The association between specific narrative elements and patient perspectives on acute pain treatment.

BACKGROUND: Narratives are effective tools for communicating with patients about opioid prescribing for acute pain and improving patient satisfaction with pain management. It remains unclear, however, whether specific narrative elements may be particularly effective at influencing patient perspectives. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of data collected for Life STORRIED, a multicenter RCT. Participants included 433 patients between 18 and 70 years-old presenting to the emergency department (ED) with renal colic or musculoskeletal back pain. Participants were instructed to view one or more narrative videos during their ED visit in which a patient storyteller discussed their experiences with opioids. We examined associations between exposure to individual narrative features and patients' 1) preference for opioids, 2) recall of opioid-related risks and 3) perspectives about the care they received. RESULTS: Participants were more likely to watch videos featuring storytellers who shared their race or gender. We found that participants who watched videos that contained specific narrative elements, for example mention of prescribed opioids, were more likely to recall having received information about pain treatment options on the day after discharge (86.3% versus 72.9%, p = 0.02). Participants who watched a video that discussed family history of addiction reported more participation in their treatment decision than those who did not (7.6 versus 6.8 on a ten-point scale, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Participants preferentially view narratives featuring storytellers who share their race or gender. Narrative elements were not meaningfully associated with patient-centered outcomes. These findings have implications for the design of narrative communication tools.

"The new normal has become a nonstop crisis": a qualitative study of burnout among Philadelphia's harm reduction and substance use disorder treatment workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic worsened the ongoing overdose crisis in the United States (US) and caused significant mental health strain and burnout among health care workers (HCW). Harm reduction, overdose prevention, and substance use disorder (SUD) workers may be especially impacted due to underfunding, resources shortages, and chaotic working environments. Existing research on HCW burnout primarily focuses on licensed HCWs in traditional environments and fails to account for the unique experiences of harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis descriptive study of 30 Philadelphia-based harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians about their experiences working in their roles during the COVID-19 pandemic in July-August 2020. Our analysis was guided by Shanafelt and Noseworthy's model of key drivers of burnout and engagement. We aimed to assess the applicability of this model to the experiences of SUD and harm reduction workers in non-traditional settings. RESULTS: We deductively coded our data in alignment with Shanafelt and Noseworthy's key drivers of burnout and engagement: (1) workload and job demands, (2) meaning in work, (3) control and flexibility, (4) work-life integration, (5) organizational culture and values, (6) efficiency and resources and (7) social support and community at work. While Shanafelt and Noseworthy's model broadly encompassed the experiences of our participants, it did not fully account for their concerns about safety at work, lack of control over the work environment, and experiences of task-shifting. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout among healthcare providers is receiving increasing attention nationally. Much of this coverage and the existing research have focused on workers in traditional healthcare spaces and often do not consider the experiences of community-based SUD treatment, overdose prevention, and harm reduction providers. Our findings indicate a gap in existing frameworks for burnout and a need for models that encompass the full range of the harm reduction, overdose prevention, and SUD treatment workforce. As the US overdose crisis continues, it is vital that we address and mitigate experiences of burnout among harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians to protect their wellbeing and to ensure the sustainability of their invaluable work.

A Multicentered Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Pain Treatment Communication Tools in Emergency Department Patients With Back or Kidney Stone Pain.

Objectives. To compare the effectiveness of 3 approaches for communicating opioid risk during an emergency department visit for a common painful condition. Methods. This parallel, multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted at 6 geographically disparate emergency department sites in the United States. Participants included adult patients between 18 and 70 years of age presenting with kidney stone or musculoskeletal back pain. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 risk communication strategies: (1) a personalized probabilistic risk visual aid, (2) a visual aid and a video narrative, or 3) general risk information. The primary outcomes were accuracy of risk recall, reported opioid use, and treatment preference at time of discharge. Results. A total of 1301 participants were enrolled between June 2017 and August 2019. There was no difference in risk recall at 14 days between the narrative and probabilistic groups (43.7% vs 38.8%; absolute risk reduction = 4.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.98, 12.75). The narrative group had lower rates of preference for opioids at discharge than the general risk information group (25.9% vs 33.0%; difference = 7.1%; 95% CI = 0.64, 0.97). There were no differences in reported opioid use at 14 days between the narrative, probabilistic, and general risk groups (10.5%, 10.3%, and 13.3%, respectively; P = .44). Conclusions. An emergency medicine communication tool incorporating probabilistic risk and patient narratives was more effective than general information in mitigating preferences for opioids in the treatment of pain but was not more effective with respect to opioid use or risk recall. Trial Registration. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT03134092. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S45-S55. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306511).

Substance Use and Overdose in Public Libraries: Results from a Five-State Survey in the US.

In the U.S., overdoses have become a health crisis in both public and private places. We describe the impact of the overdose crisis in public libraries across five U.S. states, and the front-line response of public library workers. We conducted a cross-sectional survey, inviting one worker to respond at each public library in five randomly selected states (CO, CT, FL, MI, and VA), querying participants regarding substance use and overdose in their communities and institutions, and their preparedness to respond. We describe substance use and overdose patterns, as well as correlates of naloxone uptake, in public libraries. Participating library staff (N = 356) reported witnessing alcohol use (45%) and injection drug use (14%) in their libraries in the previous month. Across states surveyed, 12% of respondents reported at least one on-site overdose in the prior year, ranging from a low of 10% in MI to a high of 17% in FL. There was wide variation across states in naloxone uptake at libraries, ranging from 0% of represented libraries in FL to 33% in CO. Prior on-site overdose was associated with higher odds of naloxone uptake by the library (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.7). Although 24% of respondents had attended a training regarding substance use in the prior year, over 90% of respondents wanted to receive additional training on the topic. Public health professionals should partner with public libraries to expand and strengthen substance use outreach and overdose prevention efforts.

Consumer Views on Health Applications of Consumer Digital Data and Health Privacy Among US Adults: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, the number of internet users surpassed 4.6 billion. Individuals who create and share digital data can leave a trail of information about their habits and preferences that collectively generate a digital footprint. Studies have shown that digital footprints can reveal important information regarding an individual's health status, ranging from diet and exercise to depression. Uses of digital applications have accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic where public health organizations have utilized technology to reduce the burden of transmission, ultimately leading to policy discussions about digital health privacy. Though US consumers report feeling concerned about the way their personal data is used, they continue to use digital technologies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand the extent to which consumers recognize possible health applications of their digital data and identify their most salient concerns around digital health privacy. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a diverse national sample of US adults from November 2018 to January 2019. Participants were recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a nationally representative panel. Participants were asked to reflect on their own use of digital technology, rate various sources of digital information, and consider several hypothetical scenarios with varying sources and health-related applications of personal digital information. RESULTS: The final cohort included a diverse national sample of 45 US consumers. Participants were generally unaware what consumer digital data might reveal about their health. They also revealed limited knowledge of current data collection and aggregation practices. When responding to specific scenarios with health-related applications of data, they had difficulty weighing the benefits and harms but expressed a desire for privacy protection. They saw benefits in using digital data to improve health, but wanted limits to health programs' use of consumer digital data. CONCLUSIONS: Current privacy restrictions on health-related data are premised on the notion that these data are derived only from medical encounters. Given that an increasing amount of health-related data is derived from digital footprints in consumer settings, our findings suggest the need for greater transparency of data collection and uses, and broader health privacy protections.

Telehealth for opioid use disorder treatment in low-barrier clinic settings: an exploration of clinician and staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The majority of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) face access barriers to evidence-based treatment, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the United States (US) opioid overdose crisis. However, the pandemic has also ushered in rapid transitions to telehealth in the USA, including for substance use disorder treatment with buprenorphine. These changes have the potential to mitigate barriers to care or to exacerbate pre-existing treatment inequities. The objective of this study was to qualitatively explore Philadelphia-based low-barrier, harm-reduction oriented, opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment provider perspectives about and experiences with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess their desire to offer telehealth to patients at their programs in the future. METHODS: We interviewed 22 OUD treatment prescribers and staff working outpatient programs offering OUD treatment with buprenorphine in Philadelphia during July and August 2020. All participants worked at low-barrier treatment programs that provide buprenorphine using a harm reduction-oriented approach and without mandating counseling or other requirements as a condition of treatment. We analyzed the data using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis yielded three themes: 1/ Easier access for some: telehealth facilitates care for many patients who have difficulty attending in-person appointments due to logistical and psychological barriers; 2/ A layered digital divide: engagement with telehealth can be seriously limited by patients' access to and comfort with technology; and 3/ Clinician control: despite some clinic staff beliefs that patients should have the freedom to choose their treatment modality, patients' access to treatment via telehealth may hinge on clinician perceptions of patient "stability" rather than patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth may address many access issues, however, barriers to implementation remain, including patient ability and desire to attend healthcare appointments virtually. In addition, the potential for telehealth models to extend OUD care to patients currently underserved by in-person models may partially depend on clinician comfort treating patients deemed "unstable" via this modality. The ability of telehealth to expand access to OUD care for individuals who have previously struggled to engage with in-person care will likely be limited if these patients are not given the opportunity to receive treatment via telehealth.

Thematic Analysis of State Medicaid Buprenorphine Prior Authorization Requirements.

Importance: Prior authorization (PA) requirements for buprenorphine are associated with lower provision of the medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). While Medicare plans have eliminated PA requirements for buprenorphine, many Medicaid plans continue to require them. Objective: To describe and classify buprenorphine coverage requirements based on thematic analysis of state Medicaid PA forms. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used a thematic analysis of 50 states' Medicaid PA forms for buprenorphine between November 2020 and March 2021. Forms were obtained from the jurisdiction's Medicaid websites and assessed for features suggesting barriers to buprenorphine access. A coding tool was developed based on a review of a sample of forms, including fields for behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates, drug screening requirements, and dosage limitations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included PA requirements for different buprenorphine formulations. Additionally, PA forms were evaluated for various criteria such as behavioral health, drug screenings, dose-related recommendations or mandates or patient education. Results: Among the total of 50 US states in the analysis, most states' Medicaid plans required PA for at least 1 formulation of buprenorphine. However, the majority did not require a PA for buprenorphine-naloxone. Four key themes of coverage requirements were identified: restrictive surveillance (eg, requirements for urine drug screenings, random drug screenings, pill counts), behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates (eg, mandatory counseling or 12-step meeting attendance), interfering with or restricting medical decision-making (eg, maximum daily dosages of 16 mg, requiring additional steps for dosages higher than 16 mg), and patient education (eg, information about adverse effects and interactions with other medications). Eleven states (22%) required urine drug screenings, 6 states (12%) required random urine drug screenings, and 4 states (8%) required pill counts. Fourteen states' forms (28%) recommended therapy, and 7 (14%) required therapy, counseling, or participation in group sessions. Eighteen states (36%) specified dosage maximums; among them, 11 (22%) required additional steps for a daily dosage higher than 16 mg. Conclusion: In this qualitative study of state Medicaid PA requirements for buprenorphine, themes were identified that included patient surveillance with drug screenings and pill counts, behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates, patient education, and dosing guidance. These results suggest that state Medicaid plans' buprenorphine PA requirements for OUD are in conflict with existing evidence and may negatively affect states' efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Personalized risk communication and opioid prescribing in association with nonprescribed opioid use: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To determine the impact of personalized risk communication and opioid prescribing on nonprescribed opioid use, we conducted a secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial participants followed prospectively for 90 days after an emergency department (ED) visit for acute back or kidney stone pain. METHODS: A total of 1301 individuals were randomized during an encounter at four academic EDs into a probabilistic risk tool (PRT) arm, a narrative-enhanced PRT arm, or a general risk information arm (control). In this secondary analysis, both risk tool arms were combined and compared with the control arm. We used logistic regressions to determine associations between receiving personalized risk information, receiving an opioid prescription in the ED, and nonprescribed opioid use in general and by race. RESULTS: Complete follow-up data were available for 851 participants; 23.3% (n = 198) were prescribed opioids (34.2% of White vs. 11.6% of Black participants, p < 0.001). Fifty-six (6.6%) participants used nonprescribed opioids. Participants in the personalized risk communication arms had lower nonprescribed opioid use odds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-0.83). Black versus White participants had greater nonprescribed opioid use odds (aOR 3.47, 95% CI 2.05-5.87, p < 0.001). Black participants who were prescribed opioids had a lower marginal probability of using nonprescribed opioids versus those who were not (0.06, 95% CI 0.04-0.08, p < 0.001 vs. 0.10, 95% CI 0.08-0.11, p < 0.001). The absolute risk difference in nonprescribed opioid use for Black and White participants, respectively, in the risk communication versus the control arm, was 9.7% and 0.1% (relative risk ratio 0.43 vs. 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Among Black but not White participants, personalized opioid risk communication and opioid prescribing were associated with lower odds of nonprescribed opioid use. Our findings suggest that racial disparities in opioid prescribing-which have been previously described within the context of this trial-may paradoxically increase nonprescribed opioid use. Personalized risk communication may effectively reduce nonprescribed opioid use, and future research should be designed specifically to explore this possibility in a larger cohort.

Patient Perceptions About Opioid Risk Communications Within the Context of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Opioid overdose rates continue to increase, and extant literature suggests that many individuals who use heroin were first introduced to opioids through a medical prescription. Objective: To explore patient experiences related to decisions regarding analgesia after an emergency department visit within the context of a randomized clinical trial aimed to test the efficacy of risk communication interventions on treatment preference, risk recall, and use of opioids. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study of 36 patients making decisions regarding analgesia included qualitative interviews with participants in 2 risk intervention groups. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and edited to remove identifying information to protect the confidentiality of participants. Interviews were conducted from June 4, 2019, to August 6, 2019. We conducted thematic analysis from August to December 2019 using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. Participants received $20 in compensation. The study was conducted in 4 geographically diverse emergency departments in the United States. Participants were adults presenting to the emergency department with either musculoskeletal back or neck pain or kidney stone-related pain. Eligibility criteria included being aged 18 to 70 years, capable of providing informed consent, English speaking or having English comprehension, eligible for emergency department discharge within 24 hours of enrollment, and able to access email or a smartphone. Interventions: Participants enrolled from the main randomized clinical trial received 1 of 2 risk interventions: a probabilistic opioid risk tool or a narrative-enhanced probabilistic risk tool (ie, participants viewed eight 1- to 3-minute short videos of patients discussing their experiences with pain treatment and positive and negative experiences with opioid use). Main Outcomes and Measures: Factors reported by participants to have influenced their decision-making regarding acute pain and treatment. Results: Thirty-six participants were interviewed, 18 in the group who received the probabilistic risk tool alone and 18 in the group who received the additional narrative-enhanced probabilistic risk tool intervention. The median age was 38 years (range, 21-67 years), 22 individuals were female (61%), 14 were Black or African American (39%), and 14 were White (39%). Five themes emerged from the analysis in the following domains: the factors associated with the risk interventions; clinician paternalism; analgesia attributes and previous experiences; individual self-identity, attitudes, and values; and perceptions of clinician bias. Conclusions and Relevance: Most participants commented on the powerful lessons they learned from the risk interventions. More research is needed to understand how patients incorporate risk information into their decision-making process.

Consumer Views on Using Digital Data for COVID-19 Control in the United States.

Importance: Curbing COVID-19 transmission is currently the greatest global public health challenge. Consumer digital tools used to collect data, such as the Apple-Google digital contact tracing program, offer opportunities to reduce COVID-19 transmission but introduce privacy concerns. Objective: To assess uses of consumer digital information for COVID-19 control that US adults find acceptable and the factors associated with higher or lower approval of use of this information. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study obtained data from a nationally representative sample of 6284 US adults recruited by email from the web-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel in July 2020. Respondents evaluated scenarios reflecting uses of digital data for COVID-19 control (case identification, digital contact tracing, policy setting, and enforcement of quarantines). Main Outcomes and Measures: Levels of support for use of personal digital data in 9 scenarios to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 infection, rated on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Multivariable linear regression models were fitted for each scenario and included factors hypothesized to be associated with views about digital data use for COVID-19 mitigation measures. Black and Hispanic survey respondents were oversampled; thus, poststratification weights were used so that results are representative of the general US population. Results: Of 6284 individuals invited to participate in the study, 3547 responded, for a completion rate of 56%. A total of 1762 participants (52%) were female, 715 (21%) identified as Black, 790 (23%) identified as Hispanic, and 1224 (36%) were 60 years or older; mean (SD) age was 51.7 (16.6) years. Approval of scenarios was low, ranging from 28% to 43% (52%-67% when neutral responses were included). Differences were found based on digital data source (smartphone vs social media: coefficient, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.23-0.35]; P < .001; smart thermometer vs social media: coefficient, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.03-0.16]; P = .004). County COVID-19 rates (coefficient, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.13 for quartile 4 compared with quartile 1) and prior family diagnosis of COVID-19 (coefficient, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.25) were not associated with support. Compared with self-described liberal individuals, conservative (coefficient, -0.81; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.66; P < .001) and moderate (coefficient, -0.52; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.38; P < .001) individuals were less likely to support the scenarios. Similarly, large political differences were observed in support of the Apple-Google digital contact tracing program, with less support from conservative (coefficient, -0.99; 95% CI, -1.11 to -0.87; P < .001) and moderate (coefficient, -0.59; 95% CI, -0.69 to -0.48; P < .001) individuals compared with liberal individuals. Respondents from racial/ethnic minority groups were more supportive of the scenarios than were White, non-Hispanic respondents. For example, compared with White respondents, Black respondents were more supportive of the Apple-Google contact tracing program (coefficient, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.32; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US adults, many were averse to their information being used on digital platforms to mitigate transmission of COVID-19. These findings suggest that in current and future pandemics, public health departments should use multiple strategies to gain public trust and accelerate adoption of tools such as digital contact tracing applications.

Patient Preference and Risk Assessment in Opioid Prescribing Disparities: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although racial disparities in acute pain control are well established, the role of patient analgesic preference and the factors associated with these disparities remain unclear. Objective: To characterize racial disparities in opioid prescribing for acute pain after accounting for patient preference and to test the hypothesis that racial disparities may be mitigated by giving clinicians additional information about their patients' treatment preferences and risk of opioid misuse. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of data collected from Life STORRIED (Life Stories for Opioid Risk Reduction in the ED), a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted between June 2017 and August 2019 in the emergency departments (EDs) of 4 academic medical centers. Participants included 1302 patients aged 18 to 70 years who presented to the ED with ureter colic or musculoskeletal back and/or neck pain. Interventions: The treatment arm was randomized to receive a patient-facing intervention (not examined in this secondary analysis) and a clinician-facing intervention that consisted of a form containing information about each patient's analgesic treatment preference and risk of opioid misuse. Main Outcomes and Measures: Concordance between patient preference for opioid-containing treatment (assessed before ED discharge) and receipt of an opioid prescription at ED discharge. Results: Among 1302 participants in the Life STORRIED clinical trial, 1012 patients had complete demographic and treatment preference data available and were included in this secondary analysis. Of those, 563 patients (55.6%) self-identified as female, with a mean (SD) age of 40.8 (14.1) years. A total of 455 patients (45.0%) identified as White, 384 patients (37.9%) identified as Black, and 173 patients (17.1%) identified as other races. After controlling for demographic characteristics and clinical features, Black patients had lower odds than White patients of receiving a prescription for opioid medication at ED discharge (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.65). When patients who did and did not prefer opioids were considered separately, Black patients continued to have lower odds of being discharged with a prescription for opioids compared with White patients (among those who preferred opioids: OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.24-0.77]; among those who did not prefer opioids: OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.23-0.89]). These disparities were not eliminated in the treatment arm, in which clinicians were given additional data about their patients' treatment preferences and risk of opioid misuse. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, Black patients received different acute pain management than White patients after patient preference was accounted for. These disparities remained after clinicians were given additional patient-level data, suggesting that a lack of patient information may not be associated with opioid prescribing disparities. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03134092.

Stories to Communicate Individual Risk for Opioid Prescriptions for Back and Kidney Stone Pain: Protocol for the Life STORRIED Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid misuse in the United States is a devastating public health crisis; many chronic opioid users were originally prescribed this class of medication for acute pain. Video narrative-enhanced risk communication may improve patient outcomes, such as knowledge of opioid risk and opioid use behaviors after an episode of acute pain. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to assess the effect of probabilistic and narrative-enhanced opioid risk communication on patient-reported outcomes, including knowledge, opioid use, and patient preferences, for patients who present to emergency departments with back pain and kidney stone pain. METHODS: This is a multisite randomized controlled trial. Patients presenting to the acute care facilities of four geographically and ethnically diverse US hospital centers with acute renal colic pain or musculoskeletal back and/or neck pain are eligible for this randomized controlled trial. A control group of patients receiving general risk information is compared to two intervention groups: one receiving the risk information sheet plus an individualized, visual probabilistic Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) and another receiving the risk information sheet plus a video narrative-enhanced probabilistic ORT. We will study the effect of probabilistic and narrative-enhanced opioid risk communication on the following: risk awareness and recall at 14 days postenrollment, reduced use or preferences for opioids after the emergency department episode, and alignment with patient preference and provider prescription. To assess these outcomes, we administer baseline patient surveys during acute care admission and follow-up surveys at predetermined times during the 3 months after discharge. RESULTS: A total of 1302 patients were enrolled over 24 months. The mean age of the participants was 40 years (SD 14), 692 out of 1302 (53.15%) were female, 556 out of 1302 (42.70%) were White, 498 out of 1302 (38.25%) were Black, 1002 out of 1302 (76.96%) had back pain, and 334 out of 1302 (25.65%) were at medium or high risk. Demographics and ORT scores were equally distributed across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This study seeks to assess the potential clinical role of narrative-enhanced, risk-informed communication for acute pain management in acute care settings. This paper outlines the protocol used to implement the study and highlights crucial methodological, statistical, and stakeholder involvement as well as dissemination considerations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03134092; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03134092. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/19496.