Literature Collection
11K+
References
9K+
Articles
1500+
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).

Background: US local health departments (LHDs) have faced the COVID-19 pandemic and the opioid epidemic simultaneously. This article investigates the perceived impact of COVID-19 on the continuation of locally available services for addressing opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods: A national survey of US LHDs was conducted from November to December 2020. The survey asked key personnel in LHDs about the availability of OUD services in their jurisdiction, and how COVID-19 impacted such availability (i.e., whether terminated or continued at a reduced, the same, or an increased level after the arrival of COVID-19). Proportions for each impact category were estimated for prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery services. Logistic regression tested for rural-urban and regional differences in perceived service impact. Results: An 11.4% (214 out of 1873) response rate was attained. Of the returned surveys, 187 were used in the analysis. Reported terminations were generally low, especially for treatment services. School-based prevention initiatives had the highest termination rate (17.2%, 95% CI = 11.4-25.1%). Prevention services had the highest proportions for continuing at a reduced level, except for recovery mutual help programs (53.9%, 95% CI = 45.2-62.4%). LHDs reported continuing services at an increased level at a higher frequency than terminating. Notably, 72.2% (95% CI = 62.7-80.0%) continued telehealth/telemedicine options for OUD at an increased level, and 23.8% (95% CI = 17.8-31.1%) and 10.0% (95% CI = 5.7-16.7%) reported doing the same for naloxone distribution and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), respectively. More harm reduction services were continued at the same versus at a reduced level. Service continuation differed little between rural-urban LHDs or by region. Conclusions: The impacts of COVID-19 on OUD service availability in LHD jurisdictions may depend on the specific area of opioid response while the long-term consequences of these changes remain unknown.




BACKGROUND: Community correctional experiences among individuals receiving methadone treatment (MT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) are poorly understood. We qualitatively investigated perceptions of community corrections and treatment experiences among individuals with criminal-legal system experience currently receiving outpatient MT. METHODS: From January to December 2017, we recruited 42 individuals with history of criminal-legal system involvement enrolled in outpatient MT at a low-barrier nonprofit organization operating multiple clinics in Connecticut. An experienced qualitative research team conducted one-to-one, in-person, semistructured interviews about incarceration and treatment experiences with individuals receiving MT. Participants completed a demographics survey. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, de-identified, and independently coded using NVivo. RESULTS: Participants described the community corrections system as restrictive and abstinence-focused. Most participants described positive perceptions of and experiences with community corrections officers (CCOs), yet described negative perceptions of and experiences with the community corrections system overall. Participants perceived CCOs to have limited knowledge of OUD and MT. Participants described a range of CCO judgment toward their OUD, with some appearing understanding and nonjudgmental while others were perceived to have stigma and prejudice. Few participants noted assistance from CCOs with seeking MT or community-based substance use disorder care. Some participants desired improved treatment facilitation, but viewed forced or coercive treatment negatively. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study to examine community corrections experience among people receiving outpatient medication for OUD. While individuals receiving MT have negative experiences with the community corrections system, they perceive individual CCOs positively. Interventions addressing gaps in CCOs knowledge of OUD and MT are needed to optimize support for individuals on probation or parole with OUD. Provision of OUD treatment facilitation appears desirable to some individuals in community supervision.