"What Do You Consider Use?" Perspectives of Black Youth on Cannabis Use.

PURPOSE: Adolescent health surveillance systems are critical for understanding patterns of cannabis use; however, their limitations underscore the need for studies that generate new insights, particularly from individuals who are most impacted by negative outcomes. Our objectives were to learn about youths' cannabis use and their perceptions of their peers' cannabis use; their perspectives about trajectories of cannabis use over time and factors that influence trajectories; and perceived risks and benefits associated with cannabis use. METHODS: A group model building approach was used to gather data about cannabis use from a sample of urban, Black youth. Information about participants' cannabis use was assessed on eligibility screener, enrollment survey, and through structured activities over the course of four group model building workshops. RESULTS: Participants [(n = 20) mean age 18; 35% male and 95% Black] exclusively used the terms weed and blunts for cannabis. Youth who consume peers' blunts would not characterize themselves as cannabis users. Collectively, youth estimated the majority of Baltimore youth used cannabis by age 16 and that most used daily. Youth described cannabis as more beneficial than harmful. There were no gender differences in prevalence of use, but there were gender dynamics to shared use. DISCUSSION: Participatory research with urban, Black youth suggests youths' perceptions are misaligned with the ways that researchers conceptualize cannabis use. To better understand the scope of youth cannabis use and its harms, it is critical to leverage input from youth with lived experience to ensure survey tools adequately capture the way youth see themselves using cannabis.

Research to law: A qualitative study of Massachusetts' 2018 Care Act expanding emergency department initiation of medication for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Initiating medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) during emergency department (ED) visits is an important innovation to engage individuals in addiction treatment. In 2018, Massachusetts passed the CARE Act, becoming the first state to legislate that hospitals with EDs must be able to offer MOUD. We performed a qualitative study to explore factors influencing policy enactment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2019 with ten key stakeholders involved in the policymaking process representing state government, hospitals, physician professional societies, and recovery/behavioral health organizations. Data were analyzed in 2020-2021 using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS: The first key theme stakeholders expressed was the importance of research and public health consensus; they described consensus building within existing coalitions regarding the pressing need for action, and supporting expansion of treatment with this evidence-based strategy. Second, stakeholders discussed overcoming financing and feasibility concerns by passing budget-neutral legislation and ensuring flexibility for diverse hospital types. Lastly, stakeholders looked towards implementation, describing the implementation guide development process and ensuring capacity for continuing treatment existed throughout the state. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that research supporting the effectiveness of ED MOUD induction drove the passage of this state legislation. Long-term collaboration between diverse stakeholders towards a common goal of increasing access to evidence-based treatment to address the opioid epidemic was also perceived as facilitating the law's passage. Policymakers and advocates in other states may look towards Massachusetts's legislative process as a model for implementing similar legislation as part of their strategies to address the drug overdose crisis.

Towards an International Consensus on the Prevention, Treatment, and Management of High-Risk Substance Use and Overdose among Youth.

Background and Objectives: Now more than ever, there is an obvious need to reduce the overall burden of disease and risk of premature mortality that are associated with mental health and substance use disorders among young people. However, the current state of research and evidence-based clinical care for high-risk substance use among youth is fragmented and scarce. The objective of the study is to establish consensus for the prevention, treatment, and management of high-risk substance use and overdose among youth (10 to 24 years old). Materials and Methods: A modified Delphi technique was used based on the combination of scientific evidence and clinical experience of a group of 31 experts representing 10 countries. A semi-structured questionnaire with five domains (clinical risks, target populations, intervention goals, intervention strategies, and settings/expertise) was shared with the panelists. Based on their responses, statements were developed, which were subsequently revised and finalized through three iterations of feedback. Results: Among the five major domains, 60 statements reached consensus. Importantly, experts agreed that screening in primary care and other clinical settings is recommended for all youth, and that the objectives of treating youth with high-risk substance use are to reduce harm and mortality while promoting resilience and healthy development. For all substance use disorders, evidence-based interventions should be available and should be used according to the needs and preferences of the patient. Involuntary admission was the only topic that did not reach consensus, mainly due to its ethical implications and resulting lack of comparable evidence. Conclusions: High-risk substance use and overdoses among youth have become a major challenge. The system's response has been insufficient and needs substantial change. Internationally devised consensus statements provide a first step in system improvement and reform.

Provider and Practice Characteristics and Perceived Barriers Associated With Different Levels of Adolescent SBIRT Implementation Among a National Sample of US Pediatricians.

Pediatrician Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) practices vary widely, though little is known about the correlates of SBIRT implementation. Using data from a national sample of US pediatricians who treat adolescents (n = 250), we characterized self-reported utilization rates of SBIRT among US pediatricians and identified provider- and practice-level characteristics and barriers associated with SBIRT utilization. All participants completed an electronic survey querying the demographics, practice patterns, and perceived barriers related to SBIRT practices. Our results showed that 88% of respondents reported screening for substance use annually, but only 26% used structured/validated screening instruments. Furthermore, 40% of respondents provided evidence-based brief interventions, and only 11% implemented all core SBIRT practices. Common barriers (eg, confidentiality and insufficient time) and unique provider- and setting-specific barriers to implementation were identified. These findings indicate that although most pediatricians deliver some SBIRT components in their practice, few implement the full SBIRT model, and barriers persist.

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in Pediatric Practice: A Quality Improvement Project in the Maryland Adolescent and Young Adult Health Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends pediatric providers routinely screen for, assess, and treat substance use and substance use disorders among adolescents, a process called "Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment," or "SBIRT." Because there are limited data on how Maryland pediatric practices have adopted SBIRT, a quality improvement initiative was developed within the Maryland Adolescent and Young Adult Health Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network using a "Plan/Do/Study/Act" approach. A 2-part provider training was conducted regarding screening and motivational interviewing, and the "CRAFFT" screening tool was integrated into the practice's electronic medical record. Results from evaluation demonstrated significant improvements in provider knowledge, attitudes, and screening behavior. The association between substance use and sexual behavior suggests a need for further expansion of this model with inclusion of sexual health screening. Overall, this study demonstrates that SBIRT implementation into a general pediatric practice is highly feasible, acceptable, and shows preliminary effectiveness.