Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION: Researchers predict long-term increases in suicide deaths following the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about risk factors for suicidal ideation (SI) and suicidal attempts (SA) or treatment barriers and promoters during the pandemic. We examine these factors in a young adult sample. METHODS: Analyses used a 2022 cross-sectional survey dataset (N = 1,956). Logistic regression identified factors associated with pandemic suicidality (i.e., SI, SA). Non-treatment seekers reported barriers to seeking treatment. Logistic regression identified promotive factors associated with treatment-seeking. RESULTS: 28.6 % of our sample developed suicidality during the pandemic, of whom 49.6 % did not seek treatment. Asian race and sexual minority status were strongly associated with increased odds of pandemic suicidality. Among SI non-treatment-seekers, barriers were primarily attitudinal (e.g., "symptoms are not serious enough for treatment"); among non-treatment-seekers with SA, barriers were mostly structural (e.g., insufficient funds). Previous depression treatment was strongly associated with increased odds of treatment-seeking. CONCLUSION: Asian American individuals were at increased risk for pandemic suicidality, which may reflect interpersonal risks related to COVID-19-related anti-Asian racism. Our findings point to a "foot-in-the-door" effect: past treatment-seeking was positively associated with future treatment-seeking. To promote this effect and decrease barriers, we suggest integrated mental health screening and referrals in primary care.

The integrated behavioral health care model in primary care has the potential to reduce barriers to care experienced by children and families from ethnic minorities and low socioeconomic status. Limited access to pediatric behavioral health care is a significant problem, with up to 40% of children and adolescents with identified mental disorders and only 30% of them receiving care. Barriers include transportation, insurance, and shortage of specialists. Primary care provider bias, decreased knowledge and feelings of competence, and cultural beliefs and stigma also affect earlier diagnosis and treatment, particularly for Hispanic families with low English proficiency and African Americans.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Opioid agonist therapies (OATs) are highly effective treatments for opioid use disorders (OUDs), especially for pregnant women; thus, improving access to OAT is an urgent public policy goal. Our objective was to determine if insurance and pregnancy status were barriers to obtaining access to OAT in 4 Appalachian states disproportionately impacted by the opioid epidemic. METHODS: Between April and May 2017, we conducted phone surveys of OAT providers, opioid treatment programs (OTPs), and outpatient buprenorphine providers, in Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Survey response rates were 59%. Logistic models for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., patient acceptance) and negative binomial models were created for count variables (e.g., wait time), overall and for pregnant women. RESULTS: The majority of OAT providers were accepting new patients; however, providers were less likely to treat pregnant women (91% vs. 75%; p < .01). OTPs were more likely to accept new patients than waivered buprenorphine providers (97% vs. 83%; p = .01); rates of accepting pregnant patients were lower in both (91% and 53%; p < .01). OTPs and buprenorphine providers accepted cash payments for services at high rates (OTP: 100%; buprenorphine: 89.4%; p < .01); Medicaid and private insurance were accepted at lower rates. In adjusted models, providers were less likely to accept pregnant women if they took any insurance (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.68) or were a buprenorphine provider (aOR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02-0.37). CONCLUSIONS: We found that OAT providers frequently did not accept any insurance and frequently did not treat pregnant women in an area of the country disproportionately affected by the opioid epidemic. Policymakers could prioritize improvements in provider training (e.g., training of obstetricians to become buprenorphine prescribers) as a means to enhance access to pregnant women or enhancing reimbursement rates as a means of improving insurance acceptance for OAT.

The cornerstone in managing alcohol-associated liver disease is the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD). Several barriers prevent the implementation of adequate treatment and integrated care models. There are patient-level barriers, including the lack of self-awareness of AUD and being ashamed of AUD. There are clinician-level barriers, including lack of training and discomfort in managing patients with AUD. There are system-level barriers, including challenges related to insurance-based health care systems, and the general reluctance to invest in AUD by organizations focused on for-profit milestones. Therefore, it is imperative to develop multidisciplinary hepatology/addiction integrated care approaches.

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.