Literature Collection

Despite high mortality rates due to opioid overdose and excessive alcohol consumption, medications for the treatment of alcohol and opioid use disorder have not been widely used in the USA. This paper provides an overview of the literature on the availability of alcohol and opioid used disorder medications in the specialty substance use disorder treatment system, other treatment settings and systems, and among providers with a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. We also present the most current data on the availability of alcohol and opioid use disorder medications in the USA. These estimates show steady growth in availability of opioid use disorder medications over the past decade and a decline in availability of alcohol use disorder medications. However, overall use of medications in the USA remains low. In 2017, only 16.3% of specialty treatment programs offered any single medication for alcohol use disorder treatment and 35.5% offered any single medication for opioid use disorder treatment. Availability of buprenorphine-waivered providers has increased significantly since 2002. However, geographic disparities in access to buprenorphine remain. Some of the most promising strategies to increase availability of alcohol and opioid use disorder medications include the following: incorporating substance use disorder training in healthcare education programs, educating the substance use disorder workforce about the benefits of medication treatment, reducing stigma surrounding the use of medications, implementing medications in primary care settings, implementing integrated care models, revising regulations on methadone and buprenorphine, improving health insurance coverage of medications, and developing novel medications for the treatment of substance use disorder.

IMPORTANCE: Thousands of pregnant people with opioid use disorder (OUD) enter US jails annually, yet their access to medications for OUD (MOUD) that meet the standard of care (methadone and/or buprenorphine) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the availability of MOUD for the treatment of pregnant individuals with OUD in US jails. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cross-sectional study, electronic and paper surveys were sent to all 2885 identifiable US jails verified in the National Jails Compendium between August 19 and November 7, 2019. Respondents were medical and custody leaders within the jails. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the availability of MOUD (methadone and/or buprenorphine) for the treatment of pregnant people with OUD in US jails. Availability of MOUD was assessed based on (1) continuation of MOUD for pregnant incarcerated individuals (if the individual was receiving MOUD before incarceration), with or without initiation of MOUD; (2) both initiation and continuation of MOUD for pregnant individuals; (3) only continuation of MOUD for pregnant individuals; and (4) management of opioid withdrawal for pregnant individuals. Secondary outcomes included MOUD availability during the postpartum period and logistical factors associated with the provision of MOUD. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors associated with MOUD availability during pregnancy. RESULTS: Among 2885 total surveys sent, 1139 (39.5%) were returned; of those, 836 surveys (73.4%; 29.0% of all surveys sent) could be analyzed, with similar proportions from metropolitan (399 jails [47.7%]) and rural (381 jails [45.6%]) settings. Overall, 504 jails (60.3%) reported that MOUD was available for medication continuation, with or without medication initiation, during pregnancy. Of those, 267 jails (53.0%; 31.9% of surveys included in the analysis) both initiated and continued MOUD, and 237 jails (47.0%; 28.3% of surveys included in the analysis) only continued MOUD; 190 of 577 jails (32.9%; 22.7% of surveys included in the analysis) reported opioid withdrawal as the only management for pregnant people with OUD. Among the 504 medication-providing jails, only 120 (23.8%) continued to provide MOUD during the postpartum period. Methadone was more commonly available at jails that only continued MOUD (84 of 123 jails [68.3%]), whereas buprenorphine was more commonly available at jails that both initiated and continued MOUD (73 of 119 jails [61.3%]). In an adjusted model, jails with higher odds of MOUD availability were located in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 10.72; 95% CI, 2.43-47.36) or metropolitan areas (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.31-2.83), had private health care contracts (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.03-2.14) and a higher number of women (≥70) reported in the female census (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.02-2.80), and provided pregnancy testing within 2 weeks of arrival at the jail (OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.69-4.17). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study, a substantial proportion of US jails did not provide access to MOUD to pregnant people with OUD. Although most jails reported continuing to provide MOUD to individuals who were receiving medication before incarceration, few jails initiated MOUD, and most medication-providing jails discontinued MOUD during the postpartum period. These results suggest that many pregnant and postpartum people with OUD in US jails do not receive medication that is the standard of care and are required to endure opioid withdrawal, signaling an opportunity for intervention to improve care for pregnant people who are incarcerated.

OBJECTIVES: This study explores knowledge and utilization of, barriers to, and preferences for harm reduction services among street-involved young adults (YA) in Boston, Massachusetts. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey of YA encountered between November and December 2019 by a longstanding outreach program for street-involved YA. We report descriptive statistics on participant-reported substance use, knowledge and utilization of harm reduction strategies, barriers to harm reduction services and treatment, and preferences for harm reduction service delivery. RESULTS: The 52 YA surveyed were on average 21.4 years old; 63.5% were male, and 44.2% were Black. Participants reported high past-week marijuana (80.8%) and alcohol (51.9%) use, and 15.4% endorsed opioid use and using needles to inject drugs in the past six months. Fifteen (28.8%) YA had heard of "harm reduction", and 17.3% reported participating in harm reduction services. The most common barriers to substance use disorder treatment were waitlists and cost. Participants suggested that harm reduction programs offer peer support (59.6%) and provide a variety of services including pre-exposure prophylaxis (42.3%) and sexually transmitted infection testing (61.5%) at flexible times and in different languages, including Spanish (61.5%) and Portuguese (17.3%). CONCLUSIONS: There is need for comprehensive, YA-oriented harm reduction outreach geared toward marginalized YA and developed with YA input to reduce barriers, address gaps in awareness and knowledge of harm reduction, and make programs more relevant and inviting to YA.

Integrated care refers to person-centered and coordinated, health and social care, and community services. Integrated care systems are partnerships of organizations that deliver health and care services which were placed on a statutory footing in England, April 2022. Due to the need for fast, accessible, and relevant evidence, a rapid review was conducted according to World Health Organization methods to determine barriers and enablers of integrated care across the United Kingdom, 2018-2022. Nine databases were searched for review articles reporting evaluation of integrated care interventions involving medical (clinical and diagnostic) and nonmedical (public health services and community-based or social care/person-centred care) approaches, quality checked with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program qualitative checklist. OpenGrey and hand searches were used to identify grey literature, quality checked with the Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, and Significance checklist. Thirty-four reviews and 21 grey literature reports fitted inclusion criteria of adult physical/mental health outcomes/multiple morbidities. Thematic analysis revealed six themes (collaborative approach; costs; evidence and evaluation; integration of care; professional roles; service user factors) with 20 subthemes including key barriers (cost effectiveness; effectiveness of integrated care; evaluation methods; focus of evidence; future research; impact of integration) and enablers (accessing care; collaboration and partnership; concept of integration; inter-professional relationships; person-centered ethos). Findings indicated a paucity of robust research to evaluate such interventions and lack of standardized methodology to assess cost effectiveness, although there is growing interest in co-production that has engendered information sharing and reduced duplication, and inter-professional collaborations that have bridged task-related gaps and overlaps. The importance of identifying elements of integrated care associated with successful outcomes and determining sustainability of interventions meeting joined-up care and preventive population health objectives was highlighted.