Using RE-AIM Framework to Evaluate Recovery Opioid Overdose Team Plus: A Peer-Led Post-overdose Quick Response Team.

Peer recovery coaches utilize their lived experiences to support overdose survivors, a role gaining prominence across communities. A convergent mixed methods design, informed by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, was used to evaluate the Recovery Opioid Overdose Team Plus (ROOT +), through an iterative evaluation using web-based surveys and qualitative interviews. Reach: Over 27 months, ROOT + responded to 83% of suspected overdose referrals (n = 607) and engaged with 41% of survivors (n = 217) and 7% of survivors' family/friends (n = 38). Effectiveness: Among those initially engaged with ROOT +, 36% of survivors remained engaged, entered treatment, or were in recovery at 90 days post-overdose (n = 77). Adoption: First responders completed 77% of ROOT + referrals (n = 468). Implementation: Barriers included lack of awareness of ROOT + , working phones, and access to treatment from community partner interviews (n = 15). Maintenance: Adaptations to ROOT + were made to facilitate implementation. Peer-led teams are promising models to engage with overdose survivors.

Impact of Perceived Access and Treatment Knowledge on Medication Preferences for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) are effective, but most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive treatment. Prior research has explored patients' structural barriers to access and perceptions of MOUD. Little research has considered treatment knowledge and perceptions outside of the patient population. Members of the public without OUD themselves (eg, family, friends) can significantly influence treatment decisions of persons with OUD. Considering these gaps, we conducted an original survey with a diverse sample of US adults to explore knowledge and preferences toward OUD treatments. METHODS: We conducted an online survey with 1505 White, Black, and Latino/a Americans including a small percentage (8.5%) with self-reported lifetime OUD. The survey used vignettes to describe hypothetical patients with OUD, provide basic treatment information (ie, methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, nonmedication treatment), and then assessed treatment preferences. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between covariates of interest (eg, perceived access, knowledge, demographics) and preference for MOUD versus nonmedication treatment. RESULTS: There were 523 White, 502 Black, and 480 Latino/a respondents. Across racial/ethnic subsamples, respondents had the greatest knowledge of nonmedication treatments, with Black (72.7%) and Latino/a (70.2%) respondents having significantly greater knowledge compared to White respondents (61.8%). However, after viewing the vignette, a greater proportion of respondents chose methadone (35.8%) or buprenorphine (34.8%) as their first-choice treatment for hypothetical patients. Multivariable logistic regression suggested that among Black respondents, those with knowledge of nonmedication treatment were more likely to choose MOUD than those without knowledge (odds ratio = 2.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.34-4.34). Perceived treatment access did not affect treatment choice. CONCLUSIONS: Across racial groups, knowledge and perceived access to nonmedication treatment was greater than for MOUD, but many still selected MOUD as a first-choice treatment. Significant findings emphasized the importance of treatment knowledge around decision-making, highlighting opportunities for tailored education efforts to improve uptake of evidence-based treatment.

The effect of a pilot brief educational intervention on preferences regarding treatments for opioid use disorder.

Purpose: Negative perceptions around medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) amongst the public could deter patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) from engaging with MOUD. Thus, we evaluated whether a brief intervention could improve preferences for MOUD in people who may or may not use opioids. Methods: We employed a pre-post design to assess the effect of a brief educational intervention on preferences for methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, and non-medication treatment in an online sample of US adults stratified by race, who may or may not use opioids. Respondents ranked their preferences in OUD treatment before and after watching four one-minute educational videos about treatment options. Changes in treatment preferences were analyzed using Bhapkar's test and post hoc McNemar's tests. A binary logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) assessed factors associated with preference between treatments. Results: The sample had 530 responses. 194 identified as White, 173 Black, 163 Latinx. Treatment preferences changed significantly towards MOUD (p<.001). This effect was driven by changes toward buprenorphine (OR=2.38; p<.001) and away from non-medication treatment (OR=0.20; p<.001). There was no significant difference in effect by race/ethnicity. People with lower opioid familiarity were significantly more likely to change their preferences towards MOUD following the intervention. Conclusion: Respondent preferences for MOUD increased following the intervention suggesting that brief educational interventions can change treatment preferences towards MOUD. These findings offer insights into perceptions of OUD treatment in a racially stratified sample and serve as a foundation for future educational materials that target MOUD preferences in the general public.

Perceptions around medications for opioid use disorder among a diverse sample of U.S. adults.

INTRODUCTION: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) including methadone (MMT), buprenorphine (BUP), and naltrexone (NTX) are safe and effective. However, there are significant negative perceptions surrounding MOUD, creating barriers to uptake. While research on MOUD stigma has largely focused on provider and patient experiences, fewer studies have explored MOUD perceptions among the general public. Given that MOUD stigma expressed by social ties surrounding individuals with OUD can influence treatment choices, we assessed MOUD perceptions among U.S. adults to determine how beliefs impacted treatment preference. We further explored how MOUD perceptions may be amplified among racialized groups with histories of experiencing drug-related discrimination. METHODS: The study collected survey data from a diverse sample of U.S. adults (n = 1508) between October 2020 and January 2021. The survey measured knowledge of MOUD and non-medication treatments, relative agreement with common MOUD perceptions, and treatment preferences. Multinomial logistic regression analysis tested associations with treatment preference, stratified by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Descriptive results indicated that across groups, many respondents (66.8 %) had knowledge of MOUD, but believed MOUD was a "substitute" for opioids and had some degree of concern about misuse. Multivariable results showed knowledge of non-medication treatments was positively associated with MOUD preference among White (MMT OR = 3.16, 95 % CI = 1.35-7.39; BUP OR = 2.69, CI = 1.11-6.47), Black (MMT OR = 3.91, CI = 1.58-9.69), and Latino/a (MMT OR = 5.12, CI = 1.99-13.2; BUP OR = 3.85, CI = 1.5-9.87; NTX OR = 4.51, CI = 1.44-14.06) respondents. Among White respondents, we identified positive associations between MOUD experience and buprenorphine preference (OR = 4.33, CI = 1.17-16.06); non-medication treatment experience and preference for buprenorphine (OR = 2.86, CI = 1.03-7.94) and naltrexone (OR = 3.17, CI = 1.08-9.28). Concerns around misuse of methadone were negatively associated with methadone preference among White (OR = 0.65, CI = 0.43-0.98) and Latino/a (OR = 0.49, CI = 0.34-0.7), and concerns around misuse of buprenorphine was negatively associated with preference for MOUD among White (MMT OR = 0.62, CI = 0.39-0.99; BUP OR = 0.48, CI = 0.3-0.77; NTX OR = 0.6, CI = 0.36-0.99) and Latino/a (BUP OR = 0.59, CI = 0.39-0.89) respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis offers critical insights into treatment perceptions beyond the patient population, finding that negative beliefs around MOUD are common and negatively associated with preferences for medication-based treatment. These findings highlight implications for public support of evidence-based treatment and lay the groundwork for future interventions addressing public stigma toward MOUD.

Genetic Researchers' Use of and Interest in Research With Diverse Ancestral Groups.

Importance: Genetic researchers must have access to databases populated with data from diverse ancestral groups to ensure research is generalizable or targeted for historically excluded communities. Objective: To determine genetic researchers' interest in doing research with diverse ancestral populations, which database stewards offer adequate samples, and additional facilitators for use of diverse ancestral data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted from June to December 2022 and was part of an exploratory sequential mixed-methods project in which previous qualitative results informed survey design. Eligible participants included genetic researchers who held US academic affiliations and conducted research using human genetic databases. Exposure: Internet-administered survey to genetic research professionals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey assessed respondents' experience and interest in research with diverse ancestral data, perceptions of adequacy of diverse data across database stewards (ie, private, government, or consortia), and identified facilitators for encouraging use of diverse ancestral data. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and z tests were used to describe respondents' perspectives and experiences. Results: A total of 294 researchers (171 men [58.5%]; 121 women [41.2%]) were included in the study, resulting in a response rate of 20.4%. Across seniority level, 109 respondents (37.1%) were senior researchers, 85 (28.9%) were mid-level researchers, 71 (24.1%) were junior researchers, and 27 (9.2%) were trainees. Significantly more respondents worked with data from European ancestral populations (261 respondents [88.8%]) compared with any other ancestral population. Respondents who had not done research with Indigenous ancestral groups (210 respondents [71.4%]) were significantly more likely to report interest in doing so than not (121 respondents [41.2%] vs 89 respondents [30.3%]; P < .001). Respondents reported discrepancies in the adequacy of ancestral populations with significantly more reporting European samples as adequate across consortium (203 respondents [90.6%]), government (200 respondents [89.7%]), and private (42 respondents [80.8%]) databases, compared with any other ancestral population. There were no significant differences in reported adequacy of ancestral populations across database stewards. A majority of respondents without access to adequate diverse samples reported that increasing the ancestral diversity of existing databases (201 respondents [68.4%]) and increasing access to databases that are already diverse (166 respondents [56.5%]) would increase the likelihood of them using a more diverse sample. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US genetic researchers, respondents reported existing databases only provide adequate ancestral samples for European populations, despite their interest in other ancestral populations. These findings suggest there are specific gaps in access to and composition of genetic databases, highlighting the urgent need to boost diversity in research samples to improve inclusivity in genetic research practices.