Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Rates of suicide following discharge from psychiatric hospitals are extraordinarily high in the first week post-discharge and then decline steeply over time. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the strength of risk factors for suicide after psychiatric discharge and to investigate the association between the strength of risk factors and duration of study follow-up. METHODS: A PROSPERO-registered meta-analysis of observational studies was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Post-discharge suicide risk factors reported five or more times were synthesised using a random-effects model. Mixed-effects meta-regression was used to examine whether the strength of suicide risk factors could be explained by duration of study follow-up. RESULTS: Searches located 83 primary studies. From this, 63 risk estimates were meta-analysed. The strongest risk factors were previous self-harm (odds ratio = 2.75, 95% confidence interval = [2.37, 3.19]), suicidal ideation (odds ratio = 2.15, 95% confidence interval = [1.73, 2.68]), depressive symptoms (odds ratio = 1.84, 95% confidence interval = [1.48, 2.30]), and high-risk categorisation (odds ratio = 7.65, 95% confidence interval = [5.48, 10.67]). Significantly protective factors included age ⩽30, age ⩾65, post-traumatic stress disorder, and dementia. The effect sizes for the strongest post-discharge suicide risk factors did not decline over longer periods of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The effect sizes of post-discharge suicide risk factors were generally modest, suggesting that clinical risk factors may have limited value in distinguishing between high-risk and low-risk groups. The highly elevated rates of suicide immediately after discharge and their subsequent decline remain unexplained.

IMPORTANCE: Methadone access may be uniquely vulnerable to disruption during COVID-19, and even short delays in access are associated with decreased medication initiation and increased illicit opioid use and overdose death. Relative to Canada, US methadone provision is more restricted and limited to specialized opioid treatment programs. OBJECTIVE: To compare timely access to methadone initiation in the US and Canada during COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2020. Participating clinics provided methadone for opioid use disorder in 14 US states and territories and 3 Canadian provinces with the highest opioid overdose death rates. Statistical analysis was performed from July 2020 to January 2021. EXPOSURES: Nation and type of health insurance (US Medicaid and US self-pay vs Canadian provincial). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of clinics accepting new patients and days to first appointment. RESULTS: Among 268 of 298 US clinics contacted as a patient with Medicaid (90%), 271 of 301 US clinics contacted as a self-pay patient (90%), and 237 of 288 Canadian clinics contacted as a patient with provincial insurance (82%), new patients were accepted for methadone at 231 clinics (86%) during US Medicaid contacts, 230 clinics (85%) during US self-pay contacts, and at 210 clinics (89%) during Canadian contacts. Among clinics not accepting new patients, at least 44% of 27 clinics reported that the COVID-19 pandemic was the reason. The mean wait for first appointment was greater among US Medicaid contacts (3.5 days [95% CI, 2.9-4.2 days]) and US self-pay contacts (4.1 days [95% CI, 3.4-4.8 days]) than Canadian contacts (1.9 days [95% CI, 1.7-2.1 days]) (P < .001). Open-access model (walk-in hours for new patients without an appointment) utilization was reported by 57 Medicaid (30%), 57 self-pay (30%), and 115 Canadian (59%) contacts offering an appointment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of 2 nations, more than 1 in 10 methadone clinics were not accepting new patients. Canadian clinics offered more timely methadone access than US opioid treatment programs. These results suggest that the methadone access shortage was exacerbated by COVID-19 and that changes to the US opioid treatment program model are needed to improve the timeliness of access. Increased open-access model adoption may increase timely access.

Methadone treatment for opioid use disorder is not available in most suburban and rural US communities. We examined 2 options to expand methadone availability: (1) addiction specialty physician or (2) all clinician prescribing. Using 2022 Health Resources and Services Administration data, we used mental health professional shortage areas to indicate the potential of addiction specialty physician prescribing and the location of federally qualified health centers (ie, federally certified primary care clinics) to indicate the potential of all clinician prescribing. We examined how many census tracts without an available opioid treatment program (ie, methadone clinic) are (1) located within a mental health professional shortage area and (2) are also without an available federally qualified health center. Methadone was available in 49% of tracts under current regulations, 63% of tracts in the case of specialist physician prescribing, and 86% of tracts in the case of all clinician prescribing. Specialist physician prescribing would expand availability to an additional 12% of urban, 18% of suburban, and 16% of rural tracts, while clinician prescribing would expand to an additional 30% of urban, 53% of suburban, and 58% of rural tracts relative to current availability. Results support enabling broader methadone prescribing privileges to ensure equitable treatment access, particularly for rural communities.