Loneliness among homeless-experienced older adults with cognitive or functional impairments: qualitative findings from the HOPE HOME study.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness is more common in older adults and those who face structural vulnerabilities, including homelessness. The homeless population is aging in the United States; now, 48% of single homeless adults are 50 and older. We know little about loneliness among older adults who have experienced homelessness. We aimed to describe the loneliness experience among homeless-experienced older adults with cognitive and functional impairments and the individual, social, and structural conditions that shaped these loneliness experiences. METHODS: We purposively sampled 22 older adults from the HOPE HOME study, a longitudinal cohort study among adults aged 50 years or older experiencing homelessness in Oakland, California. We conducted in-depth interviews about participants perceived social support and social isolation. We conducted qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty participants discussed loneliness experience, who had a median age of 57 and were mostly Black (80%) and men (65%). We developed a typology of participants' loneliness experience and explored the individual, social, and structural conditions under which each loneliness experience occurred. We categorized the loneliness experience into four groups: (1) "lonely- distressed", characterized by physical impairment and severe isolation; (2) "lonely- rather be isolated", reflecting deliberate social isolation as a result of trauma, marginalization and aging-related resignation; (3) "lonely- transient", as a result of aging, acceptance and grieving; and (4) "not lonely"- characterized by stability and connection despite having experienced homelessness. CONCLUSIONS: Loneliness is a complex and heterogenous social phenomenon, with homeless-experienced older adults with cognitive or functional impairments exhibiting diverse loneliness experiences based on their individual life circumstances and needs. While the most distressing loneliness experience occurred among those with physical impairment and mobility challenges, social and structural factors such as interpersonal and structural violence during homelessness shaped these experiences.

Using alone at home: What's missing in housing-based responses to the overdose crisis?

BACKGROUND: Against the backdrop of North America's overdose crisis, most overdose deaths are occurring in housing environments, largely due to individuals using drugs alone. Overdose deaths in cities remain concentrated in marginal housing environments (e.g., single-room occupancy housing, shelters), which are often the only forms of housing available to urban poor and drug-using communities. This commentary aims to highlight current housing-based overdose prevention interventions and to situate them within the broader environmental contexts of marginal housing. In doing so, we call attention to the need to better understand marginal housing as sites of overdose vulnerability and public health intervention to optimize responses to the overdose crisis. HARM REDUCTION AND OVERDOSE PREVENTION IN HOUSING: In response to high overdose rates in marginal housing environments several interventions (e.g., housing-based supervised consumption rooms, peer-witnessed injection) have recently been implemented in select jurisdictions. However, even with the growing recognition of marginal housing as a key intervention site, housing-based interventions have yet to be scaled up in a meaningful way. Further, there have been persistent challenges to tailoring these approaches to address dynamics within housing environments. Thus, while it is critical to expand coverage of housing-based interventions across marginal housing environments, these interventions must also attend to the contextual drivers of risks in these settings to best foster enabling environments for harm reduction and maximize impacts. CONCLUSION: Emerging housing-focused interventions are designed to address key drivers of overdose risk (e.g., using alone, toxic drug supply). Yet, broader contextual factors (e.g., drug criminalization, housing quality, gender) are equally critical factors that shape how structurally vulnerable people who use drugs navigate and engage with harm reduction interventions. A more comprehensive understanding of these contextual factors within housing environments is needed to inform policy and programmatic interventions that are responsive to the needs of people who use drugs in these settings.

Withdrawal during outpatient low dose buprenorphine initiation in people who use fentanyl: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD); however, buprenorphine initiation can be complicated by withdrawal symptoms including precipitated withdrawal. There has been increasing interest in using low dose initiation (LDI) strategies to reduce this withdrawal risk. As there are limited data on withdrawal symptoms during LDI, we characterize withdrawal symptoms in people with daily fentanyl use who underwent initiation using these strategies as outpatients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with OUD using daily fentanyl who were prescribed 7-day or 4-day LDI at 2 substance use disorder treatment clinics in San Francisco. Two addiction medicine experts assessed extracted chart documentation for withdrawal severity and precipitated withdrawal, defined as acute worsening of withdrawal symptoms immediately after taking buprenorphine. A third expert adjudicated disagreements. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There were 175 initiations in 126 patients. The mean age was 37 (SD 10 years). 71% were men, 26% women, and 2% non-binary. 21% identified as Black, 16% Latine, and 52% white. 60% were unstably housed and 75% had Medicaid insurance. Substance co-use included 74% who used amphetamines, 29% cocaine, 22% benzodiazepines, and 19% alcohol. Follow up was available for 118 (67%) initiations. There was deviation from protocol instructions in 22% of these initiations with follow up. 31% had any withdrawal, including 21% with mild symptoms, 8% moderate and 2% severe. Precipitated withdrawal occurred in 10 cases, or 8% of initiations with follow up. Of these, 7 had deviation from protocol instructions; thus, there were 3 cases with follow up (3%) in which precipitated withdrawal occurred without protocol deviation. CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawal was relatively common in our cohort but was mostly mild, and precipitated withdrawal was rare. Deviation from instructions, structural barriers, and varying fentanyl use characteristics may contribute to withdrawal. Clinicians should counsel patients who use fentanyl that mild withdrawal symptoms are likely during LDI, and there is still a low risk for precipitated withdrawal. Future studies should compare withdrawal across initiation types, seek ways to support patients in initiating buprenorphine, and qualitatively elicit patients' withdrawal experiences.

The Clinical Evolutions of Surveillance and Violence During Three Contemporary US Crises: Opioid Overdose, COVID-19, and Racial Reckoning.

In 2020, three crises coalesced to transform the clinical care landscape of addiction medicine in the United States (US). The opioid overdose crisis (crisis #1), which had been contributing to excess US mortality for over two decades, worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic (crisis #2). The racial reckoning (crisis #3) spurred by the murder of George Floyd at the hands of police impacted clinical care, especially in safety net clinical settings where the majority of people targeted by police violence, and other forms of structural violence, receive healthcare to mend both physical and psychological wounds. Collectively, the three crises changed how providers and patients viewed their experiences of clinical surveillance and altered their relationships to the violence of US healthcare. Drawing from two different research studies conducted during the years preceding and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2017-2022) with low income, safety net patients at risk for opioid overdose and their care providers, I analyze the relationship between surveillance and violence in light of changes wrought by these three intersecting health and social crises. I suggest that shifting perceptions about surveillance and violence contributed to clinical care innovations that offer greater patient autonomy and transform critical components of addiction medicine care practice.

Telehealth for management of chronic non-cancer pain and opioid use disorder in safety net primary care.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic increased use of telehealth for the management of opioid use disorder and chronic non-cancer pain in primary care safety net clinical systems. Significant barriers to telehealth exist, little is known about how these barriers impact urban safety net, primary care providers and their patients. The objective of this study was to qualitatively assess the benefits and challenges of telehealth for management of chronic non-cancer pain, opioid use disorder, and multi-morbidity in primary care, safety net clinical systems. METHODS: We interviewed patients with chronic non-cancer pain and history of substance use (n = 22) and their primary care clinicians (n = 7) in the San Francisco Bay Area, March-July 2020. We recorded, transcribed, coded, and content analyzed interviews. RESULTS: COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders contributed to increases in substance use and uncontrolled pain, and posed challenges for monitoring opioid safety and misuse through telehealth. None of the clinics used video visits due to low digital literacy/access. Benefits of telehealth included decreased patient burden and missed appointments and increased convenience and control of some chronic conditions (e.g., diabetes, hypertension). Telehealth challenges included loss of contact, greater miscommunication, and less comprehensive care interactions. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first to examine telehealth use in urban safety net primary care patients with co-occurring chronic non-cancer pain and substance use. Decisions to continue or expand telehealth should consider patient burden, communication and technology challenges, pain control, opioid misuse, and medical complexity.

Health Impact of Street Sweeps from the Perspective of Healthcare Providers.

BACKGROUND: Homeless street sweeps are frequent operations in many cities in the USA in which government agencies move unhoused people living in public outdoor areas. Little research exists on the health impact of street sweeps operations. OBJECTIVE: This study was created at the request of community advocacy groups to investigate and document the health impacts of street sweeps from the perspective of healthcare providers. DESIGN: This is a qualitative study using data gathered from open-ended questions. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 39 healthcare providers who provided health and wellness services in San Francisco for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) between January 2018 and January 2020. INTERVENTIONS: We administered a qualitative, open-ended questionnaire to healthcare providers using Qualtrics surveying their perspectives on the health impact of street sweeps. APPROACH: We conducted qualitative thematic analysis on questionnaire results. KEY RESULTS: Street sweeps may negatively impact health through two outcomes. The first outcome is material loss, including belongings and medical items. The second outcome is instability, including geographic displacement, community fragmentation, and loss to follow-up. These outcomes may contribute to less effective management of chronic health conditions, infectious diseases, and substance use disorders, and may increase physical injuries and worsen mental health. Providers also reported that sweeps may negatively impact the healthcare system by promoting increased usage of emergency departments and inpatient hospital care. CONCLUSIONS: Sweeps may have several negative consequences for the physical and mental health of the PEH community and for the healthcare system.

COVID-19 Testing and Vaccine Acceptability Among Homeless-Experienced Adults: Qualitative Data from Two Samples.

BACKGROUND: Homeless-experienced populations are at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to their living environments and face an increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease due to underlying health conditions. Little is known about COVID-19 testing and vaccination acceptability among homeless-experienced populations. OBJECTIVE: To understand the facilitators and barriers to COVID-19 testing and vaccine acceptability among homeless-experienced adults. DESIGN: We conducted in-depth interviews with participants from July to October 2020. We purposively recruited participants from (1) a longitudinal cohort of homeless-experienced older adults in Oakland, CA (n=37) and (2) a convenience sample of people (n=57) during a mobile outreach COVID-19 testing event in San Francisco. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with current or past experience of homelessness. APPROACH: We asked participants about their experiences with and attitudes towards COVID-19 testing and their perceptions of COVID-19 vaccinations. We used participant observation techniques to document the interactions between testing teams and those approached for testing. We audio-recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed all interviews and identified major themes and subthemes. KEY RESULTS: Participants found incentivized COVID-19 testing administered in unsheltered settings and supported by community health outreach workers (CHOWs) to be acceptable. The majority of participants expressed a positive inclination toward vaccine acceptability, citing a desire to return to routine life and civic responsibility. Those who expressed hesitancy cited a desire to see trial data, concerns that vaccines included infectious materials, and mistrust of the government. CONCLUSIONS: Participants expressed positive evaluations of the incentivized, mobile COVID-19 testing supported by CHOWs in unsheltered settings. The majority of participants expressed a positive inclination toward vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy concerns must be addressed when designing vaccine delivery strategies that overcome access challenges. Based on the successful implementation of COVID-19 testing, we recommend mobile delivery of vaccines using trusted CHOWs to address concerns and facilitate wider access to and uptake of the COVID vaccine.

"I wanted something that was more flexible": A qualitative study of patient preferences on choosing buprenorphine over methadone in a large, safety-net hospital opioid treatment program.

Background: Buprenorphine availability for the treatment of opioid use disorders (OUD) has expanded in the United States. Programs that previously offered only methadone treatment to patients with OUD now offer an equal choice between buprenorphine and methadone at the same location, yet little is known about patient preferences for buprenorphine over methadone in these settings. We sought to understand the decision-making factors and motivations underlying why patients opt for buprenorphine over methadone for the treatment of OUD when both are offered in a safety-net hospital-based opioid treatment program (OTP). Methods: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients receiving buprenorphine, in which we asked about substance use and treatment history, reasons for choosing buprenorphine, advantages, and disadvantages of choosing buprenorphine, and what they would like to change in their treatment experience. Results: Participants had varied exposure to buprenorphine prior to their current treatment, ranging from none to years of experience in multiple settings. Increased flexibility with take-home doses was a widespread motivation for choosing buprenorphine over methadone. Participants described decreased sedation and greater effectiveness in preventing opioid use compared to methadone as advantages during their treatment with buprenorphine. Difficulty with the transition to buprenorphine was a noteworthy challenge for many. Conclusions: Overall, patients maintained on buprenorphine at an urban safety-net hospital OTP viewed their treatment favorably compared to methadone. Increased autonomy in light of federal regulation differences and an improved physical profile were significant decision-making factors, although the number of patients choosing buprenorphine at the OTP remained low. Targeted patient education about induction and focus on improving structural barriers such as dosing efficiency may enhance patient experiences.

"The idea is to help people achieve greater success and liberty": A qualitative study of expanded methadone take-home access in opioid use disorder treatment.

Background: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States (US) was already facing an epidemic of opioid overdose deaths. Overdose deaths continued to surge during the pandemic. To limit COVID-19 spread and to avoid disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including buprenorphine and methadone, US federal and state agencies granted unprecedented exemptions to existing MOUD guidelines for Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs), including loosening criteria for unsupervised take-home doses. We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate the impact of these policy changes on MOUD treatment experiences for providers and patients at an OTP in California. Methods: We interviewed 10 providers (including two physicians, five social worker associates, and three nurse practitioners) and 20 patients receiving MOUD. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed all interviews to identify emergent themes. Results: Patient participants were middle-aged (median age 51 years) and were predominantly men (53%). Providers discussed clinical decision-making processes and experiences providing take-homes. Implementation of expanded take-home policies was cautious. Providers reported making individualized decisions, using patient factors to decide if benefits outweighed risks of overdose and misuse. Decision-making factors included patient drug use, overdose risk, housing status, and vulnerability to COVID-19. New patient groups started receiving take-homes and providers noted few adverse events. Patients who received take-homes reported increased autonomy and treatment flexibility, which in turn increased likelihood of treatment stabilization and engagement. Patients who remained ineligible for take-homes, usually due to ongoing non-prescribed opioid or benzodiazepine use, desired greater transparency and shared decision-making. Conclusion: Federal exemptions in response to COVID-19 led to the unprecedented expansion of access to MOUD take-homes within OTPs. Providers and patients perceived benefits to expanding access to take-homes and experienced few adverse outcomes, suggesting expanded take-home policies should remain post-COVID-19. Future studies should explore whether these findings are generalizable to other OTPs and assess larger samples to quantify patient-level outcomes resulting from expanded take-home policies.

Responding to the Opioid Epidemic: Educational Competencies for Pain and Substance Use Disorder from the Medical Schools of the University of California.

OBJECTIVE: The University of California (UC) leadership sought to develop a robust educational response to the epidemic of opioid-related deaths. Because the contributors to this current crisis are multifactorial, a comprehensive response requires educating future physicians about safe and effective management of pain, safer opioid prescribing, and identification and treatment of substance use disorder (SUD). METHODS: The six UC medical schools appointed an opioid crisis workgroup to develop educational strategies and a coordinated response to the opioid epidemic. The workgroup had diverse specialty and disciplinary representation. This workgroup focused on developing a foundational set of educational competencies for adoption across all UC medical schools that address pain, SUD, and public health concerns related to the opioid crisis. RESULTS: The UC pain and SUD competencies were either newly created or adapted from existing competencies that addressed pain, SUD, and opioid and other prescription drug misuse. The final competencies covered three domains: pain, SUD, and public health issues related to the opioid crisis. CONCLUSIONS: The authors present a novel set of educational competencies as a response to the opioid crisis. These competencies emphasize the subject areas that are fundamental to the opioid crisis: pain management, the safe use of opioids, and understanding and treating SUD.

COVID-19: A catalyst for change in telehealth service delivery for opioid use disorder management.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has exacerbated income inequality, structural racism, and social isolation-issues that drive addiction and have previously manifested in the epidemic of opioid-associated overdose. The co-existence of these epidemics has necessitated care practice changes, including the use of telehealth-based encounters for the diagnosis and management of opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: We describe the development of the "Addiction Telehealth Program" (ATP), a telephone-based program to reduce treatment access barriers for people with substance use disorders staying at San Francisco's COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine (I&Q) sites. Telehealth encounters were documented in the electronic medical record and an internal tracking system for the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) COVID-19 Containment Response. Descriptive statistics were collected on a case series of patients initiated on buprenorphine at I&Q sites and indicators of feasibility were measured. RESULTS: Between April 10 and May 25, 2020, ATP consulted on the management of opioid, alcohol, GHB, marijuana, and stimulant use for 59 I&Q site guests. Twelve patients were identified with untreated OUD and newly prescribed buprenorphine. Of these, all were marginally housed, 67% were Black, and 58% had never previously been prescribed medications for OUD. Four self-directed early discharge from I&Q-1 prior to and 3 after initiating buprenorphine. Of the remaining 8 patients, 7 reported continuing to take buprenorphine at the time of I&Q discharge and 1 discontinued. No patients started on buprenorphine sustained significant adverse effects, required emergency care, or experienced overdose. CONCLUSIONS: ATP demonstrates the feasibility of telephone-based management of OUD among a highly marginalized patient population in San Francisco and supports the implementation of similar programs in areas of the U.S. where access to addiction treatment is limited. Legal changes permitting the prescribing of buprenorphine via telehealth without the requirement of an in-person visit should persist beyond the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Design, Conduct, and Evaluate Randomized Controlled Trials with American Indian Communities.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Academic literature indicates a need for more integration of Indigenous and colonial research systems in the design, implementation, and evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with American Indian communities. In this article, we describe ways to implement RCTs with Tribal Nations using community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles and practices. INTERVENTION APPROACH: We used a multiple case study research design to examine how Tribal Nations and researchers collaborated to develop, implement, and evaluate CBPR RCTs. EVALUATION METHODS: Discussion questions within existing tribal-academic partnerships were developed to identify the epistemologic, methodologic, and analytic strengths and challenges of 3 case studies. RESULTS: We identified commonalities that were foundational to the success of CBPR RCTs with Tribal Nations. Long-standing community-researcher relationships were critical to development, implementation, and evaluation of RCTs, although what constituted success in the 3 CBPR RCTs was diverse and dependent on the context of each trial. Respect for the importance of diverse knowledge systems that account for both Indigenous knowledge and colonial science also contributed to the success of the RCTs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Tribal-academic partnerships using CBPR RCTs must include 1) establishing trusted CBPR partnerships and receiving tribal approval before embarking on RCTs with Tribal Nations; 2) balancing tribal community interests and desires with the colonial scientific rigor of RCTs; and 3) using outcomes that include tribal community concepts of success as well as outcomes found in standard colonial scientific research practices to measure the success of the CBPR RCTs.

Teaching Structure: A Qualitative Evaluation of a Structural Competency Training for Resident Physicians.

BACKGROUND: The influence of societal inequities on health has long been established, but such content has been incorporated unevenly into medical education and clinical training. Structural competency calls for medical education to highlight the important influence of social, political, and economic factors on health outcomes. AIM: This article describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of a structural competency training for medical residents. SETTING: A California family medicine residency program serving a patient population predominantly (88 %) with income below 200 % of the federal poverty level. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 12 residents in the family residency program. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The training was designed to help residents recognize and develop skills to respond to illness and health as the downstream effects of social, political, and economic structures. PROGRAM EVALUATION: The training was evaluated via qualitative analysis of surveys gathered immediately post-training (response rate 100 %) and a focus group 1 month post-training (attended by all residents not on service). DISCUSSION: Residents reported that the training had a positive impact on their clinical practice and relationships with patients. They also reported feeling overwhelmed by increased recognition of structural influences on patient health, and indicated a need for further training and support to address these influences.

Provider Experiences With the Identification, Management, and Treatment of Co-occurring Chronic Noncancer Pain and Substance Use in the Safety Net.

BACKGROUND: In the United States and internationally, providers have adopted guidelines on the management of prescription opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). For "high-risk" patients with co-occurring CNCP and a history of substance use, guidelines advise that providers monitor patients using urine toxicology screening tests, develop opioid management plans, and refer patients to substance use treatment. OBJECTIVE: We report primary care provider experiences in the safety net interpreting and implementing prescription opioid guideline recommendations for patients with CNCP and substance use. METHODS: We interviewed primary care providers who work in safety net settings (N = 23) on their experiences managing CNCP and substance use. We analyzed interviews using a content analysis method. RESULTS: Providers found management plans and urine toxicology screening tests useful for informing patients about clinic expectations of opioid therapy and substance use. However, they described that guideline-based clinic policies had unintended consequences, such as raising barriers to open, honest dialogue about substance use and treatment. While substance use treatment was recommended for "high-risk" patients, providers described lack of integration with and availability of substance use treatment programs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that clinicians in the safety net found guideline-based clinic policies helpful. However, effective implementation was challenged by barriers to open dialogue about substance use and limited linkages with treatment programs. Further research is needed to examine how the context of safety net settings shapes the management and treatment of co-occurring CNCP and substance use.

The risks of opioid treatment: Perspectives of primary care practitioners and patients from safety-net clinics.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of substance use are more likely than those without substance use to experience chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), to be prescribed opioids, and to experience opioid misuse or overdose. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) in safety-net settings care for low-income patients with CNCP and substance use, usually without specialist consultation. To inform communication related to opioid risk, we explored PCPs' and patients' perceptions of the risks of chronic opioid therapy. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 23 PCPs and 46 of their patients, who had a history of CNCP and substance use. We recruited from 6 safety-net health care settings in the San Francisco Bay Area. We transcribed interviews verbatim and analyzed transcripts using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: (1) PCPs feared harming patients and the community by opioid prescribing. PCPs emphasized fear of opioid overdose. (2) Patients did not highlight concerns about the adverse health consequences of opioids, except for addiction. (3) Both patients and PCPs were concerned about PCPs' medicolegal risks related to opioid prescribing. (4) Patients reported feeling stigmatized by policies aimed at reducing opioid misuse. CONCLUSION: We identified differences in how clinicians and patients perceive opioid risk. To improve the informed consent process for opioid therapy, patients and PCPs need to have a shared understanding of the risks of opioids and engage in discussions that promote patient autonomy and safety. As clinics implement opioid prescribing policies, clinicians must develop effective communication strategies in order to educate patients about opioid risks and decrease patients' experiences of stigma and discrimination.

Primary care providers' experiences with urine toxicology tests to manage prescription opioid misuse and substance use among chronic noncancer pain patients in safety net health care settings.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations to reduce prescription opioid misuse among patients with chronic noncancer pain include the routine use of urine toxicology tests for high-risk patients. Yet little is known about how the implementation of urine toxicology tests among patients with co-occurring chronic noncancer pain and substance use impacts primary care providers' management of misuse. Clinicians' perspectives on the benefits and challenges of implementing urine toxicology tests in the monitoring of opioid misuse and substance use in safety net health care settings are presented in this paper. METHODS: Twenty-three primary care providers from 6 safety net health care settings whose patients had a diagnosis of co-occurring chronic noncancer pain and substance use were interviewed. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: The benefits of implementing urine toxicology tests for primary care providers included less reliance on intuition to assess for misuse and the ability to identify unknown opioid misuse and/or substance use. The challenges of implementing urine toxicology tests included insufficient education and training about how to interpret and implement tests, and a lack of clarity on how and when to act on tests that indicated misuse and/or substance use. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that primary care clinicians' lack of education and training to interpret and implement urine toxicology tests may impact their management of patient opioid misuse and/or substance use. Clinicians may benefit from additional education and training about the clinical implementation and use of urine toxicology tests. Additional research is needed on how primary care providers implementation and use of urine toxicology tests impacts chronic noncancer pain management in primary care and safety net health care settings among patients with co-occurring chronic non cancer pain and substance use.