Recent Incarceration, Substance Use, Overdose, and Service Use Among People Who Use Drugs in Rural Communities.

Importance: Drug use and incarceration have a substantial impact on rural communities, but factors associated with the incarceration of rural people who use drugs (PWUD) have not been thoroughly investigated. Objective: To characterize associations between recent incarceration, overdose, and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment access among rural PWUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cross-sectional study, the Rural Opioid Initiative research consortium conducted a survey in geographically diverse rural counties with high rates of overdose across 10 US states (Illinois, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont) between January 25, 2018, and March 17, 2020, asking PWUD about their substance use, substance use treatment, and interactions with the criminal legal system. Participants were recruited through respondent-driven sampling in 8 rural US regions. Respondents who were willing to recruit additional respondents from their personal networks were enrolled at syringe service programs, community support organizations, and through direct community outreach; these so-called seed respondents then recruited others. Of 3044 respondents, 2935 included participants who resided in rural communities and reported past-30-day injection of any drug or use of opioids nonmedically via any route. Data were analyzed from February 8, 2022, to September 15, 2023. Exposure: Recent incarceration was the exposure of interest, defined as a report of incarceration in jail or prison for at least 1 day in the past 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The associations between PWUD who were recently incarcerated and main outcomes of treatment use and overdose were examined using logistic regression. Results: Of 2935 participants, 1662 (56.6%) were male, 2496 (85.0%) were White; the mean (SD) age was 36 (10) years; and in the past 30 days, 2507 (85.4%) reported opioid use and 1663 (56.7%) reported injecting drugs daily. A total of 1224 participants (41.7%) reported recent incarceration, with a median (IQR) incarceration of 15 (3-60) days in the past 6 months. Recent incarceration was associated with past-6-month overdose (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70) and recent SUD treatment (AOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.36-1.93) but not recent medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD; AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.28) or currently carrying naloxone (AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.21). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of PWUD in rural areas, participants commonly experienced recent incarceration, which was not associated with MOUD, an effective and lifesaving treatment. The criminal legal system should implement effective SUD treatment in rural areas, including MOUD and provision of naloxone, to fully align with evidence-based SUD health care policies.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P ≤ .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients.

Practice-Level Documentation of Alcohol-Related Problems in Primary Care.

Importance: Rates of alcohol-associated deaths increased over the past 20 years, markedly between 2019 and 2020. The highest rates are among individuals aged 55 to 64 years, primarily attributable to alcoholic liver disease and psychiatric disorders due to use of alcohol. This study investigates potential geographic disparities in documentation of alcohol-related problems in primary care electronic health records, which could lead to undertreatment of alcohol use disorder. Objective: To identify disparities in documentation of alcohol-related problems by practice-level social deprivation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study using secondary data from the Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care clinical trial (September 21, 2017, to January 8, 2021) was performed. A national sample of 44 primary care practices with co-located behavioral health services was included in the analysis. Patients with 2 primary care visits within 2 years and at least 1 chronic medical condition and 1 behavioral health condition or at least 3 chronic medical conditions were included. Exposure: The primary exposure was practice-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a composite measure based on county income, educational level, employment, housing, single-parent households, and access to transportation (scores range from 0 to 100; 0 indicates affluent counties and 100 indicates disadvantaged counties). Main Outcomes and Measures: Documentation of an alcohol-related problem in the electronic health record was determined by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes or use of medications for alcohol use disorder in past 2 years. Multivariable models adjusted for alcohol consumption, screening for a substance use disorder, urban residence, age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, educational level, and number of chronic health conditions. Results: A total of 3105 participants (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [13.0] years; 64.1% female; 11.5% Black, 7.0% Hispanic, 76.7% White, and 11.9% other race or chose not to disclose; 47.8% household income <$30 000; and 80.7% urban residence). Participants had a mean (SD) of 4.0 (1.7) chronic conditions, 9.1% reported higher-risk alcohol consumption, 4% screened positive for substance use disorder, and 6% had a documented alcohol-related problem in the electronic health record. Mean (SD) practice-level SDI score was 45.1 (20.9). In analyses adjusted for individual-level alcohol use, demographic characteristics, and health status, practice-level SDI was inversely associated with the odds of documentation (odds ratio for each 10-unit increase in SDI, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, higher practice-level SDI was associated with lower odds of documentation of alcohol-related problems, after adjusting for individual-level covariates. These findings reinforce the need to address primary care practice-level barriers to diagnosis and documentation of alcohol-related problems. Practices located in high need areas may require more specialized training, resources, and practical evidence-based tools that are useful in settings where time is especially limited and patients are complex.

Fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose risk following release from prison: A retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data.

INTRODUCTION: Among individuals who are released from prison, opioid overdose is a leading cause of death with a risk more than ten-fold the general population. Although the epidemiology of opioid-related fatalities has been described, few studies have characterized both fatal and nonfatal opioid-related poisonings. The objective of this study was to estimate risk of fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose among adults released from prison. METHODS: The study estimated fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose rates using linked corrections, Medicaid, hospital discharge, and vital statistics from the state of Oregon from 2014 to 2018. Multivariable proportional hazards models identified demographic and prison-related factors associated with overdose. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 18,258 individuals were released from prison. A majority of individuals were male (87 %) and ages 26 to 64 (83 %). Two-thirds had a documented substance use disorder treatment need and 20 % demonstrated mental health treatment need. Following prison release, 579 opioid overdose events occurred; 65 (11 %) were fatal. The rate of opioid overdose was 1085.7 per 100,000 person-years (PY). Rates were highest in the first two weeks (2286.7 per 100,000 PY), among women (1582.9 per 100,000 PY), and those with mental health (1624.3 per 100,000 PY) or substance use disorder treatment needs (1382.6 per 100,100 PY). Only mental health (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.54, 95 % CI 1.24 to 1.90) and substance use need (aHR 2.59; 95 % CI 2.01 to 3.34) remained significant in multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of opioid overdose is markedly elevated after prison release, particularly in the first two weeks. In women, the higher rate of opioid overdose is mediated by a greater mental health burden.

The impact of COVID-19 on the treatment of opioid use disorder in carceral facilities: a cross-sectional study.

While the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare delivery everywhere, persons with carceral system involvement and opioid use disorder (OUD) were disproportionately impacted and vulnerable to severe COVID-associated illness. Carceral settings and community treatment programs (CTPs) rapidly developed protocols to sustain healthcare delivery while reducing risk of COVID-19 transmission. This survey study assessed changes to OUD treatment, telemedicine use, and re-entry support services among carceral and CTPs participating in the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded study, Long-Acting Buprenorphine vs. Naltrexone Opioid Treatments in Criminal Justice System-Involved Adults (EXIT-CJS) study. In December 2020, carceral sites (n = 6; median pre-COVID 2020 monthly census = 3468 people) and CTPs (n = 7; median pre-COVID 2020 monthly census = 550 patients) participating in EXIT-CJS completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. The survey assessed changes pre- (January-March 2020) and post- (April-September 2020) COVID-19 in OUD treatment, telemedicine use, re-entry supports and referral practices. Compared to January-March 2020, half of carceral sites (n = 3) increased the total number of persons initiating medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) from April-September 2020, while a third (n = 2) decreased the number of persons initiated. Most CTPs (n = 4) reported a decrease in the number of new admissions from April-September 2020, with two programs stopping or pausing MOUD programs due to COVID-19. All carceral sites with pre-COVID telemedicine use (n = 5) increased or maintained telemedicine use, and all CTPs providing MOUD (n = 6) increased telemedicine use. While expansion of telemedicine services supported MOUD service delivery, the majority of sites experienced challenges providing community support post-release, including referrals to housing, employment, and transportation services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this small sample of carceral and CTP sites innovated to continue delivery of treatment for OUD. Expansion of telemedicine services was critical to support MOUD service delivery. Despite these innovations, sites experienced challenges providing reintegration supports for persons in the community. Pre-COVID strategies for identifying and engaging individuals while incarcerated may be less effective since the pandemic. In addition to expanding research on the most effective telemedicine practices for carceral settings, research exploring strategies to expand housing and employment support during reintegration are critical.

HIV clinic-based extended-release naltrexone versus treatment as usual for people with HIV and opioid use disorder: a non-blinded, randomized non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Opioid agonist medications for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) can improve human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) outcomes and reduce opioid use. We tested whether outpatient antagonist treatment with naltrexone could achieve similar results. DESIGN: Open-label, non-inferiority randomized trial. SETTING: Six US HIV primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 114 participants with untreated HIV and OUD (62% male; 56% black, 12% Hispanic; positive for fentanyl (62%), other opioids (47%) and cocaine (60%) at baseline). Enrollment halted early due to slow recruitment. INTERVENTION: HIV clinic-based extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX; n = 55) versus treatment as usual (TAU) with buprenorphine or methadone (TAU; n = 59). MEASUREMENTS: Treatment group differences were compared for the primary outcome of viral suppression (HIV RNA ≤ 200 copies/ml) at 24 weeks and secondary outcomes included past 30-day use of opioids at 24 weeks. FINDINGS: Fewer XR-NTX participants initiated medication compared with TAU participants (47 versus 73%). The primary outcome of viral suppression was comparable for XR-NTX (52.7%) and TAU (49.2%) [risk ratio (RR) = 1.064; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.748, 1.514] at 24 weeks. Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated, as the lower confidence limit of the RR did not exceed the pre-specified margin of 0.75 in intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The main secondary outcome of past 30-day opioid use was comparable for XR-NTX versus TAU (11.7 versus 14.8 days; mean difference = -3.1; 95% CI = -8.7, 1.1) in ITT analysis. Among those initiating medication, XR-NTX resulted in fewer days of opioid use compared with TAU in the past 30 days (6.0 versus 13.6, mean difference = -7.6; 95% CI = -13.8, -0.2). CONCLUSIONS: A randomized controlled trial found supportive, but not conclusive, evidence that human immunodeficiency virus clinic-based extended-release naltrexone is not inferior to treatment as usual for facilitating human immunodeficiency virus viral suppression. Participants who initiated extended-release naltrexone used fewer opioids than those who received treatment as usual.

Incarceration and compulsory rehabilitation impede use of medication for opioid use disorder and HIV care engagement in Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: Non-prescribed opioid use is illegal in Vietnam. People who are apprehended for use of non-prescribed opioids may be arrested and incarcerated or sent to compulsory rehabilitation centers. For those on medication to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD), incarceration in either setting may disrupt treatment. This study estimates the effects of incarceration and compulsory rehabilitation on MOUD and HIV treatment outcomes in Vietnam. METHODS: Data are from a clinical trial testing the effects of MOUD on HIV viral suppression in six Vietnamese HIV clinics. Participants were assessed quarterly for 12 months. We assessed the associations between incarceration or compulsory rehabilitation during months 0-9 and study outcomes of receipt of MOUD, HIV clinic engagement, and antiretroviral therapy prescription during months 9-12, among those who were released by month 9 of the study, using logistic regression and zero-inflated negative binomial models. RESULTS: At nine months, 25 of 258 participants (9.7%) were incarcerated or sent to compulsory rehabilitation at least once and completed the month 9 assessment. Of those, 19 (76.0%) did not receive MOUD in months 9 through 12. Both incarceration and compulsory rehabilitation were negatively associated with subsequent receipt of MOUD (aOR = 0.05, 95% CI = (0.01, 0.24); 0.14 (0.04, 0.50), respectively) and HIV clinic engagement (aOR = 0.13, 95% CI = (0.03, 0.71); 0.09 (0.02, 0.39), respectively). In the final three months of the study, participants who were incarcerated had 42.5 fewer days of MOUD (95% CI = 23.1, 61.9), and participants in compulsory rehabilitation had 46.1 fewer days of MOUD (95% CI = 33.8, 58.4) than those not incarcerated or in compulsory rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that both incarceration and compulsory rehabilitation disrupt MOUD and HIV treatment among people with HIV and Opioid Use Disorder in Vietnam. Prioritization of evidence-based strategies to support engagement in care for people who use drugs could potentially expand HIV and Opioid Use Disorder treatment access and curb substance use more effectively than reliance on incarceration or compulsory rehabilitation.

Peer Recovery Support Services Across the Continuum: In Community, Hospital, Corrections, and Treatment and Recovery Agency Settings - A Narrative Review.

In this narrative review, we outline the literature describing the history, training, certification, and role of peer recovery support specialists working with people with substance use disorders at different stages of active use and recovery. We explore the impact of peer recovery support specialists serving people in various settings, including the community, hospitals and emergency departments, jails and prisons, and treatment and recovery agencies; and describes considerations for future expansion of peer recovery support services, including supervision needs, compassion fatigue and burnout, and scope of practice. Finally, we make recommendations to support the broad implementation of peer recovery support services as a sustainable, cohesive, and replicable component of harm reduction and addiction services. We also make recommendations for research to continue to evaluate peer recovery support specialist interventions across settings and outcomes.

A cross-sectional survey of potential factors, motivations, and barriers influencing research participation and retention among people who use drugs in the rural USA.

BACKGROUND: Despite high morbidity and mortality among people who use drugs (PWUD) in rural America, most research is conducted within urban areas. Our objective was to describe influencing factors, motivations, and barriers to research participation and retention among rural PWUD. METHODS: We recruited 255 eligible participants from community outreach and community-based, epidemiologic research cohorts from April to July 2019 to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Eligible participants reported opioid or injection drug use to get high within 30 days and resided in high-needs rural counties in Oregon, Kentucky, and Ohio. We aggregated response rankings to identify salient influences, motivations, and barriers. We estimated prevalence ratios to assess for gender, preferred drug use, and geographic differences using log-binomial models. RESULTS: Most participants were male (55%) and preferred methamphetamine (36%) over heroin (35%). Participants reported confidentiality, amount of financial compensation, and time required as primary influential factors for research participation. Primary motivations for participation include financial compensation, free HIV/HCV testing, and contribution to research. Changed or false participant contact information and transportation are principal barriers to retention. Respondents who prefer methamphetamines over heroin reported being influenced by the purpose and use of their information (PR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.26). Females and Oregonians (versus Appalachians) reported knowing and wanting to help the research team as participation motivation (PR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.26 and PR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.99). CONCLUSIONS: Beyond financial compensation, researchers should emphasize confidentiality, offer testing and linkage with care, use several contact methods, aid transportation, and accommodate demographic differences to improve research participation and retention among rural PWUD.

Long-acting buprenorphine vs. naltrexone opioid treatments in CJS-involved adults (EXIT-CJS).

The EXIT-CJS (N = 1005) multisite open-label randomized controlled trial will compare retention and effectiveness of extended-release buprenorphine (XR-B) vs. extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) among criminal justice system (CJS)-involved adults in six U.S. locales (New Jersey, New York City, Delaware, Oregon, Connecticut, and New Hampshire). With a pragmatic, noninferiority design, this study hypothesizes that XR-B (n = 335) will be noninferior to XR-NTX (n = 335) in retention-in-study-medication treatment (the primary outcome), self-reported opioid use, opioid-positive urine samples, opioid overdose events, and CJS recidivism. In addition, persons with OUD not eligible or interested in the RCT will be recruited into an enhanced treatment as usual arm (n = 335) to examine usual care outcomes in a quasi-experimental observational cohort.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care (IBH-PC) to improve patient-centered outcomes in adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration. METHODS: Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration. DISCUSSION: As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Provider Attitudes and Practices on Treating Tobacco Dependence in New York City After 10 years of Comprehensive Tobacco Control Efforts.

To design strategies for provider education and implementation of clinical guidelines, this study investigated how physicians (1) approach tobacco cessation, including barriers to screening and treatment, (2) prioritize tobacco cessation, and (3) perceive the role of public health. Semi-structured focus groups were conducted with 30 New York City physicians across specialties. Physicians reported that they: (1) understand risks of smoking, as well as basic counseling and medications for smoking cessation; (2) do not always follow clinical guidelines for treatment of smoking cessation; (3) prioritize treatment of patients based upon a number of criteria; and (4) see the role of public health and the city health department as separate from the clinical environment, despite population-level interventions to reduce smoking. Physicians understand the importance of treating tobacco dependence, but identified barriers to treatment, some of which are health system-related. Further, patients who do not yet present with smoking-related illness may receive less intense interventions.

"Like Yin and Yang": Perceptions of Methamphetamine Benefits and Consequences Among People Who Use Opioids in Rural Communities.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate methamphetamine use among people who use opioids in rural Oregon communities to explore reasons for use and perceptions of methamphetamine consequences. METHODS: We conducted interviews and surveys with participants who inject drugs or misuse prescription opioids in 2 rural Oregon counties with high opioid overdose rates. Survey participants were identified through participant-driven sampling initiated in syringe service programs and field outreach (n = 144). Semi-structured interviews with participants were recruited from the same locations (n = 52). RESULTS: Of 144 surveys completed, 112 reported using opioids in the past 30 days; 96% of the 112 also report methamphetamine use. Among the 124 reporting injection drug use, 50% indicated they injected both methamphetamine and heroin in the past 30 days. Interview participants reported early exposure to methamphetamine and indicated that methamphetamine was more widely available, less expensive, and less stigmatized compared to heroin. Participants reported using methamphetamine to improve work-life functioning and because they enjoy the high produced from simultaneous use. Several participants reported a conscious effort to shift to methamphetamine from heroin as a harm reduction strategy.Some participants reported being involuntarily discharged from treatment for opioid use disorder due to methamphetamine use. Several participants perceived methamphetamine as conveying overdose prevention or reversal benefits, while fentanyl contamination in methamphetamine was reported or suspected. CONCLUSION: As rural communities respond to evolving drug supply and demand, there is increasing need for public health efforts to address the emerging issue of concurrent methamphetamine and opioid use.

Reducing overdose after release from incarceration (ROAR): study protocol for an intervention to reduce risk of fatal and non-fatal opioid overdose among women after release from prison.

BACKGROUND: Drug overdose is the leading cause of death after release from prison, and this risk is significantly higher among women compared to men. Within the first 2 weeks after release, the risk of death from drug overdose is 12.7 times higher than the general population, with risk of death further elevated among females. Although female inmates have higher rates of opioid use disorder and post-release overdose fatality, justice-involved women are under-represented in studies of medications for opioid use disorder. The Reducing Overdose After Release from Incarceration (ROAR) pilot intervention and evaluation (recruitment June 2019 through December 2020) aims to reduce opioid overdose among women released to the community following incarceration in state prison. The evaluation further assesses induction, acceptance and effectiveness of extended release naltrexone in a female post-prison population. METHODS/DESIGN: In the week prior to their release, female adults in custody with moderate to severe opioid use disorder start treatment with extended release naltrexone, an injectable opioid antagonist that blocks the effects of opioids for up to 1 month. All ROAR participants receive training to use naloxone rescue kits and are provided nasal naloxone at release. Ongoing support from a certified recovery mentor to facilitate sustained engagement with treatment for substance use disorders begins in the month prior to release from prison and continues for 6 months in community. We evaluate the association between ROAR participation and the primary outcome of opioid overdose. Using administrative data provided by the Oregon Department of Corrections and the Oregon Health Authority, we compare the odds of overdose among ROAR participants versus a comparison group of females released from prison during the study period. Evaluation activities in community includes survey and qualitative interviews for 6 months post release, as well as a review of clinic records to assess retention on medication among the pilot cohort (N = 100). DISCUSSION: ROAR is a collaboration between Oregon's public health, criminal justice, and medical communities. The ROAR intervention and evaluation provide critical information on improving interventions to prevent opioid overdose and improve retention on treatment in community in an overlooked, high-risk population: incarcerated women re-entering the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov TRN: NCT03902821 .

Increasing collaboration on substance use disorder research with primary care practices through the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) called for its national nodes to promote the translation of evidence-based interventions from substance use disorder (SUD) research into clinical practices. This collaborative demonstration project engaged CTN-affiliated practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in research that describes aspects of opioid prescribing in primary care. METHODS: Six PBRNs queried electronic health records from a convenience sample of 134 practices (84 participants) to identify the percent of adult patients with an office visit who were prescribed an opioid medication from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, and, of those, the percent also prescribed a sedative in that year. Seven PBRNs sent an e-mail survey to a convenience sample of 108 practices (58 participants) about their opioid management policies and procedures during the project year. RESULTS: Of 561,017 adult patients with a visit to one of the 84 clinics in the project year, 22.9% (PBRN range 3.1%-25.4%) were prescribed opioid medications, and 52.1% (PBRN range 8.5%-60.6%) of those were prescribed a sedative in the same year. Of the 58 practices returning a survey (45.3% response rate), 98.1% had formal written treatment agreements for chronic opioid therapy, 68.5% had written opioid prescribing policies, and 43.4% provided reports to providers with feedback on opioid management. Only 24.1% were providing buprenorphine for OUD. CONCLUSION: CTN-affiliated PBRNs demonstrated their ability to collaborate on a project related to opioid management; results highlight the important role for PBRNs in OUD treatment, research, and the need for interventions and additional policies addressing opioid prescribing in primary care practice.

Barriers and facilitators to recruitment and enrollment of HIV-infected individuals with opioid use disorder in a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The CTN-0067 CHOICES trial tests implementation of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) versus treatment-as-usual (TAU) for opioid use disorders (OUD) in HIV clinics to improve HIV viral suppression. The study team investigated recruitment strategies to elucidate the barriers and facilitators to recruitment and enrollment in the study. MAIN TEXT: Methods: Semi-structured, in-depth, digitally recorded interviews were completed with study recruitment-related staff and medical providers (n = 26) from six participating HIV clinics in the fall of 2018. Interviews probed 1) factors that might prevent prospective participants from engaging in study recruitment and enrollment procedures and 2) strategies used by study staff that encourage eligible patient participation. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: All respondents reported that barriers to recruitment and enrollment included challenging patient social and structural factors (e.g., homelessness or living environments with high substance use, criminal justice involvement), difficulty locating patients with unsuppressed HIV viral load and OUD within the HIV clinic, time-consuming study enrollment processes, and stigma around HIV and OUD which inhibited treatment seeking. Some respondents observed that distrust of research and researchers impeded recruitment activities in the community. A specific medication-related barrier was patient fear of opioid abstinence required prior to XR-NTX induction. Facilitators of recruitment included use of trusted peer outreach/recruitment workers in the community, hospitalizations that offered windows of opportunities for screening and XR-NTX induction, providing participant transportation, and partnerships with harm reduction organizations for referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Though study personnel encountered barriers to recruitment in the CHOICES study, persons with untreated HIV and OUD can be enrolled in multisite clinical trials by using enhanced recruitment strategies that extend outside of the HIV clinic. Employing peer outreach workers and collaborating with syringe service programs may be especially helpful in facilitating recruitment and merit inclusion in similar study protocols.

Building Behavioral Health Homes: Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Creating Integrated Care Teams.

Adults with serious mental illness and substance use disorders have elevated risk of mortality and higher healthcare costs compared to the general population. As these disparities have been linked to poor management of co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care, the behavioral health setting may be a preferred setting for routine medical screening and treatment. This qualitative study describes early stages of integrating care teams in emerging medical homes based in mental health and addiction treatment settings. Clinicians and staff from ten agencies engaged in the Behavioral Health Home Learning Collaborative participated in qualitative interviews exploring local definitions of "behavioral health home" and initial barriers and facilitators to integration. Facilitators included clear staff roles, flexible scheduling, and interdisciplinary huddles and staff trainings. Challenges included workforce, limited use of electronic health records, and differing professional cultures. Participants advocated for new workflows and payment structures to accommodate scheduling demands and holistic case management.

Correction to: Building Behavioral Health Homes: Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Creating Integrated Care Teams.

The Publisher regrets that due to a malfunction in production, there are duplications and errors and rogue addresses in the author affiliations of the published article. The correct author affiliations are listed below.

A Randomized Trial of High-Value Change Using Practice Facilitation.

PURPOSE: To understand how focused versus general practice facilitation can impact goal setting, action planning, and team performance in primary care transformation. BACKGROUND: Practice transformation in primary care is a crucial part of health reform, but can fatigue teams, leading to variable results. Practice facilitation may reduce primary care fatigue to help teams reach challenging transformation goals, but may require a more focused approach than previous studies suggest. METHODS: We performed a 12-month cluster randomized trial, during which 8 primary care clinics received practice facilitation. Four practices in the intervention arm received targeted facilitation to focus quality improvement (QI) goals on high-value elements (HVEs) intended to reduce cost and utilization, whereas 4 control practices received generalized QI facilitation. We investigated the impact of the targeted versus generalized approach on goal selection, action item selection and achievement, HVE attainment, and collaborative practice, using quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Intervention clinics selected an average of 7 goals and 29 action items, compared with 8 goals and 40 action items among controls. Eighty-three percent of intervention goals were related to HVEs, compared with 27% of goals among controls. Intervention clinics selected 101 HVE goals and met 68%, while controls selected 41 and met 61%. Analysis of pre-post practice surveys indicated greater improvement among intervention across 4 of 8 domains of collaborative practice. CONCLUSION: Targeted facilitation may be more effective than a generalized approach to support practices in reaching high-value change goals, as well as fostering improvement of team focus on goals, roles and responsibilities.