Holyoke Early Access to Recovery and Treatment (HEART): A case study of a court-based intervention to reduce opioid overdose.

The District Court in Holyoke, Massachusetts, is among the first courts nationwide to provide access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and other treatment. The program uses an innovative multisectoral approach to serve a primarily Latinx population living in communities of concentrated poverty with high opioid overdose rates. We document the origins, adaptations, and current status of program operations, including the use of on-site peer recovery specialists and robust data collection efforts. From August 16, 2021, to February 28, 2022, of the 1040 individuals who entered the court for an arraignment, 47.9% (n = 498) were eligible for program participation. Of those 498 individuals, 54.2% (n = 270) spoke with a recovery specialist. Many self-identified as Latinx (53.0%) and male (69.3%). Over one-fourth (27.0%) were connected to a long-term peer recovery specialist and 11.5% were directly connected to a MOUD provider. Semi-structured interviews with key implementers and participants revealed a shared appreciation for the life-saving efforts of the program. We conclude with practical and theoretical considerations required to offer linkage to MOUD in court-based contexts. Future efforts will assess participant outcomes to determine whether the program is an effective and feasible intervention that can be adopted by other court-based settings.

Long-term follow-up assessment of opioid use outcomes among individuals with comorbid mental disorders and opioid use disorder treated with buprenorphine or methadone in a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: To investigate whether reduction in opioid use differs when treated by either buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP) or methadone (MET) among adults with comorbid opioid use disorder (OUD) and mental disorders. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In a randomized controlled trial, adults with OUD were randomized to 24 weeks of either BUP or MET treatment and were followed up in 3-yearly assessments. The present secondary analyses were based on 597 participants who completed all assessments. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome measure was the number of days of using opioids per month during the follow-up period. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) was used to classify participants into three groups: life-time mood disorder (n = 302), life-time mental disorder other than mood disorder (n = 114) and no mental disorder (n = 181). Medication treatment (BUP, MET, no treatment) during the follow-up period was a time-varying predictor. FINDINGS: Based on zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) mixed regression analysis, it was found that relative to no treatment, opioid use during the follow-up was significantly reduced by BUP [odds ratio (OR) = 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.07-0.21 for any use; risk ratio (RR) = 0.77, 95% CI =0.66-0.89 for days of use] and by MET [OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.25-0.45 for any use; RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.72-0.84 for days of use]. Relative to MET, BUP was associated with a lower likelihood of any opioid use among participants with mood disorders (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.74) and for participants without mental disorder (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.21-0.66) and fewer number of days using opioids (RR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.25-0.56) among participants with other mental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with comorbid opioid use disorder and mental disorders, treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone produced greater reductions in opioid use than treatment with methadone.

Massachusetts Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (MassJCOIN).

A major driver of the U.S. opioid crisis is limited access to effective medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) that reduce overdose risks. Traditionally, jails and prisons in the U.S. have not initiated or maintained MOUD for incarcerated individuals with OUD prior to their return to the community, which places them at high risk for fatal overdose. A 2018 law (Chapter 208) made Massachusetts (MA) the first state to mandate that five county jails deliver all FDA-approved MOUDs (naltrexone [NTX], buprenorphine [BUP], and methadone). Chapter 208 established a 4-year pilot program to expand access to all FDA-approved forms of MOUD at five jails, with two more MA jails voluntarily joining this initiative. The law stipulates that MOUD be continued for individuals receiving it prior to detention and be initiated prior to release among sentenced individuals where appropriate. The jails must also facilitate continuation of MOUD in the community on release. The Massachusetts Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (MassJCOIN) partnered with these seven diverse jails, the MA Department of Public Health, and community treatment providers to conduct a Type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study of Chapter 208. We will: (1) Perform a longitudinal treatment outcome study among incarcerated individuals with OUD who receive NTX, BUP, methadone, or no MOUD in jail to examine postrelease MOUD initiation, engagement, and retention, as well as fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose and recidivism; (2) Conduct an implementation study to understand systemic and contextual factors that facilitate and impede delivery of MOUDs in jail and community care coordination, and strategies that optimize MOUD delivery in jail and for coordinating care with community partners; (3) Calculate the cost to the correctional system of implementing MOUD in jail, and conduct an economic evaluation from state policy-maker and societal perspectives to compare the value of MOUD prior to release from jail to no MOUD among matched controls. MassJCOIN made significant progress during its first six months until the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020. Participating jail sites restricted access for nonessential personnel, established other COVID-19 mitigation policies, and modified MOUD programming. MassJCOIN adapted research activities to this new reality in an effort to document and account for the impacts of COVID-19 in relation to each aim. The goal remains to produce findings with direct implications for policy and practice for OUD in criminal justice settings.

A qualitative study of big data and the opioid epidemic: recommendations for data governance.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic has enabled rapid and unsurpassed use of big data on people with opioid use disorder to design initiatives to battle the public health crisis, generally without adequate input from impacted communities. Efforts informed by big data are saving lives, yielding significant benefits. Uses of big data may also undermine public trust in government and cause other unintended harms. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify concerns and recommendations regarding how to use big data on opioid use in ethical ways. METHODS: We conducted focus groups and interviews in 2019 with 39 big data stakeholders (gatekeepers, researchers, patient advocates) who had interest in or knowledge of the Public Health Data Warehouse maintained by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. RESULTS: Concerns regarding big data on opioid use are rooted in potential privacy infringements due to linkage of previously distinct data systems, increased profiling and surveillance capabilities, limitless lifespan, and lack of explicit informed consent. Also problematic is the inability of affected groups to control how big data are used, the potential of big data to increase stigmatization and discrimination of those affected despite data anonymization, and uses that ignore or perpetuate biases. Participants support big data processes that protect and respect patients and society, ensure justice, and foster patient and public trust in public institutions. Recommendations for ethical big data governance offer ways to narrow the big data divide (e.g., prioritize health equity, set off-limits topics/methods, recognize blind spots), enact shared data governance (e.g., establish community advisory boards), cultivate public trust and earn social license for big data uses (e.g., institute safeguards and other stewardship responsibilities, engage the public, communicate the greater good), and refocus ethical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Using big data to address the opioid epidemic poses ethical concerns which, if unaddressed, may undermine its benefits. Findings can inform guidelines on how to conduct ethical big data governance and in ways that protect and respect patients and society, ensure justice, and foster patient and public trust in public institutions.

Changes in Medicaid Acceptance by Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities After Implementation of Federal Parity.

BACKGROUND: Adequate access for mental illness and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, particularly for Medicaid enrollees, is challenging. Policy efforts, including the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA), have targeted expanded access to care. With MHPAEA, more Medicaid plans were required to increase their coverage of SUD treatment, which may impact provider acceptance of Medicaid. OBJECTIVES: To identify changes in Medicaid acceptance by SUD treatment facilities after the implementation of MHPAEA (parity). RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational study using an interrupted time series design. SUBJECTS: 2002-2013 data from the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) for all SUD treatment facilities was combined with state-level characteristics. MEASURES: Primary outcome is whether a SUD treatment facility reported accepting Medicaid insurance. RESULTS: Implementation of MHPAEA was associated with a 4.6 percentage point increase in the probability of an SUD treatment facility accepting Medicaid (P<0.001), independent of facility and state characteristics, time trends, and key characteristics of state Medicaid programs. CONCLUSIONS: After parity, more SUD treatment facilities accepted Medicaid payments, which may ultimately increase access to care for individuals with SUD. The findings underscore how parity laws are critical policy tools for creating contexts that enable historically vulnerable and underserved populations with SUD to access needed health care.

Care home manager attitudes to balancing risk and autonomy for residents with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how care home managers negotiate the conflict between maintaining a safe environment while enabling the autonomy of residents with dementia. This is important because there is limited research with care home managers; yet, they are key agents in the implementation of national policies. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 managers from care homes offering dementia care in the Northwest of England. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: There were three areas in which care home staff reported balancing safety and risk against the individual needs of residents. First, the physical environment created a tension between safety and accessibility to the outside world, which meant that care homes provided highly structured or limited access to outdoor space. Second, care home managers reflected a balancing act between an individual's autonomy and the need to protect their residents' dignity. Finally, care home managers highlighted the ways in which an individual's needs were framed by the needs of other residents to the extent that on some occasions an individual's needs were subjugated to the needs of the general population of a home. CONCLUSION: There was a strong, even dominant, ethos of risk management and keeping people safe. Managing individual needs while maintaining a safe care home environment clearly is a constant dynamic interpersonal process of negotiating and balancing competing interests for care home managers.

Differences by Veteran/civilian status and gender in associations between childhood adversity and alcohol and drug use disorders.

PURPOSE: To examine differences by US military Veteran status and gender in associations between childhood adversity and DSM-5 lifetime alcohol and drug use disorders (AUD/DUD). METHODS: We analyzed nationally representative data from 3119 Veterans (n = 379 women; n = 2740 men) and 33,182 civilians (n = 20,066 women; n = 13,116 men) as provided by the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-III). We used weighted multinomial logistic regression, tested interaction terms, and calculated predicted probabilities by Veteran status and gender, controlling for covariates. To test which specific moderation contrasts were statistically significant, we conducted pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Among civilians, women had lower AUD and DUD prevalence than men; however, with more childhood adversity, this gender gap narrowed for AUD and widened for DUD. Among Veterans, in contrast, similar proportions of women and men had AUD and DUD; with more childhood adversity, AUD-predicted probability among men surpassed that of women. Childhood adversity elevated AUD probability among civilian women to levels exhibited by Veteran women. Among men, Veterans with more childhood adversity were more likely than civilians to have AUD, and less likely to have DUD. CONCLUSIONS: Childhood adversity alters the gender gap in AUD and DUD risk, and in ways that are different for Veterans compared with civilians. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and community health centers can prevent and ameliorate the harmful effects of childhood adversity by adapting existing behavioral health efforts to be trauma informed, Veteran sensitive, and gender tailored.

Gender differences in the effects of childhood adversity on alcohol, drug, and polysubstance-related disorders.

PURPOSE: To examine gender differences in the associations between childhood adversity and different types of substance use disorders and whether gender moderates these relationships. METHODS: We analyzed data from 19,209 women and 13,898 men as provided by Wave 2 (2004-2005) of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) to examine whether gender moderates the associations between childhood adversity and DSM-IV defined lifetime occurrence of alcohol, drug, and polysubstance-related disorders. We used multinomial logistic regression, weighted to be representative of the US adult civilian, noninstitutionalized population, and we calculated predicted probabilities by gender, controlling for covariates. To test which specific moderation contrasts were statistically significant, we conducted pair-wise comparisons corrected for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni's method. RESULTS: For each type of substance use disorder, risk was increased by more exposure to childhood adversity, and women had a lower risk than men. However, moderation effects revealed that with more experiences of childhood adversity, the gender gap in predicted probability for a disorder narrowed in relation to alcohol, it converged in relation to drugs such that risk among women surpassed that among men, and it widened in relation to polysubstances. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge regarding substance-specific gender differences associated with childhood adversity exposure can inform evidence-based treatments. It may also be useful for shaping other types of gender-sensitive public health initiatives to ameliorate or prevent different types of substance use disorders.