NEXT: description, rationale, and evaluation of a novel internet-based mail-delivered syringe service program.

Background: Despite proven health benefits, harm reduction services provided through in-person syringe services programs (SSPs) and pharmacies are largely unavailable to most people who inject drugs (PWID). Internet-based mail-delivered harm reduction services could overcome barriers to in-person SSPs. This manuscript describes Needle Exchange Technology (NEXT) Harm Reduction, the first formal internet-based mail delivery SSP in the US. Methods: We examined the trajectory of NEXT's growth between February 2018 and August 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize program participants. All analysis were run using STATA statistical software. Results: Over the course of 42 months, 1,669 unique participants enrolled in NEXT. The program distributed 1,648,162 total syringes with a median of 79,449 syringes per month. Most participants ordered multiple times (61%); 31% had more 5 or more orders (upper range = 48 orders). The total number of syringes per month and total number of first-time syringe orders per month increased steadily over time, particularly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: The online platform and mail-delivery model appears successful in reaching PWID at high risk for harms from IDU. Changes to state laws and additional funding support are needed to make mail-delivery harm reduction more widely available throughout the US.

Loss, liberation, and agency: Patient experiences of methadone treatment at opioid treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Despite its safety and effectiveness, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains highly stigmatized, and stringent opioid treatment program (OTP) attendance requirements create barriers to retention for many patients. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift in federal regulations governing methadone, including a blanket exemption permitting increased take-home doses of methadone. We studied the impact of these changes upon established patients' experiences of OTP care. METHOD: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 18 OTP patients who met our criteria of having established OTP care (i.e., enrolled at the OTP for at least 12 weeks) and were administered methadone three to six days weekly prior to the March 2020 blanket exemption. Interviews centered on how COVID-19 had affected their experiences of receiving treatment at an OTP. RESULTS: We identified three interconnected themes relevant to transformation of OTP care by the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants described mourning therapeutic OTP relationships and structure (1. loss), yet feeling more satisfaction with fewer in-person OTP visits (2. liberation), and appreciating more opportunities to self-direct their OUD care (3. agency). DISCUSSION: Structural changes made to OTP care early in the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in loss of community and structure. Increasing the availability of take-home methadone also improved patient experience and sense of agency. Our findings join a diverse body of converging evidence in support of policy changes allowing for more flexible dosing and individualized OTP care.

Three decades of research in substance use disorder treatment for syringe services program participants: a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Syringe services programs (SSPs) provide a spectrum of health services to people who use drugs, with many providing referral and linkage to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and some offering co-located treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). The objective of this study was to review the evidence for SSPs as an entry point for SUD treatment with particular attention to co-located (onsite) MOUD. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of the literature on SUD treatment for SSP participants. Our initial query in PubMed led to title and abstract screening of 3587 articles, followed by full text review of 173, leading to a final total of 51 relevant articles. Most articles fell into four categories: (1) description of SSP participants' SUD treatment utilization; (2) interventions to link SSP participants to SUD treatment; (3) post-linkage SUD treatment outcomes; (4) onsite MOUD at SSPs. RESULTS: SSP participation is associated with entering SUD treatment. Barriers to treatment entry for SSP participants include: use of stimulants, lack of health insurance, residing far from treatment programs, lack of available appointments, and work or childcare responsibilities. A small number of clinical trials demonstrate that two interventions (motivational enhancement therapy with financial incentives and strength-based case management) are effective for linking SSP participants to MOUD or any SUD treatment. SSP participants who initiate MOUD reduce their substance use, risk behaviors, and have moderate retention in treatment. An increasing number of SSPs across the United States offer onsite buprenorphine treatment, and a number of single-site studies demonstrate that patients who initiate buprenorphine treatment at SSPs reduce opioid use, risk behaviors, and have similar retention in treatment to patients in office-based treatment programs. CONCLUSIONS: SSPs can successfully refer participants to SUD treatment and deliver onsite buprenorphine treatment. Future studies should explore strategies to optimize the implementation of onsite buprenorphine. Because linkage rates were suboptimal for methadone, offering onsite methadone treatment at SSPs may be an appealing solution, but would require changes in federal regulations. In tandem with continuing to develop onsite treatment capacity, funding should support evidence-based linkage interventions and increasing accessibility, availability, affordability and acceptability of SUD treatment programs.

Hospital-based clinicians lack knowledge and comfort in initiating medications for opioid use disorder: opportunities for training innovation.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-based clinicians infrequently initiate medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) for hospitalized patients. Our objective was to understand hospital-based clinicians' knowledge, comfort, attitudes, and motivations regarding MOUD initiation to target quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: General medicine attending physicians and physician assistants at an academic medical center completed questionnaires eliciting barriers to MOUD initiation, including knowledge, comfort, attitudes and motivations regarding MOUD. We explored whether clinicians who had initiated MOUD in the prior 12 months differed in knowledge, comfort, attitudes, and motivations from those who had not. RESULTS: One-hundred forty-three clinicians completed the survey with 55% reporting having initiated MOUD for a hospitalized patient during the prior 12 months. Common barriers to MOUD initiation were: (1) Not enough experience (86%); (2) Not enough training (82%); (3) Need for more addiction specialist support (76%). Overall, knowledge of and comfort with MOUD was low, but motivation to address OUD was high. Compared to MOUD non-initiators, a greater proportion of MOUD initiators answered knowledge questions correctly, agreed or strongly agreed that they wanted to treat OUD (86% vs. 68%, p = 0.009), and agreed or strongly agreed that treatment of OUD with medication was more effective than without medication (90% vs. 75%, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based clinicians had favorable attitudes toward MOUD and are motivated to initiate MOUD, but they lacked knowledge of and comfort with MOUD initiation. To increase MOUD initiation for hospitalized patients, clinicians will need additional training and specialist support.

Addiction Consult Service and Inpatient Outcomes Among Patients with Alcohol Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is the most prevalent substance use disorder, but evidence-based medications to treat AUD (MAUD), including naltrexone and acamprosate, are substantially underutilized. Hospitalization provides an opportunity to start MAUD for patients who may not otherwise seek treatment. Addiction consultation services (ACSs) have been increasingly utilized to ensure appropriate treatment. There is little research examining the effect of an ACS on health outcomes among patients with AUD. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between an ACS consultation and provision of MAUD during admission and MAUD at discharge among admissions with AUD. DESIGN: Retrospective study comparing admissions which received an ACS consult and propensity score-matched historical control admissions. Subjects A total of 215 admissions with a primary or secondary diagnosis of AUD who received an ACS consult and 215 matched historical control admissions. Intervention ACS consultation from a multidisciplinary team offering withdrawal management, substance use disorder treatment, patient-centered counseling, discharge planning, and linkage to outpatient care for patients with substance use disorders, including AUD. Main Measures Primary outcomes were initiation of new MAUD during admission and new MAUD at discharge. Secondary outcomes were patient-directed discharge, time to 7- and 30-day readmission, and time to 7- and 30-day post-discharge ER visit. Key Results Among 430 admissions with AUD, those that received an ACS consultation were significantly more likely to receive new inpatient MAUD (33.0% vs 0.9%; OR 52.5 [CI 12.6-218.6]) and significantly more likely to receive new MAUD at discharge (41.4% vs 1.9%; OR 37.3 [13.3-104.6]), compared with historical controls. ACS was not significantly associated with patient-directed discharge, time to readmission, or time to post-discharge ER visit. CONCLUSIONS: ACS was associated with a large increase in provision of new inpatient MAUD and new MAUD at discharge when compared to propensity-matched historical controls.

Implementation of buprenorphine services in NYC syringe services programs: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Syringe services programs (SSPs) hold promise for providing buprenorphine treatment access to people with opioid use disorder (OUD) who are reluctant to seek care elsewhere. In 2017, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) provided funding and technical assistance to nine SSPs to develop "low-threshold" buprenorphine services as part of a multipronged initiative to lower opioid-related overdose rates. The aim of this study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing SSP-based buprenorphine services. METHODS: We conducted 26 semi-structured qualitative interviews from April 2019 to November 2019 at eight SSPs in NYC that received funding and technical assistance from DOHMH. Interviews were conducted with three categories of staff: leadership (i.e., buprenorphine program management or leadership, eight interviews), staff (i.e., buprenorphine coordinators or other staff, eleven interviews), and buprenorphine providers (six interviews). We identified themes related to barriers and facilitators to program implementation using thematic analysis. We make recommendations for implementation based on our findings. RESULTS: Programs differed in their stage of development, location of services provided, and provider type, availability, and practices. Barriers to providing buprenorphine services at SSPs included gaps in staff knowledge and comfort communicating with participants about buprenorphine, difficulty hiring buprenorphine providers, managing tension between harm reduction and traditional OUD treatment philosophies, and financial constraints. Challenges also arose from serving a population with unmet psychosocial needs. Implementation facilitators included technical assistance from DOHMH, designated buprenorphine coordinators, offering other supportive services to participants, and telehealth to bridge gaps in provider availability. Key recommendations include: (1) health departments should provide support for SSPs in training staff, building health service infrastructure and developing policies and procedures, (2) SSPs should designate a buprenorphine coordinator and ensure regular training on buprenorphine for frontline staff, and (3) buprenorphine providers should be selected or supported to use a harm reduction approach to buprenorphine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite encountering challenges, SSPs implemented buprenorphine services outside of conventional OUD treatment settings. Our findings have implications for health departments, SSPs, and other community organizations implementing buprenorphine services. Expansion of low-threshold buprenorphine services is a promising strategy to address the opioid overdose epidemic.

Onsite buprenorphine inductions at harm reduction agencies to increase treatment engagement and reduce HIV risk: Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Despite dramatic increases in opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths, the U.S. has been unable to consistently deliver OUD treatment to those who need it. Syringe services programs (SSPs) can engage an out-of-treatment population of people with OUD that has elevated overdose risk. Buprenorphine treatment is safe and effective, and US regulations allow for prescribing from diverse locations, including SSPs. This study's objective is to test buprenorphine treatment initiation at SSPs. We hypothesize that offering onsite buprenorphine treatment initiation will improve OUD treatment engagement without reducing buprenorphine treatment effectiveness or safety. METHODS: We will recruit 250 out-of-treatment SSP participants with OUD in a large urban area. Participants will be randomized to onsite buprenorphine treatment initiation or enhanced referral. Over 2 weeks, participants in the onsite treatment arm will see a buprenorphine provider twice at the SSP, receive weekly medication packs, and then their care will be transferred to a community health center for treatment continuation. In the control arm, within one week, participants will receive an appointment at the same community health center as in the intervention arm for buprenorphine initiation and continuation. Participants will be assessed with urine drug tests, questionnaires, and medical record review. The primary outcome will be engagement in buprenorphine treatment at 30 days. Secondary outcomes include buprenorphine diversion, opioid-free urine drug tests, and intervention cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Our study will contribute to the growing literature on SSPs as a conduit to OUD treatment. SSPs hold promise to deliver needed care to people with OUD.

Participants of a mail delivery syringe services program are underserved by other safe sources for sterile injection supplies.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, accessing sterile injection supplies remains challenging for many people who inject drugs (PWID). Although women are less likely to inject drugs than men, women who do inject are disproportionately affected by IDU-related complications. Needle Exchange Technology (NEXT), the first formal online accessed mail delivery syringe services program (SSP) in the US, may overcome access barriers. We evaluated whether NEXT was reaching women participants and people without access to other safe sources of sterile injection supplies. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined NEXT participants who enrolled in the mail-delivery SSP from February 2018 through March 2021. All NEXT participants completed an online questionnaire during enrollment, which included sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and injection-related risk factors (including prior sources of sterile injection supplies). Multivariable logistic regression (MVR) was used to examine associations between gender and prior use of safe sources of injection supplies (i.e., SSPs or pharmacies). RESULTS: 1,032 participants received injection supplies. Median age was 34 and participants were mostly cis-gendered women (55%) and white (93%). 34% reported infection with HCV; women were more likely to report HCV infection than men (38% vs 28%; p < 0.01). 68% of participants acquired injection supplies from less safe sources. Few participants exclusively used safe sources for injection supplies (26%). In adjusted MVR analysis, women participants had significantly lower odds than men of having exclusively used safe sources for injection supplies (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52, 0.98). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that NEXT services are utilized by women and people without prior access to sterile injection supplies. Women participants were less likely than men to have exclusively used safe sources for sterile injection supplies. Future research should explore women's preference for mail-delivery over in-person SSPs and determine whether online accessed mail delivery services can reach other underserved populations of PWID.

Low-threshold Buprenorphine Treatment in a Syringe Services Program: Program Description and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Low-threshold buprenorphine treatment aims to reduce barriers to evidence-based opioid use disorder treatment. We aimed to describe the treatment philosophy, practices, and outcomes of a low-threshold syringe services program (SSP)-based buprenorphine program developed through an SSP-academic medical center partnership. METHODS: We included all SSP participants who received 1 or more buprenorphine prescription from Feb 5, 2019 to October 9, 2020. We collected data on patient characteristics, substance use, buprenorphine prescriptions, and urine drug tests (UDTs). We evaluated buprenorphine treatment retention using prescription data and buprenorphine adherence using UDTs. We used 2 retention definitions: (1) percentage of patients with buprenorphine prescriptions at 30, 90, and 180 days; and (2) total percentage of days "covered" with buprenorphine prescriptions through 180 days. RESULTS: One-hundred and eighteen patients received 1 or more buprenorphine prescriptions. Patients were largely middle-aged (mean age 44, standard deviation 11), male (68%), Hispanic (31%) or Non-Hispanic Black (32%), with heroin (90%) and crack/cocaine (62%) use, and injection drug use (59%). Retention was 62%, 43%, and 31% at 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively. The median percentage of days covered with buprenorphine prescriptions through 180 days was 43% (interquartile range 8%-92%). Of the 82 patients who completed 2 or more UDTs, the median percentage of buprenorphine-positive UDTs was 71% (interquartile range 40%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: In an SSP-based low-threshold buprenorphine treatment program, approximately one-third of patients continued buprenorphine treatment for 180 days or more, and buprenorphine adherence was high. SSPs can be a pathway to buprenorphine treatment for patients at high risk for opioid-related harms.

Interest in long-acting injectable buprenorphine among syringe services program participants.

OBJECTIVE: To examine syringe services program (SSP) participants' interest in long-acting injectable buprenorphine. DESIGN: SSP participants completed a 136-item questionnaire by phone. Items assessed quantitative ratings of interest in sublingual and injectable buprenorphine, preference for sublingual versus injectable buprenorphine, and reasons for preferences. SETTING: Two large urban SSPs. PARTICIPANTS: SSP participants ≥18 years of age with current or lifetime opioid use disorder (OUD). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): (1) Interest in sublingual and injectable buprenorphine, respectively, on a scale from 0 to 10 (0 = no interest and 10 = high interest); and (2) preference for sublingual buprenorphine versus injectable buprenorphine. Participants were also asked whether they agreed with statements that presented potential reasons for preferring each formulation. RESULTS: A total of 104 unique participants were interviewed, of which 72 (69 percent) were currently receiving or considering buprenorphine treatment. Among these 72 participants, the median level of interest in starting or continuing sublingual buprenorphine was 8 out of 10 (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-10) and in starting injectable buprenorphine was 5 out of 10 (IQR: 1-9). Thirty-six (50 percent) preferred sublingual, 27 (38 percent) preferred injectable, and 9 (13 percent) preferred neither or declined to answer. Participants who preferred injectable buprenorphine most commonly agreed that the convenience of the monthly injection was the reason for their preference. CONCLUSIONS: Among SSP participants with OUD, we found moderate interest in injectable buprenorphine. Introducing this new form of buprenorphine treatment at SSPs could help meet the needs of individuals who are not well-served by standard OUD treatment models.

"The Doctor Says You Cannot Have [Buprenorphine]" Autonomy and Use of Prescribed or Non-Prescribed Buprenorphine.

BACKGROUND: People may overcome barriers to professional buprenorphine treatment by using non-prescribed buprenorphine (NPB) to manage opioid use disorder (OUD). Little is known about how people perceive NPB differently than formal treatment. This qualitative study investigated how and why people use NPB as an alternative to formal treatment. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of harm reduction agencies (N = 22) who had used buprenorphine. Investigators independently coded transcribed interviews, generating themes through iterative reading and analysis of transcripts. RESULTS: Three main factors drove decisions about prescribed and non-prescribed buprenorphine use: 1) autonomy; 2) treatment goals; and 3) negative early experiences with NPB. An overarching theme from our analysis was that participants valued autonomy in seeking to control their substance use. NPB was a valuable tool toward this goal and professional OUD treatment could impede autonomy. Participants mostly used NPB to "self-manage" OUD symptoms. Many participants had concerns about long-term buprenorphine treatment and instead used NPB over short periods of time. Several participants also reported negative experiences with NPB, including symptoms of withdrawal, which then deterred them from seeking out professional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results support prior studies showing that people use NPB to self-manage withdrawal symptoms and to reduce use of illicit opioids. Despite these benefits, participants focused on short-term goals and negative consequences were common. Increasing buprenorphine treatment engagement may require attention to patients' sense of autonomy, and also assurance that long-term treatment is safe, effective, and reliably accessible.

Same-day vs. delayed buprenorphine prescribing and patient retention in an office-based buprenorphine treatment program.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a safe and effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet a small fraction of people with OUD receive it, and rates of retention in treatment are suboptimal. Dropout most commonly occurs within 30 days of treatment initiation. Therefore, research needs to investigate modifiable factors contributing to early dropout. Requiring multiple visits for evaluation prior to providing an initial buprenorphine prescription (delayed prescription) may lead to more early dropout when compared with prescribing at the first medical visit (same-day prescription). Our objective was to determine whether same-day (vs. delayed) buprenorphine prescription was associated with 30-day retention in treatment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 237 patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment at an urban federally qualified community health center (FQHC) between June 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. We measured prescription delays by determining the time between patients' first request for buprenorphine treatment (by calling, presenting to the FQHC in-person, or requesting treatment during a visit) and when providers wrote buprenorphine prescriptions. We included only patients with prescription delays less than or equal to 30 days in the analysis. We defined same-day prescription as the patient experiencing no delays in starting treatment and receiving a prescription during the first medical visit. We examined whether patients who received same-day prescriptions had different sociodemographic and clinical characteristics than patients who received delayed prescriptions. We also evaluated whether there was an association between the initial provider who made the decision about same-day vs. delayed buprenorphine prescribing and same-day prescription. We built a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate the independent association between same-day vs. delayed prescription receipt and odds of 30-day retention in treatment. RESULTS: Of the 237 patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment from June 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, 222 had delays less than or equal to 30 days and we included them in the analysis. Of the 222 patients, the mean age was 46 (SD 10.4), the majority were Hispanic (n = 160, 72%), male (n = 175, 79%), and publicly insured (n = 165, 74%). The majority of patients experienced delayed buprenorphine prescription receipt (n = 133, 60%). The median time to buprenorphine prescription was 5 days (IQR 0-11). Of those who experienced a delay (n = 133), the median delay time was 8 days (IQR 5-20). Compared to those with same-day prescription receipt, more patients with delayed prescription receipt were non-Hispanic white (11% vs. 2%, p = 0.01), had a history of alcohol use (43% vs. 21%, p < 0.01) or benzodiazepine use (22% vs. 9%, p = 0.01), and had the buprenorphine coordinator as their initial provider (57 vs. 13%, p < 0.01). Same-day prescription receipt was not significantly associated with 30-day treatment retention in the adjusted analysis (AOR 1.92, 95% CI 0.81-4.56). CONCLUSION: Patients who received buprenorphine prescriptions on the same day as their initial evaluation differed from those who received delayed prescriptions. After adjustment for these differences, same-day prescription was not significantly associated with higher 30-day treatment retention. Providers may be delaying treatment when there is concern about alcohol and/or benzodiazepine use; however, providers could institute enhanced monitoring based on clinical concern for sedation or overdose risk without delaying buprenorphine prescription. Prospective studies of same-day vs. delayed buprenorphine receipt would elucidate the association between delays and retention more definitively.

Defining Low-threshold Buprenorphine Treatment.

: Buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder is safe and effective, but only a fraction of Americans who need treatment receive it. One reason for this is that many buprenorphine treatment programs have rigid requirements for entry and continuation, limiting the number of people who receive treatment. "Low-threshold treatment" is a term used to describe an alternative approach that attempts to remove as many barriers to treatment as possible. However, few studies have described its essential features. In this article, we define low-threshold treatment and propose the approach be guided by the following principles: same-day treatment entry; harm-reduction approach; flexibility; and wide availability in places where people with opioid use disorder go. We discuss the evidence and rationale for these principles and directions for future research.

Development and evaluation of a pilot overdose education and naloxone distribution program for hospitalized general medical patients.

Background: Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) to people at risk of witnessing or experiencing an opioid overdose has traditionally been provided through harm reduction agencies. Expanding OEND to inpatient general medical settings may reach at-risk individuals who do not access harm reduction services and have not been trained. An OEND program targeting inpatients was developed, piloted, and evaluated on 2 general medicine floors at Montefiore Medical Center, a large urban academic medical center in Bronx, New York. Methods: The planning committee consisted of 10 resident physicians and 2 faculty mentors. A consult service model was piloted, whereby the primary inpatient care team paged the consult team (consisting of rotating members from the planning committee) for any newly admitted patient who had used any opioid in the year prior to admission. Consult team members assessed patients for eligibility and provided OEND to eligible patients through a short video training. Upon completion, patients received a take-home naloxone kit. To evaluate the program, a retrospective chart review over the first year (April 2016 to March 2017) of the pilot was conducted. Results: Overall, consults on 80 patients were received. Of these, 74 were eligible and the consult team successfully trained 50 (68%). Current opioid analgesic use of ≥50 morphine milligram equivalents daily was the most common eligibility criterion met (38%). Twenty-four percent of patients were admitted for an opioid-related adverse event, the most common being opioid overdose (9%), then opioid withdrawal (8%), skin complication related to injecting (5%), and opioid intoxication (2%). Twenty-five percent had experienced an overdose, 35% had witnessed an overdose in their lifetime, and 83% had never received OEND previously. Conclusions: Integrating OEND into general inpatient medical care is possible and can reach high-risk patients who have not received OEND previously. Future research should identify the optimal way of implementing this service.

Knowledge of the 911 Good Samaritan Law and 911-calling behavior of overdose witnesses.

BACKGROUND: Overdose deaths tripled between 1999 and 2014. Most fatal overdoses are witnessed, offering an opportunity for bystanders to call 911. However, fear of arrest may prevent them from calling authorities. Many states have passed 911 Good Samaritan laws that protects the 911 caller and overdose victim from prosecution for drug possession. Little is known, however, about whether the law affects 911-calling behavior of overdose witnesses. We investigated the relationship between knowledge of a 911 Good Samaritan Law (GSL) and 911-calling behavior of study participants trained in opioid overdose rescue. METHODS: We enrolled 351 individuals (n = 351) trained in overdose rescue and educated about the New York State GSL in a prospective longitudinal study. Trained researchers conducted baseline, three, six and 12-month follow-up surveys with study participants to assess participant knowledge of the GSL and responses to witnessed overdoses. RESULTS: At the twelve-month follow-up, participants had witnessed 326 overdoses. In the overdose events where the participant had correct knowledge of the GSL at the time of the event, the odds of a bystander calling 911 were over three times greater than when the witness had incorrect knowledge of the GSL (OR = 3.3, 95% CI, 1.4-7.5). This association remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, race of the witness and overdose setting (AOR = 3.6, 95% CI, 1.4-9.4). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to show an association between knowledge of the GSL and 911-calling behavior. Legislation that protects overdose responders along with public awareness of the law may be an effective strategy to increase rates of 911-calling in response to overdose events and decrease overdose-related mortality.

Naloxone use among overdose prevention trainees in New York City: A longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Providing naloxone to laypersons who are likely to witness an opioid overdose is now a widespread public health response to the national opioid overdose epidemic. Estimating the proportion of individuals who use naloxone can define its potential impact to reduce overdose deaths at a population level. We determined the proportion of study participants who used naloxone within 12 months following training and factors associated with witnessing overdose and naloxone use. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of individuals completing overdose prevention training (OPT) between June and September 2013. Participants were recruited from New York City's six largest overdose prevention programs, all operated by syringe exchange programs. Questionnaires were administered at four time points over 12 months. Main outcomes were witnessing or experiencing overdose, and naloxone administration. RESULTS: Of 675 individuals completing OPT, 429 (64%) were approached and 351 (52%) were enrolled. Overall, 299 (85%) study participants completed at least one follow-up survey; 128 (36%) witnessed at least one overdose. Of 312 witnessed opioid overdoses, naloxone was administered in 241 events (77%); 188 (60%) by the OPT study participant. Eighty-six (25%) study participants administered naloxone at least once. Over one third of study participants (30, 35%) used naloxone 6 or more months after training. CONCLUSIONS: Witnessing an overdose and naloxone use was common among this study cohort of OPT trainees. Training individuals at high risk for witnessing overdoses may reduce opioid overdose mortality at a population level if sufficient numbers of potential responders are equipped with naloxone.

The Human Rights and Social Justice Scholars Program: a collaborative model for preclinical training in social medicine.

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of the role social justice takes in medical professionalism, the need to train health professionals to address social determinants of health, and medical trainees' desire to eliminate health disparities, undergraduate medical education offers few opportunities for comprehensive training in social justice. The Human Rights and Social Justice (HRSJ) Scholars Program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai is a preclinical training program in social medicine consisting of 5 components: a didactic course, faculty and student mentorship, research projects in social justice, longitudinal policy and advocacy service projects, and a career seminar series. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to describe the design and implementation of the HRSJ curriculum with a focus on the cornerstone of the HRSJ Scholars Program: longitudinal policy and advocacy service projects implemented in collaboration with partner organizations in East Harlem. Furthermore, we describe the results of a qualitative survey of inaugural participants, now third-year medical students, to understand how their participation in this service-learning component affected their clinical experiences and professional self-perceptions. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, through the implementation and evaluation of the HRSJ Scholars Program, we demonstrate an innovative model for social justice education; the enduring effect of service-learning experiences on participants' knowledge, skills, and attitudes; and the potential to increase community capacity for improved health through a collaborative educational model.

Illnesses and deaths among persons attending an electronic dance-music festival - New York City, 2013.

Outdoor electronic dance-music festivals (EDMFs) are typically summer events where attendees can dance for hours in hot temperatures. EDMFs have received increased media attention because of their growing popularity and reports of illness among attendees associated with recreational drug use. MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) is one of the drugs often used at EDMFs. MDMA causes euphoria and mental stimulation but also can cause serious adverse effects, including hyperthermia, seizures, hyponatremia, rhabdomyolysis, and multiorgan failure. In this report, MDMA and other synthetic drugs commonly used at dance festivals are referred to as "synthetic club drugs." On September 1, 2013, the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) received reports of two deaths of attendees at an EDMF (festival A) held August 31-September 1 in NYC. DOHMH conducted an investigation to identify and characterize adverse events resulting in emergency department (ED) visits among festival A attendees and to determine what drugs were associated with these adverse events. The investigation identified 22 cases of adverse events; nine cases were severe, including two deaths. Twenty-one (95%) of the 22 patients had used drugs or alcohol. Of 17 patients with toxicology testing, MDMA and other compounds were identified, most frequently methylone, in 11 patients. Public health messages and strategies regarding adverse health events might reduce illnesses and deaths at EDMFs.

Colorectal cancer screening among the homeless population of New York City shelter-based clinics.

OBJECTIVES: We determined colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, predictors, and barriers in 2 major New York City shelter-based clinics. METHODS: We extracted screening rates, sociodemographic characteristics, and factors associated with homelessness from medical records of domiciled and homeless patients aged 50 years and older (n = 443) with at least 3 clinic visits between 2010 and 2012. RESULTS: The majority of patients were African American or Hispanic, 76% were male, and 60.7% were homeless (mean = 2.4 years; SD = 2.8 years). Domiciled patients were more likely than homeless patients to be screened (41.3% vs 19.7%; P < .001). Homeless and domiciled patients received equal provider counseling, but more homeless patients declined screening (P < .001). In logistic regression, gender, race, duration of homelessness, insurance status, substance and alcohol abuse, chronic diseases, and mental health were not associated with screening, but housing, provider counseling, and older age were. CONCLUSIONS: Proposed interventions to improve CRC screening include respite shelter rooms for colonoscopy prepping, patient navigators to help navigate the health system and accompany patients to and from the procedure, counseling at all clinical encounters, and tailored patient education to address misconceptions.