"If you're strung out and female, they will take advantage of you": A qualitative study exploring drug use and substance use service experiences among women in Boston and San Francisco.

BACKGROUND: Significant disparities in substance use severity and treatment persist among women who use drugs compared to men. Thus, we explored how identifying as a woman was related to drug use and treatment experiences. METHODS: The study recruited participants for a qualitative interview study in Boston and San Francisco from January-November 2020. Self-identified women, age ≥ 18 years, with nonprescribed opioid use in the past 14 days were eligible for inclusion. The study team developed deductive codes based on intersectionality theory and inductive codes generated from transcript review, and identified themes using grounded content analysis. RESULTS: The study enrolled thirty-six participants. The median age was 46; 58 % were White, 16 % were Black, 14 % were Hispanic, and 39 % were unstably housed. Other drug use was common with 81 % reporting benzodiazepine, 50 % cocaine, and 31 % meth/amphetamine use respectively. We found that gender (i.e., identifying as a woman) intersected with drug use and sex work practices and exacerbated experiences of marginalization. Violence was ubiquitous in drug use environments. Some women reported experiences of gender-based violence in substance use service settings that perpetuated cycles of trauma and reinforced barriers to care. Substance use services that were women-led, safe, and responsive to women's needs were valued and sought after. CONCLUSION: Women reported a cycle of trauma and drug use exacerbated by oppression in substance use services settings. In addition to increasing access to gender-responsive care, our study highlights the need for greater research and examination of practices within substance use service settings that may be contributing to gender-based violence.

Women's Understandings and Misunderstandings of Breast Density and Related Concepts: A Mixed Methods Study.

Background: Most U.S. states require written notification of breast density after mammograms, yet effects of notifications on knowledge are mixed. Little is known about potential misunderstandings. Methods: We used a sequential mixed-methods study design to assess women's knowledge about breast density, after receiving a notification. We conducted a telephone survey among a racially/ethnically and health-literacy level diverse sample (N = 754) and qualitative interviews with 61 survey respondents. Results: In survey results, 58% of women correctly indicated that breast density is not related to touch, with higher accuracy among non-Hispanic White women and those with greater health literacy. Next, 87% of women recognized that breast density is identified visually via mammogram, with no significant differences in responses by race/ethnicity or health literacy. Most (81%) women recognized that a relationship exists between breast tissue types and density; Non-Hispanic White women were less likely to respond correctly. Only 47% of women correctly indicated that having dense breasts increases one's risk of breast cancer; women with low health literacy were more often correct. Qualitative results revealed additional dimensions of understanding: Some women incorrectly reported that density could be felt, or dense breasts were lumpier, thicker, or more compacted; others identified "dense" tissue as fatty. Interpretations of risk included that breast density was an early form of breast cancer. Conclusion: We found areas of consistent knowledge and identified misperceptions surrounding breast density across race/ethnicity and health literacy levels. Further education to address disparities and correct misunderstandings is essential to promote better knowledge, to foster informed decisions.

"No home to take methadone to": Experiences with addiction services during the COVID-19 pandemic among survivors of opioid overdose in Boston.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a qualitative study to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on experiences with addiction treatment and harm reduction services. METHODS: The study recruited participants from Boston, Massachusetts, aged 18-65 who had a history of opioid use disorder and overdose, from a parent study (REpeated dose Behavioral intervention to reduce Opioid Overdose, REBOOT) to participate between August and October 2020. In-depth individual interviews explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on addiction service experiences. We conducted a grounded content analysis that examined codes related to addiction service access and engagement during the pandemic to compare and categorize participants according to their experiences. RESULTS: The study enrolled twenty participants. The mean age was 42 years; most identified as white (n = 16); ten participants identified as men, nine as cis-gender women, and one as a trans-gender woman. Participants described their experiences with COVID-19-driven changes to addiction care (methadone take homes, televisits for either buprenorphine or behavioral health services, and syringe service outreach) access and engagement as: 1) liberating (n = 7), 2) destabilizing (n = 8), or 3) unjust (n = 5). Participants in the liberating group found adaptations allowed for increased flexibility, freedom, and safety from COVID-19. This group was mostly housed and had strong social supports that facilitated participation in adapted treatment programs. COVID-19-related changes to addiction treatment disrupted routine and community supports among those in the destabilizing group. Participants in the unjust group felt that adaptations exacerbated inequities as a lack of housing and other social supports prohibited them from benefiting from the relaxed restrictions to methadone or buprenorphine. This group was mostly unhoused and found that adaptations did not adequately mitigate other inequities worsened by public health mandates for unhoused people who use drugs. CONCLUSION: Relaxed restrictions on medications for opioid use disorder created opportunities for improved patient-centered care. Concrete measures that address service barriers, such as phone or transportation access, may have reduced destabilizing and unjust experiences reported by our participants. However, addiction care inequities will persist if drivers of marginalization, specifically a lack of housing, remain unaddressed.