Usability and feasibility of a take-home methadone web-application for opioid treatment program patients: A Small Business Innovation Research mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients in opioid treatment programs (OTPs) attend daily for observed dosing. A Stage IA (create and adapt) and a Stage IB (feasibility and pilot) mixed method studies tested a web-application (app) designed to facilitate access to take-home methadone. METHODS: A Stage IA, intervention development study, used qualitative interviews to assess the usability (ease of use) and feasibility (ability to implement) of a take-home methadone app. The Stage IA market research was a two-week test with 96 patient participants from four OTPs. Qualitative interviews were completed with 20 systematically selected individuals who used the take-home app and 20 OTP clinicians (five each from the four OTPs). The Stage IB Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) study (24 patients and 8 clinicians in a single OTP) included quantitative assessments of the app's usability, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Thematic analysis coded participant and staff assessments of the take-home app. RESULTS: Stage IA patients (mean age = 41 years; 52 % men, 57 % White) and IB patients (mean age = 38 years, 54 % men, 79 % White) described the app as "easy to use." Compared to unsupervised take-homes, some patients preferred using the take-home app. In Stage IB, patients rated the app highly on standardized measures of usability, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Clinician ratings were more ambivalent. Patients rated in-clinic dosing as more disruptive than unsupervised take-homes and take-homes using the app. DISCUSSION: A Stage IA study informed the development and maturation of a Stage IB feasibility pilot study. Overall, the take-home app's usability, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility were rated positively. Clinical staff ratings were less positive, but individuals commented that using the app a) enhanced patient quality of life, b) provided new tools for counselors, and c) offered competitive advantages. The SBIR award enhanced market research with more complete and systematic data collection and analysis.

The Association Between Depression and Substance Use Among Primary Care Patients With Comorbid Medical and Behavioral Health Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: The scope of primary care increasingly encompasses patient behavioral health problems, manifest typically through depression screening and treatment. Although substance use is highly comorbid with depression, it is not commonly identified and addressed in the primary care context. This study aimed to examine the association between the likelihood of substance use disorder and increased depression severity, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally, among a sample of 2409 patients from 41 geographically dispersed and diverse primary care clinics across the US. METHODS: This is secondary analysis of data obtained from a multi-site parent study of integrated behavioral health in primary care, among patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions. Patient reported outcome surveys were gathered from patients at 3 time points. The primary care practices were blind to which of their patients completed surveys. Included were standardized measures of depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) [PHQ-9] and substance use disorder likelihood (Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Short Screener [GSS]). RESULTS: Four percent of the study population screened positive for substance use disorder. PHQ-9 scores indicated depression among 43% of all patients. There was a significant association between the likelihood of substance use disorder and depression initially, at a 9-month follow-up, and over time. These associations remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, income, and other patient and contextual characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that substance use disorder is associated with depression severity cross-sectionally and over time. Primary care clinics and health systems might consider implementing substance use screening in addition to the more common screening strategies for depression. Especially for patients with severe depression or those who do not respond to frontline depression treatments, the undermining presence of a substance use disorder should be explored.

Stepped implementation-to-target: a study protocol of an adaptive trial to expand access to addiction medications.

BACKGROUND: In response to the US opioid epidemic, significant national campaigns have been launched to expand access to `opioid use disorder (MOUD). While adoption has increased in general medical care settings, specialty addiction programs have lagged in both reach and adoption. Elevating the quality of implementation strategy, research requires more precise methods in tailoring strategies rather than a one-size-fits-all-approach, documenting participant engagement and fidelity to the delivery of the strategy, and conducting an economic analysis to inform decision making and policy. Research has yet to incorporate all three of these recommendations to address the challenges of implementing and sustaining MOUD in specialty addiction programs. METHODS: This project seeks to recruit 72 specialty addiction programs in partnership with the Washington State Health Care Authority and employs a measurement-based stepped implementation-to-target approach within an adaptive trial design. Programs will be exposed to a sequence of implementation strategies of increasing intensity and cost: (1) enhanced monitoring and feedback (EMF), (2) 2-day workshop, and then, if outcome targets are not achieved, randomization to either internal facilitation or external facilitation. The study has three aims: (1) evaluate the sequential impact of implementation strategies on target outcomes, (2) examine contextual moderators and mediators of outcomes in response to the strategies, and (3) document and model costs per implementation strategy. Target outcomes are organized by the RE-AIM framework and the Addiction Care Cascade. DISCUSSION: This implementation project includes elements of a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design and a criterion-based design. An innovative and efficient approach, participating programs only receive the implementation strategies they need to achieve target outcomes. Findings have the potential to inform implementation research and provide key decision-makers with evidence on how to address the opioid epidemic at a systems level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05343793) on April 25, 2022.

Expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder in primary care clinics: an evaluation of common implementation strategies and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: To combat the opioid epidemic in the USA, unprecedented federal funding has been directed to states and territories to expand access to prevention, overdose rescue, and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Similar to other states, California rapidly allocated these funds to increase reach and adoption of MOUD in safety-net, primary care settings such as Federally Qualified Health Centers. Typical of current real-world implementation endeavors, a package of four implementation strategies was offered to all clinics. The present study examines (i) the pre-post effect of the package of strategies, (ii) whether/how this effect differed between new (start-up) versus more established (scale-up) MOUD practices, and (iii) the effect of clinic engagement with each of the four implementation strategies. METHODS: Forty-one primary care clinics were offered access to four implementation strategies: (1) Enhanced Monitoring and Feedback, (2) Learning Collaboratives, (3) External Facilitation, and (4) Didactic Webinars. Using linear mixed effects models, RE-AIM guided outcomes of reach, adoption, and implementation quality were assessed at baseline and at 9 months follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 41 clinics, 25 (61%) were at MOUD start-up and 16 (39%) were at scale-up phases. Pre-post difference was observed for the primary outcome of percent of patient prescribed MOUD (reach) (ßtime = 3.99; 0.73 to 7.26; p = 0.02). The largest magnitude of change occurred in implementation quality (ES = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.70). Baseline MOUD capability moderated the change in reach (start-ups 22.60%, 95% CI = 16.05 to 29.15; scale-ups -4.63%, 95% CI = -7.87 to -1.38). Improvement in adoption and implementation quality were moderately associated with early prescriber engagement in Learning Collaboratives (adoption: ES = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.96; implementation quality: ES = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.69). Improvement in adoption was also associated with early prescriber engagement in Didactic Webinars (adoption: ES = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.20 to 1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Rather than providing an all-clinics-get-all-components package of implementation strategies, these data suggest that it may be more efficient and effective to tailor the provision of implementation strategies based on the needs of clinic. Future implementation endeavors could benefit from (i) greater precision in the provision of implementation strategies based on contextual determinants, and (ii) the inclusion of strategies targeting engagement.

Wait No Longer: Reducing Medication Wait-Times for Individuals with Co-Occurring Disorders.

Objective: Community addiction treatment agencies have utilized Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx), a proven implementation strategy, to reduce appointment wait-times. However, its effectiveness at reducing medication access wait-times has not been explored. Thus, we conducted an exploratory analysis to evaluate the impact of the NIATx implementation strategies on reduced wait-times to addiction, psychotropic or both medications for individuals with co-occurring disorders (COD). Methods: In a cluster-randomized waitlist control group design, community addiction treatment agencies (n = 49) were randomized to receive the NIATx strategy (Cohort 1, n = 25) or to a Waitlist control (Cohort 2, n = 24). All agencies had a 12-month active intervention period. The primary outcome was the medication encounter wait-time. A univariate general linear model analysis utilizing a logarithmic (log10) transformation examined medication wait-times improvements. Results: The intent-to-treat analysis for psychotropic medications and both medications (reflecting integrated treatment) showed significant main effects for intervention and time, especially comparing Baseline and Year 1 to Year 2. Conversely, only the main effect for time was significant for addiction medications. Wait-time reductions in Cohort 1 agencies was delayed and occurred in the sustainment phase. Wait-times to a psychotropic, addiction, or both medications encounter declined by 3 days, 4.9 days, and 6.8 days, respectively. For Cohort 2 agencies, reduced wait-times were seen for psychotropic (3.4 days), addiction (6 days), and both medications (4.9 days) during their active implementation period. Same- or next-day medication access also improved. Conclusions: NIATx implementation strategies reduced medication encounter wait-times but timing of agency improvements varied. Despite a significant improvement, a three-week wait-time to receive integrated pharmacological interventions is clinically suboptimal for individuals with a COD in need of immediate intervention. Community addiction treatment agencies should identify barriers and implement changes to improve medication access so that their patients "wait no longer" to receive integrated treatment and medications for their COD.

Sustainment of Integrated Care in Addiction Treatment Settings: Primary Outcomes From a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Integrated treatment services are the gold standard for addressing co-occurring mental and substance use disorders, yet they are not readily available. The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) was hypothesized to be an effective strategy to implement and sustain integrated mental health and substance use care in addiction treatment programs. This study examined sustainment of integrated services for up to 2 years after the active implementation phase. METHODS: The effectiveness of NIATx strategies to implement and sustain integrated services was evaluated by using a cluster-randomized, waitlist control group design. Forty-nine addiction treatment organizations were randomly assigned to either NIATx1 (active implementation strategy) or NIATx2 (waitlist control). The Dual Diagnosis Capability in Addiction Treatment Index was used to evaluate organizations' capability to provide integrated care. The NIATx Stages of Implementation Completion scale was used to assess participation in and adherence to the NIATx implementation process. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to evaluate changes from baseline to end of the sustainment period. RESULTS: Both cohorts sustained their capability to provide integrated treatment services. Both groups achieved successful implementation and sustained integrated services to a similar degree, regardless of sustainment year. Sustainment did not vary as a function of NIATx adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The delivery of integrated treatment services was sustained for 2 years after receipt of active implementation support. Future research should consider how contextual factors may predict, mediate, and moderate sustainment outcomes.

The Integrating Medications for Addiction Treatment (IMAT) Index: A measure of capability at the organizational level.

Primary care provides a treatment opportunity for many persons with opioid use disorder (OUD). The push to integrate and expand reach and adoption of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) within primary care has been a major focus of national, state and health systems endeavors. To guide high capability MOUD practice, we introduce the Integrating Medications for Addiction Treatment (IMAT) Index. The research team has developed IMAT along similar lines to other organizational measures of integrated services capability. We present the development and validation of the measure, and suggest its applicability for systems and organizations, as well as for process improvement and implementation research. Forty-one primary care clinics completed the IMAT at two time points: baseline and 9-month follow-up. Findings support the IMAT Index as psychometrically acceptable and pragmatically useful. It has good internal consistency, as well as concurrent and predictive validity. Changes in IMAT scores between baseline and follow-up significantly predicted increases in proportion of patients on MOUD. The IMAT has the potential to support both scientific and public health care activities.

A mapping review of NIDA-funded implementation research studies on treatments for opioid and/or stimulant use disorders.

BACKGROUND: The biomedical research enterprise invests greatly in discovery-oriented science, but significantly less in how to implement the most effective of these innovations. The return on investment in public health benefit is therefore low. In the context of substance-related overdose epidemics, presently with opioids and/or stimulants, the gap in proven treatments and routine access is amplified. Implementation research is designed to deepen understanding of how best to scale-up proven treatments. This study assessed how implementation research has been deployed in the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) efforts to address the opioid and stimulant epidemics. METHODS: Adapting a procedure developed to categorize HIV-focused research, a four-stage systematic mapping review of NIDA-funded R01, R34, R61, and U studies pertaining to opioids and/or stimulants funded between 2015 and 2019 was performed. Abstracts were retrieved using NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. Key study characteristics were abstracted and coded by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: An initial search across NIH institutes yielded 5963 relevant records. Of these, 666 (11.2 %) were NIDA funded. One-hundred-and-thirty-four (20.1 %) of the 666 studies were opioid and/or stimulant treatment related. Of these, 28 (4.2 %) were categorized as Implementation Preparation (IP), and 16 (2.4 %) were categorized as Implementation Research (IR). Over the five-year period, there was a gradual increase in both IP and IR studies. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation research is a small but slowly growing component of the federal portfolio to address substance-related public health issues. To more effectively respond to contemporary overdose epidemics, implementation research must take on an even more significant role.

COVID-19 Adaptations in the Care of Patients with Opioid Use Disorder: a Survey of California Primary Care Clinics.

BACKGROUND: With the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, many federal agencies relaxed policies regulating opioid use disorder treatment. The impact of these changes has been minimally documented. The abrupt nature of these shifts provides a naturalistic opportunity to examine adaptations for opioid use disorder treatment in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To examine change in medical and behavioral health appointment frequency, visit type, and management of patients with opioid use disorder in response to COVID-19. DESIGN: A 14-item survey queried primary care practices that were enrolled in a medications for opioid use disorder statewide expansion project. Survey content focused on changes in service delivery because of COVID-19. The survey was open for 18 days. PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed 338 clinicians from 57 primary care clinics located in California, including federally qualified health centers and look-alikes. A representative from all 57 clinics (100%) and 118 staff (34.8% of all staff clinicians) participated in the survey. MAIN MEASURES: The survey consisted of seven dimensions of practice: medical visits, behavioral health visits, medication management, urine drug screenings, workflow, perceived patient demand, and staff experience. KEY RESULTS: A total of 52 of 57 (91.2%) primary care clinics reported practice adaptations in response to COVID-19 regulatory changes. Many clinics indicated that both medical (40.4%) and behavioral health visits (53.8%) were now exclusively virtual. Two-thirds (65.4%) of clinics reported increased duration of buprenorphine prescriptions and reduced urine drug screenings (67.3%). The majority (56.1%) of clinics experienced an increase in patient demand for behavioral health services. Over half (56.2%) of clinics described having an easier or unchanged experience retaining patients in care. CONCLUSIONS: Many adaptations in the primary care approach to patients with opioid use disorder may be temporary reactions to COVID-19. Further evaluation of the impact of these adaptations on patient outcomes is needed to determine whether changes should be maintained post-COVID-19.

Improving Medication Access within Integrated Treatment for Individuals with Co-Occurring Disorders in Substance Use Treatment Agencies.

BACKGROUND: The best approach to provide comprehensive care for individuals with co-occurring disorders (CODs) related to substance use and mental health is to address both disorders through an integrated treatment approach. However, only 25% of behavioral health agencies offer integrated care and less than 7% of individuals who need integrated treatment receive it. A project used a cluster-randomized waitlist control group design to evaluate the effectiveness of Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) implementation strategies to improve access to addiction and psychotropic medications. METHODS: This study represents a secondary analysis of data from the NIATx project. Forty-nine agencies were randomized to Cohort1 (active implementation group, receiving the NIATx strategy [n=25]) or Cohort2 (waitlist control group [n=24]). Data were collected at three time points (Baseline, Year1 and Year2). A two-level (patient within agency) multinomial logistic regression model investigated the effects of implementation strategy condition on one of four medication outcomes: both medication types, only psychotropic medication, only addiction medication, or neither medication type. A per-protocol analysis included time, NIATx fidelity, and agency focus as predictors. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat analysis found a statistically significant change in access to addiction versus neither medication, but Cohort1 compared to Cohort2 at Year1 showed no differences. Changes were associated with the experimental intervention and occurred in the transition from Year 1 to Year 2, where greater increases were seen for agencies in Cohort2 versus Cohort1. The per-protocol analysis showed increased access to both medications and addiction medications from pre- to post-intervention for agencies in both cohorts; however, differences in change between high- and low-implementation agencies were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Access to integrated services for people with CODs is a long-standing problem. NIATx implementation strategies had limited effectiveness in improving medication access for individuals with CODs. Implementation strategy adherence is associated with increased medication access.

Opening the "black box": Four common implementation strategies for expanding the use of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care.

Background: Despite the persistent increase in overdose deaths, access to medications for opioid use disorders remains limited. Recent federal funding aimed at increasing access prompts a need to understand if implementation strategies improve access. Methods: This is an analysis of data from 174 primary care clinics enrolled in a state-wide medications for opioid use disorders (MOUD) implementation effort in California. We examined clinic use of one of four implementation strategies: learning collaboratives, Project Extension for Community Health care Outcomes (ECHO), didactic webinars, and clinical skills trainings. The primary implementation outcome was categorical change in new patients prescribed buprenorphine. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine the impact of clinic attendance in all or individual implementation strategies, respectively, on patient growth. Results: Clinics attending learning collaboratives, Project ECHO, and clinical skills trainings had significantly higher odds of patient growth (odds ratio [OR] = 3.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.78, 7.10, p < .001), (OR = 3.39; 95% CI = 1.59, 7.24, p < .01), (OR = 3.90, 95% CI = 1.64, 9.23, p < .01) than non-attending clinics. The impact of attendance at learning collaboratives (OR = 5.81, 95% CI = 1.89, 17.85; p < .01), didactic webinars (OR = 3.59; 95% CI = 1.04, 12.35; p < .05), and clinical skills trainings (OR = 3.53, 95% CI = 1.06, 11.78, p < .05) on patient growth was greater for Federally Qualified Health Centers. When comparing strategies in multivariate models, only the relationship between learning collaborative attendance and new patients prescribed buprenorphine remained significant (OR = 2.57; 95% CI = 1.12, 5.88; p < .05). Conclusions: This study reported on a large, statewide, implementation-as-usual project offering four typical implementation strategies. Clinic attendance at learning collaboratives, a multi-component strategy, had the most consistent impact on new patients prescribed buprenorphine. These results suggest that while a broad array of strategies was initially reasonable, optimizing the selection of implementation strategies could be more effective. Plain Language Summary: Access to life-saving medications for opioid use disorder, such as buprenorphine, remains limited despite strong evidence of effectiveness. Systems and organizations often select from a variety of implementation strategies aimed at expanding access to these medications. However, scant research exists to enable these organizations to select the most effective and efficient strategies. Our study-within a large state-wide system of care-examined the impact of primary care clinic attendance in four common implementation strategies on new patients prescribed buprenorphine. Learning collaboratives were the strategy that most consistently improved outcomes. These results highlight the challenges to strategy selection inherent in implementation-as-usual systems-level approaches. The field needs evidence-based information on which implementation strategies are most likely to yield desired implementation outcomes.

What constitutes "behavioral health"? Perceptions of substance-related problems and their treatment in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Integrating behavioral health in primary care is a widespread endeavor. Yet rampant variation exists in models and approaches. One significant question is whether frontline providers perceive that behavioral health includes substance use. The current study examined front line providers': 1. definition of behavioral health, and 2. levels of comfort treating patients who use alcohol and other drugs. Frontline providers at two primary care clinics were surveyed using a 28-item instrument designed to assess their comfort and knowledge of behavioral health, including substance use. Two questions from the Integrated Behavioral Health Staff Perceptions Survey pertaining to confidence in clinics' ability to care for patients' behavioral health needs and comfort dealing with patients with behavioral health needs were used for the purposes of this report. Participants also self-reported their clinic role. Responses to these two items were assessed and then compared across roles. Chi square estimates and analysis of variance tests were used to examine relationships between clinic roles and comfort of substance use care delivery. RESULTS: Physicians, nurses/nurse practitioners, medical assistants, and other staff (N = 59) participated. Forty-nine participants included substance use in their definition of behavioral health. Participants reported the least comfort caring for patients who use substances (M = 3.5, SD = 1.0) compared to those with mental health concerns (M = 4.1, SD = 0.7), chronic medical conditions (M = 4.2, SD = 0.7), and general health concerns (M = 4.2, SD = 0.7) (p < 0.001). Physicians (M = 3.0, SD = 0.7) reported significantly lower levels of comfort than medical assistants (M = 4.2, SD = 0.9) (p < 0.001) caring for patients who use substances. CONCLUSIONS: In a small sample of key stakeholders from two primary care clinics who participated in this survey, most considered substance use part of the broad umbrella of behavioral health. Compared to other conditions, primary care providers reported being less comfortable addressing patients' substance use. Level of comfort varied by role, where physicians were least comfortable, and medical assistants most comfortable.

Attitudes of primary care physicians toward prescribing buprenorphine: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic is a major public health issue associated with significant overdose deaths. Effective treatments exist, such as the medication buprenorphine, but are not widely available. This narrative review examines the attitudes of primary care providers (PCPs) toward prescribing buprenorphine. METHODS: Narrative review of 20 articles published after the year 2000, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to organize the findings. RESULTS: Three of the five CFIR domains ("Intervention Characteristics," "Outer Setting," "Inner Setting") were strongly represented in our analysis. Providers were concerned about the clientele associated with buprenorphine, diversion, and their self-efficacy in prescribing the medication. Some believed that buprenorphine does not belong in the discipline of primary care. Other barriers included philosophical objections and stigma toward substance use disorders. Notably, two studies reported a shift in attitudes once physicians prescribed buprenorphine to actual patients. CONCLUSIONS: Negative attitudes toward buprenorphine encompassed multi-layered concerns, ranging from skepticism about the medication itself, the behaviors of patients with opioid use disorders, and beliefs regarding substance use disorders more generally. We speculate, however, that negative attitudes may be improved by tailoring support strategies that address providers' self-efficacy and level of knowledge.

Implementing integrated services in routine behavioral health care: primary outcomes from a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 8.2 million adults in the United States live with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. Although the benefits of integrated treatment services for persons with co-occurring disorders has been well-established, gaps in access to integrated care persist. Implementation research can address this gap. We evaluated if the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) implementation strategy was effective in increasing integrated services capacity among organizations treating persons with co-occurring disorders. METHODS: This study employed a cluster randomized waitlist control group design. Forty-nine addiction treatment organizations from the State of Washington were randomized into one of two study arms: (1) NIATx strategy (active implementation strategy), or (2) waitlist (control). The primary outcome was a standardized organizational measure of integrated service capability: the Dual Diagnosis in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) Index. Intent-to-treat analyses and per-protocol analyses were conducted to address the following questions: (1) Is NIATx effective in increasing integrated service capacity? and (2) Are there differences in organizations that actually use NIATx per-protocol versus those that do not? RESULTS: From baseline to one-year post active implementation, both the NIATx strategy and waitlist arms demonstrated improvements over time in DDCAT Index total and DDCAT dimension scores. In intent-to-treat analyses, a moderate but statistically significant difference in improvement between study arms was seen only in the Program Milieu dimension (p = 0.020, Cohen's d = 0.54). In per-protocol analyses, moderate-to-large effects in Program Milieu (p = 0.002, Cohen's d = 0.91) and Continuity of Care (p = 0.026, Cohen's d = 0.63) dimensions, and in total DDCAT Index (p = 0.046, Cohen's d = 0.51) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, organizations in both study arms improved DDCAT Index scores over time. Organizations in the NIATx strategy arm with full adherence to the NIATx protocol had significantly greater improvements in the primary outcome measure of integrated service capacity for persons with co-occurring disorders. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03007940 . Retrospectively registered January 2017.

Integration of care for HIV and opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify optimal strategies for integrating HIV- and opioid use disorder-(OUD) screening and treatment in diverse settings. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and preidentified websites. Studies were included if they were published in English on or after 2002 through May 2017, and evaluated interventions that integrated, at an organizational level, screening and/or treatment for HIV and OUD in any care setting in any country. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles met criteria for inclusion, including 23 unique studies: six took place in HIV care settings, 12 in opioid treatment settings, and five elsewhere. Eight involved screening strategies, 22 involved treatment strategies, and seven involved strategies that encompassed screening and treatment. Randomized controlled studies demonstrated low-to-moderate risk of bias and observational studies demonstrated fair to good quality. Studies in HIV care settings (n = 6) identified HIV-related and OUD-related clinical benefits with the use of buprenorphine/naloxone for OUD. No studies in HIV care settings focused on screening for OUD. Studies in opioid treatment settings (n = 12) identified improving HIV screening uptake and clinical benefits with antiretroviral therapy when provided on-site. Counseling intensity for OUD medication adherence or HIV-related risk reduction was not associated with clinical benefits. CONCLUSION: Screening for HIV can be effectively delivered in opioid treatment settings, yet there is a need to identify optimal OUD screening strategies in HIV care settings. Strategies integrating the provision of medications for HIV and for OUD should be expanded and should not be contingent on resources available for behavioral interventions. REGISTRATION: A protocol for record eligibility was developed a priori and was registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42017069314).

"No more falling through the cracks": A qualitative study to inform measurement of integration of care of HIV and opioid use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Integration of HIV- and opioid use disorder (OUD)-related care is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our goal was to develop a novel instrument for measuring quality of integration of HIV and OUD-related care that would be applicable across diverse care settings. METHODS: Grounded in community-based participatory research principles, we conducted a qualitative study from August through November 2017 to inform modification of the Behavioral Health Integration in Medical Care (BHIMC) instrument, a validated measure of quality of integration of behavioral health in primary care. We conducted semi-structured interviews of patients (n = 22), focus groups with clinical staff (n = 24), and semi-structured interviews of clinic leadership (n = 5) in two urban centers in Connecticut. RESULTS: We identified three themes that characterize optimal integration of HIV- and OUD-related care: (1) importance of mitigating mismatches in resources and knowledge, particularly resources to address social risks and knowledge gaps about evidence-based treatments for OUD; (2) need for patient-centered policies and inter-organization communication, and (3) importance of meeting people where they are, geographically and at their stage of change. These themes highlighted aspects of integrated care for HIV and OUD not captured in the original BHIMC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients, clinical staff, and organization leadership perceive that addressing social risks, communication across agencies, and meeting patients in their psychosocial and structural context are important for optimizing integration of HIV and OUD-related care. Our proposed, novel instrument is a step towards measuring and improving service delivery locally and nationally for this vulnerable population.

Using NIATx strategies to implement integrated services in routine care: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Access to integrated services for individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders is a long-standing public health issue. Receiving integrated treatment services are both more effective and preferred by patients and families versus parallel or fragmented care. National policy statements and expert consensus guidelines underscore the benefits of integrated treatment. Despite decades of awareness, adequate treatment for individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders occurs infrequently. The underlying disease burden associated with alcohol, illicit and prescription drug problems, as well as mental health disorders, such as depression, posttraumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia, is substantial. METHODS: This cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) is designed to determine if the multi-component Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) strategies are effective in implementing integrated services for persons with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. In this study, 50 behavioral health programs in Washington State will be recruited and then randomized into one of two intervention arms: 1) NIATx implementation strategies, including coaching and learning sessions over a 12-month intervention period to implement changes targeting integrated treatment services; or 2) wait-list control. Primary outcome measures include: 1) fidelity - a standardized organizational assessment of integrated services (Dual Diagnosis in Addiction Treatment [DDCAT] Index); and 2) penetration - proportion of patients screened and diagnosed with co-occurring disorders, proportion of eligible patients receiving substance use and mental health services, and psychotropic or substance use disorder medications. Barriers and facilitators, as determinants of implementation outcomes, will be assessed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) Index. Fidelity to and participation in NIATx strategies will be assessed utilizing the NIATx Fidelity Scale and Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC). DISCUSSION: This study addresses an issue of substantial public health significance: the gap in access to an evidence-based practice for integrated treatment for individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. The study utilizes rigorous and reproducible quantitative approaches to measuring implementation determinants and strategies, and may address a longstanding gap in the quality of care for persons with co-occurring disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03007940 . Registered 02 January 2017 - Retrospectively Registered.

Impact of age of onset of psychosis and engagement in higher education on duration of untreated psychosis.

BACKGROUND: The average age of onset of psychosis coincides with the age of college enrollment. Little is known about the impact of educational engagement on DUP in a college-aged population. AIMS: To determine DUP, and the impact of educational engagement, for college-aged participants of the RAISE study (n = 404). METHOD: We conducted secondary data analyses on the publicly available RAISE dataset. Subsamples were analyzed to determine the impact of age and educational engagement on DUP. RESULTS: DUP was significantly shorter (p < 0.02) for participants who were college-aged (18-22 years, n = 44) and engaged in post-secondary education (median = 12 weeks, mean = 29 weeks) compared with participants who were college-aged and not engaged in higher education (n = 92, median = 29 weeks, mean = 44 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Educational engagement appears to be associated with a shorter DUP. This may be partially explained by the presence of on-site wellness centers in college settings. However, even among young people who engaged in post-secondary education DUP was still at, or beyond, the upper limit of WHO recommendations in this group. Future research exploring how colleges could improve their capacity to detect and refer at risk students for treatment at an earlier stage is recommended.

Individual Placement and Support (IPS) for Methadone Maintenance Therapy Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is an evidence-based employment model for people with severe mental illness, but it has not been evaluated for clients enrolled in substance abuse treatment programs. This study evaluated the effectiveness of IPS for people with opioid use disorders enrolled in an opioid treatment program. Within a randomized controlled experiment, 45 patients receiving methadone maintenance therapy were assigned to either IPS or a 6-month waitlist. The waitlist group received IPS after 6 months. The primary outcome assessed over 1 year compared the attainment of a job for the IPS condition to the waitlist comparison group. During the first 6 months after enrollment, 11 (50%) active IPS participants gained competitive employment compared to 1 (5%) waitlist participant (Χ 2 = 12.0, p < 0.001). Over 12 months of enrollment, 11 (50%) IPS participants gained competitive employment compared to 5 (22%) waitlist participants (Χ 2 = 3.92, p = 0.07). We conclude that IPS holds promise as an employment intervention for people with opioid use disorders in methadone maintenance treatment, but larger trials with longer follow-up are needed.

The influence of family and social problems on treatment outcomes of persons with co-occurring substance use disorders and PTSD.

OBJECTIVE: Family and social problems may contribute to negative recovery outcomes in patients with co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders, yet few studies have empirically examined this relationship. This study investigates the impact of family and social problems on treatment outcomes among patients with co-occurring substance use and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHOD: A secondary analysis was conducted using data collected from a randomized controlled trial of an integrated therapy for patients with co-occurring substance use and PTSD. Substance use, psychiatric symptoms, and social problems were assessed. Longitudinal outcomes were analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE) and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: At baseline, increased family and social problems were associated with more severe substance use and psychiatric symptoms. Over time, all participants had comparable decreases in substance use and psychiatric problem severity. However, changes in family and social problem severity were predictive of PTSD symptom severity, alcohol use, and psychiatric severity at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with co-occurring substance use and PTSD, family and social problem severity is associated with substance use and psychiatric problem severity at baseline and over time. Targeted treatment for social and family problems may be optimal.