Literature Collection
11K+
References
9K+
Articles
1400+
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: Naloxone is a safe and effective medication to help reverse opioid overdose. Providing take-home naloxone to patients in opioid treatment settings is a critical step to reducing opioid overdose deaths. In New Mexico, a US state with one of the highest rates of opioid overdose deaths, legislation was passed in 2017 (House Bill 370) to support take-home naloxone, and followed by naloxone training of Opioid Treatment Program staff to increase distribution. METHODS: Naloxone training was offered to all New Mexico Opioid Treatment Programs along with a baseline survey to assess current practices and barriers to take-home naloxone distribution. Focus groups were conducted approximately 1 year post-training with staff at a subset of the trained Opioid Treatment Programs to assess the impact of the legislation and training provided. RESULTS: Baseline survey results show most Opioid Treatment Program staff were unfamiliar with House Bill 370, reported conflicting understandings of their agency's current take-home naloxone practices, and reported a number of barriers at the patient, agency, and policy level. Follow-up focus groups revealed support for House Bill 370 but persistent barriers to its implementation at the patient, agency, and policy level including patient receptivity, cost of naloxone, staff time, and prohibitive pharmacy board regulations. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of targeted legislation and training, provision of take-home naloxone at remained low. This is alarming given the need for this lifesaving medication among the Opioid Treatment Program patient population, and high opioid death rate in New Mexico. Locally, important next steps include clarifying regulatory guidelines and supporting policy/billing changes to offset costs to Opioid Treatment Programs. Globally, additional research is needed to identify the prevalence of take-home naloxone distribution in similar settings, common barriers, and best practices that can be shared to increase access to this vital lifesaving medication in this critical context.
Background: Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) is a best practice for treating individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), and primary care-based MOUD management can reduce treatment barriers among OUD patients. Individuals with OUD experience disproportionately high rates of trauma and violence, highlighting the importance of addressing trauma, mental health, and substance use concurrently. However, clear guidelines for trauma-informed treatment in a primary care setting remain poorly established. Methods: A qualitative approach was engaged to explore primary care providers' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to assessing and treating trauma among MOUD patients. Twenty in-depth interviews were conducted in 2021 with Baltimore-based MOUD prescribers, including primary care physicians and nurse practitioners. Interview questions assessed experiences with identifying and treating trauma among MOUD patients, including challenges and opportunities. Results: Providers reported extensive histories of trauma experienced by MOUD patients. Barriers to addressing trauma include a lack of standardized protocols/procedures for identifying trauma, insufficient training/time to assess and treat trauma, and the limited availability of external mental health providers and specialty services. Opportunities included building strong, mutually respectful patient-provider relationships, providing individualized, person-centered care, and establishing connections to coordinated multidisciplinary treatment networks. Conclusions: MOUD treatment within primary care is an important way to increase OUD treatment access, but clearer standards are needed for the treatment of trauma within this patient population. These findings demonstrate opportunities to improve standards and systems such that primary care providers are better equipped to assess and treat the complex histories of trauma experienced by individuals with OUD.
This grey literature reference is included in the Academy's Literature Collection in keeping with our mission to gather all sources of information on integration. Grey literature is comprised of materials that are not made available through traditional publishing avenues. Often, the information from unpublished resources can be limited and the risk of bias cannot be determined.


OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for treatment of opioid use disorder stipulate for mental health assessment and the option for treatment alongside medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Yet efforts to expand MOUD treatment capacity have focused on expanding the workforce of buprenorphine providers. This article aims to describe the processes facilitating and impeding integrated care for rural patients with co-occurring opioid use disorder and mental health conditions. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with primary care and specialty providers (N=26) involved in integrated care through the state's hub-and-spoke system and with system-level stakeholders (N=16) responsible for expanding access to MOUD in rural California. RESULTS: Rural primary care providers struggled to offer adequate mental health resources to patients with co-occurring conditions because of personnel shortages and inadequate availability of telehealth. Efforts to intensify care through referral to county mental health systems and private community providers were thwarted by access barriers. The bifurcated nature of treatment systems resulted in inadequate training in integrated care and the deprioritization of mental health in patient evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant system-level barriers undermine the implementation of integrated MOUD in rural areas, potentially increasing the suffering of residents with co-occurring conditions and intensifying burnout among providers.


This study examined factors influencing rural caregivers' decision to decline participation in a healthy lifestyle intervention. Eligible caregivers of rural children who declined participation in a healthy lifestyle intervention were interviewed regarding reasons for declining. Inductive thematic analyses were conducted for responses. Caregiver interviews (n=16) resulted in 5 saturated themes: (1) rural families' household schedules prohibit participation, (2) preference for diverse treatment approaches, (3) desire for information across multimedia platforms, and more communication with a point-of-contact, (4) support for an inclusive approach integrated with existing school practices, and (5) caregivers had an understanding of behaviors that promote health.
