducted a trial examining the efficacy of two methods of outpatient opioid detoxification for induction to XR-naltrexone. METHOD: Participants were 150 opioid-dependent adults randomly assigned 2:1 to one of two outpatient detoxification regimens, naltrexone-assisted detoxification or buprenorphine-assisted detoxification, followed by an injection of XR-naltrexone. Naltrexone-assisted detoxification lasted 7 days and included a single day of buprenorphine followed by ascending doses of oral naltrexone along with clonidine and other adjunctive medications. Buprenorphine-assisted detoxification included a 7-day buprenorphine taper followed by a week-long delay before administration of XR-naltrexone, consistent with official prescribing information for XR-naltrexone. Participants from both groups received behavioral therapy focused on medication adherence and a second dose of XR-naltrexone. RESULTS: Compared with participants in the buprenorphine-assisted detoxification condition, participants assigned to naltrexone-assisted detoxification were significantly more likely to be successfully inducted to XR-naltrexone (56.1% compared with 32.7%) and to receive the second injection at week 5 (50.0% compared with 26.9%). Both models adjusted for primary type of opioid use, route of opioid administration, and morphine equivalents at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of low-dose naltrexone, in conjunction with single-day buprenorphine dosing and adjunctive nonopioid medications, for initiating adults with opioid dependence to XR-naltrexone. This strategy offers a promising alternative to the high rates of attrition and relapse currently observed with agonist tapers in both inpatient and outpatient settings.