"They Ask Questions, But They Don't Want the Answers"-Perceptions of Clinical Communication Among Veterans Discontinuing Buprenorphine for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) discontinue treatment prematurely, increasing their risk of opioid-related overdose and death. While patient-centered care is considered the gold standard in treating chronic illness, it may be practiced less frequently in the context of OUD care. Patient-provider communication can influence patients' care experiences, potentially having an impact on treatment retention and care decision-making. METHODS: This study was conducted at the VA Portland Health Care System from March 2021 to April 2022. We conducted qualitive interviews with patients who had discontinued buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD within the past year. Coding and analysis were guided by inductive qualitative content analysis. Retrospective medical record review identified clinical and demographic characteristics of participants. RESULTS: Twenty patients completed an interview. Participant age ranged from 28 to 74 years (median 63 years). Ninety percent of participants were white and 90% male. Many participants expressed frustration and feelings of disempowerment in OUD care processes. Patients with a history of long-term prescribed opioid use frequently expressed stigmatizing views of OUD, and perceptions of disagreement with providers over diagnosis and care choices. Elderly patients and those with multiple comorbidities expressed confusion over significant aspects of their care, as well as difficulty navigating treatment logistics like appointment requirements and medication dose changes. Some patients reported later restarting buprenorphine in new settings, and described feeling respected and involved in care decisions as a facilitator for continuing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing patient-centered communication in OUD treatment could improve the patient experience and potentially support treatment retention. Subgroups of OUD patients, such as those with a history of long-term prescribed opioid use, elderly patients with multiple comorbidities, or those who express stigmatizing medication views, could particularly benefit from tailored communication strategies that address their individual concerns.

Patients' Perspectives on Discontinuing Buprenorphine for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine and other medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) are recommended as standard of care in the treatment of OUD and are associated with positive health and addiction-related outcomes. Despite benefits, discontinuation is common, with half of patients discontinuing in the first year of treatment. Addressing OUD is a major clinical priority, yet little is known about the causes of medication discontinuation from the patient perspective. METHODS: From March 2021 to April 2022, we conducted qualitative interviews with patients who had discontinued buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD within the past 12 months. Eligible participants were selected from 2 Veterans Health Administration Health Care Systems in Oregon. Coding and analysis were guided by conventional qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty participants completed an interview; 90% were White and 90% were male, and the mean age was 54.2 years. Before discontinuation, participants had received buprenorphine for 8.3 months on average (range, 1-40 months); 80% had received buprenorphine for less than 12 months. Qualitative analysis identified the following themes relating to discontinuation: health system barriers (eg, logistical hurdles, rules and policy violations), medication effects (adverse effects; attributed adverse effects, lack of efficacy in treating chronic pain) and desire for opioid use. Patient description of decisions to discontinue buprenorphine could be multicausal, reflecting provider or system-level barriers in interaction with patient complexity or medication ambivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Study results identify several actionable ways OUD treatment could be modified to enhance patient retention.

Dispensary Staff Perceptions About the Benefits, Risks, and Safety of Cannabis for Medical Purposes.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic use of cannabis is common in the United States (up to 18.7% of Americans aged ≥12), and dispensaries in the US are proliferating rapidly. However, the efficacy profile of medical cannabis is unclear, and customers often rely on dispensary staff for purchasing decisions. The objective was to describe cannabis dispensary staff perceptions of medical cannabis benefits and risks, as well as its safety in high-risk populations. METHODS: Online Survey study conducted using Qualtrics from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with a national sample of dispensary staff who reportedinteracting with customers in a cannabis dispensary selling tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products. Participants were queried about benefits ("helpfulness") and risks ("worry") about cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, and safety in older adults and pregnant women on a five-point Likert scale. These results were then collapsed into three categories including "neutral" (3/5). "I don't know" (uncertainty) was a response option for helpfulness and safety. RESULTS: Participants (n = 434) were from 29 states and included patient-facing dispensary staff (40%); managers (32%); pharmacists (13%); and physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants (5%). Over 80% of participants perceived cannabis as helpful for post-traumatic stress disorder (88.7%), epilepsy (85.3%) and cancer (83.4%). Generally, participants were not concerned about potential cannabis risks, including increased use of illicit drugs (76.3%), decreases in intelligence (74.4%), disrupted sleep (71.7%), and new/worsening health problems from medical cannabis use (70.7%). Cannabis was considered safe in older adults by 81.3% of participants, though there was much less consensus on safety in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis dispensary staff generally view medical cannabis as beneficial and low-risk. However, improvements in dispensary staff training, an increased role for certifying clinicians, and interventions to reduce dispensary staff concerns (e.g., cost, judgment) may improve evidence-based staff recommendations to patients seeking medical cannabis.

Cannabis dispensary staff approaches to counseling on potential contraindications to cannabis use: insights from a national self-report survey.

BACKGROUND: Legal cannabis is available in more than half of the United States. Health care professionals (HCPs) rarely give recommendations on dosing or safety of cannabis due to limits imposed by policy and lack of knowledge. Customer-facing cannabis dispensary staff, including clinicians (pharmacists, nurses, physician's assistants), communicate these recommendations in the absence of HCP recommendations. Little is known about how dispensary staff approach individuals with complex medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Using responses from a national survey, we describe how cannabis dispensary staff counsel customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities on cannabis use and examine whether state-specific cannabis policy is associated with advice given to customers. METHODS: National, cross-sectional online survey study from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 of dispensary staff at dispensaries that sell delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol containing products. Measures include responses to survey questions about how they approach customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities; state medicalization score (scale 0-100; higher score indicates more similarity to regulation of traditional pharmacies); legalized adult-use cannabis (yes/no). We conducted multiple mixed effects multivariable logistic regression analyses to understand relationships between state medicalization and dispensary employees' perspectives. RESULTS: Of 434 eligible respondents, most were budtenders (40%) or managers (32%), and a minority were clinicians (18%). State medicalization score was not associated with responses to most survey questions. It was associated with increased odds of encouraging customers with medical comorbidities to inform their traditional HCP of cannabis use (Odds ratio [OR]=1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.4, p=0.03) and reduced odds of recommending cannabis for individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) (OR=0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, p=0.04). Working in a state with legalized adult-use cannabis was associated with recommending traditional health care instead of cannabis in those with serious mental illness (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p=0.04). Less than half of respondents believed they had encountered CUD (49%), and over a quarter did not believe cannabis is addictive (26%). CONCLUSIONS: When managing cannabis dosing and safety in customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidity, dispensary staff preferred involving individuals' traditional HCPs. Dispensary staff were skeptical of cannabis being addictive. While state regulations of dispensaries may impact the products individuals have access to, they were not associated with recommendations that dispensary staff gave to customers. Alternative explanations for dispensary recommendations may include regional or store-level variation not captured in this analysis.

Cannabis use is associated with pain severity and interference among cancer survivors.

Context: Cannabis use for symptom management among individuals with cancer is increasingly common. Objectives: We sought to describe the 1) prevalence and characteristics of cannabis use, 2) perceived therapeutic benefits of cannabis use, and 3) examine how use of cannabis was associated with self-reported pain, mood, and general health outcomes among a representative sample of patients treated at NCI designated OHSU Knight Cancer Institute. Methods: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional survey developed in conjunction with 11 other NCI designated cancer centers and distributed to eligible individuals. The survey inquired about characteristics of cannabis use, perception of therapeutic benefits, pain, mood, and general health. Responses were population weighted. We examined the association of cannabis use with self-reported pain, mood, and general health using logistic regression controlling for relevant sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Results: 523 individuals were included in our analytic sample. 54% endorsed using cannabis at any time since their cancer diagnosis and 42% endorsed using cannabis during active treatment. The most endorsed reasons for use included: sleep disturbance (54.7%), pain (47.1%), and mood (42.6%). We found moderate pain was associated with more than a 2-fold (OR = 2.4 [95% CI = 1.3-4.6], p = 0.002) greater likelihood of self-reported cannabis use. Depressed mood or general health were not associated with cannabis use. Conclusions: In a state with medical and recreational cannabis legislation, a high number of cancer survivors report cannabis use. Those with pain were more likely to use cannabis. Oncologists should be aware of this trend and assess use of cannabis when managing long-term symptoms of cancer and its treatments.

Prevalence and correlates of high-dose opioid use among survivors of head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: We characterized prescription opioid medication use up to 2 years following the head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis and examined associations with moderate or high daily opioid prescription dose. METHODS: Using administrative data from Veterans Health Administration, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 5522 Veterans treated for cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract between 2012 and 2019. Data included cancer diagnosis and treatments, pain severity, prescription opioid characteristics, demographics, and other clinical factors. RESULTS: Two years post-HNC, 7.8% (n = 428) were receiving moderate or high-dose opioid therapy. Patients with at least moderate pain (18%, n = 996) had 2.48 times higher odds (95% CI = 1.94-3.09, p < 0.001) to be prescribed a moderate opioid dose or higher at 2 years post diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of HNC with at least moderate pain were at elevated risk of continued use of moderate and high dose opioids.

"I'm Clean and Sober, But Not Necessarily Free": Perceptions of Buprenorphine Among Patients in Long-Term Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) experience a roughly 50% reduction in mortality risk relative to those not receiving medication. Longer periods of treatment are also associated with improved clinical outcomes. Despite this, patients often express desires to discontinue treatment and some view taper as treatment success. Little is known about the beliefs and medication perspectives of patients engaged in long-term buprenorphine treatment that may underlie motivations to discontinue. METHODS: This study was conducted at the VA Portland Health Care System (2019-2020). Qualitative interviews were conducted with participants prescribed buprenorphine for ≥2 years. Coding and analysis were guided by directed qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen patients engaged in office-based buprenorphine treatment completed interviews. While patients expressed strong enthusiasm for buprenorphine as a medication, the majority expressed the desire to discontinue, including patients actively tapering. Motivations to discontinue fell into 4 categories. First, patients were troubled by perceived side effects of the medication, including effects on sleep, emotion, and memory. Second, patients expressed unhappiness with being "dependent" on buprenorphine, framed in opposition to personal strength/independence. Third, patients expressed stigmatized beliefs about buprenorphine, describing it as "illicit," and associated with past drug use. Finally, patients expressed fears about buprenorphine unknowns, including potential long-term health effects and interactions with medications required for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recognizing benefits, many patients engaged in long-term buprenorphine treatment express a desire to discontinue. Findings from this study may help clinicians anticipate patient concerns and can be used to inform shared decision-making conversations regarding buprenorphine treatment duration.

Patient-Provider Shared Decision-Making, Trust, and Opioid Misuse Among US Veterans Prescribed Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Patient-provider shared decision-making is associated with better treatment adherence and pain outcomes in opioid-specific pain management. One possible mechanism through which shared decision-making may impact pain management outcomes is trust in one's prescribing provider. Elucidating relationships between factors that enhance the patient-provider relationship, such as shared decision-making and trust, may reduce risks associated with opioid treatment, such as opioid misuse. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the mediating effect of trust in one's prescribing provider on the relationship between shared decision-making and current opioid misuse. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study of US Veterans (N = 1273) prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic non-cancer pain. PARTICIPANTS: Eligibility criteria included being prescribed LTOT, ability to speak and read English, and access to a telephone. Veterans were excluded if they had a cancer diagnosis, received opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder, or evidence of pending discontinuation of LTOT. Stratified random sampling was employed to oversample racial and ethnic minorities and women veterans. MAIN MEASURES: Physician Participatory Decision-Making assessed level of patient involvement in medical decision-making, the Trust in Provider Scale assessed interpersonal trust in patient-provider relationships, and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure assessed opioid misuse. KEY RESULTS: Patient-provider shared decision-making had a total significant effect on opioid misuse, in the absence of the mediator (c = - 0.243, p < 0.001), such that higher levels of shared decision-making were associated with lower levels of reported opioid misuse. When trust in provider was added to the mediation model, the indirect effect of shared decision-making on opioid misuse through trust in provider remained significant (c' = - 0.147, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making is associated with less prescription opioid misuse through the trust that is fostered between patients and providers.

Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Rural Versus Urban Veterans Health Administration Facilities.

BACKGROUND: For patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), medications for OUD (MOUD) reduce morbidity, mortality, and return to use. Nevertheless, a minority of patients receive MOUD, and underutilization is pronounced among rural patients. OBJECTIVE: While Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiatives have improved MOUD access overall, it is unknown whether access has improved in rural VA health systems specifically. How "Community Care," healthcare paid for by VHA but received from non-VA providers, has affected rural access is also unknown. DESIGN: Data for this observational study were drawn from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse. Facility rurality was defined by rural-urban commuting area code of the primary medical center. International Classification of Diseases codes identified patients with OUD within each year, 2015-2020. We included MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, extended-release naltrexone) received from VHA or paid for by VHA but received at non-VA facilities through Community Care. We calculated average yearly MOUD receipt; linear regression of outcomes on study years identified trends; an interaction between year and rural status evaluated trend differences over time. PARTICIPANTS: All 129 VHA Health Systems, a designation that encompasses one or more medical centers and their affiliated community-based outpatient clinics MAIN MEASURES: The average proportion of patients diagnosed with OUD that receive MOUD within rural versus urban VHA health care systems. KEY RESULTS: From 2015 to 2020, MOUD access increased substantially: the average proportion of patients receiving MOUD increased from 34.6 to 48.9%, with a similar proportion of patients treated with MOUD in rural and urban systems in all years. Overall, a small proportion (1.8%) of MOUD was provided via Community Care, and Community Care did not disproportionately benefit rural health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies utilized by VHA could inform other health care systems seeking to ensure that, regardless of geographic location, all patients are able to access MOUD.

Expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder through locally-initiated implementation.

BACKGROUND: Despite demonstrated efficacy, medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) remain inaccessible to many patients, with barriers identified at the individual, clinic and system level. A wide array of implementation strategies have guided efforts to expand access to MOUD, with most centered around externally-facilitated approaches to practice change. While effective, such approaches may be inaccessible to those clinics and systems that lack the resources necessary to partner with an external team, suggesting a need to identify and describe change-processes that are internally developed and promoted. METHODS: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we utilized qualitative interviews and ethnographic observation to investigate the planning, design and implementation of a locally-initiated process to expand access to MOUD within one health care system. All study documents were coded by a primary coder and secondary reviewer using a codebook designed for use with the CFIR. To analyze data, we reviewed text tagged by key codes, compared these textual excerpts both across and within documents, and organized findings into themes. Processes identified were mapped to established implementation science constructs and strategies. RESULTS: Interviews with clinicians and administrators (n = 9) and ethnographic observation of planning meetings (n = 3) revealed how a self-appointed local team developed, established broad support for, and successfully implemented a Primary Care-based Buprenorphine Clinic and E-Consult Service to expand access to MOUD to patients across the health care system. First, national and local policy changes-including altered clinical practice guidelines, performance pay incentives regarding opioid prescribing, and a directive from VA Central Office increased individual staff and administrators' perception of the need for change and willingness to invest time and resources. Then, a self-appointed interdisciplinary team utilized cross-clinic meetings and information gathering to identify appropriate, and widely supported, models of care delivery and care consultation. Finally, the team increased staff investment in these change efforts by bringing them into the planning process and encouraging collaborative problem solving. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals how a local team developed and built widespread support for new processes of care that were tailored to local needs and well-positioned for sustainability over time.

Cannabis-Based Products for Chronic Pain : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary data are needed about the utility of cannabinoids in chronic pain. PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabinoids for chronic pain. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to January 2022. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized, placebo-controlled trials and cohort studies (≥1 month duration) of cannabinoids for chronic pain. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction, risk of bias, and strength of evidence assessments were dually reviewed. Cannabinoids were categorized by THC-to-CBD ratio (high, comparable, or low) and source (synthetic, extract or purified, or whole plant). DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighteen randomized, placebo-controlled trials (n = 1740) and 7 cohort studies (n = 13 095) assessed cannabinoids. Studies were primarily short term (1 to 6 months); 56% enrolled patients with neuropathic pain, with 3% to 89% female patients. Synthetic products with high THC-to-CBD ratios (>98% THC) may be associated with moderate improvement in pain severity and response (≥30% improvement) and an increased risk for sedation and are probably associated with a large increased risk for dizziness. Extracted products with high THC-to-CBD ratios (range, 3:1 to 47:1) may be associated with large increased risk for study withdrawal due to adverse events and dizziness. Sublingual spray with comparable THC-to-CBD ratio (1.1:1) probably is associated with small improvement in pain severity and overall function and may be associated with large increased risk for dizziness and sedation and moderate increased risk for nausea. Evidence for other products and outcomes, including longer-term harms, were not reported or were insufficient. LIMITATION: Variation in interventions; lack of study details, including unclear availability in the United States; and inadequate evidence for some products. CONCLUSION: Oral, synthetic cannabis products with high THC-to-CBD ratios and sublingual, extracted cannabis products with comparable THC-to-CBD ratios may be associated with short-term improvements in chronic pain and increased risk for dizziness and sedation. Studies are needed on long-term outcomes and further evaluation of product formulation effects. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (PROSPERO: CRD42021229579).

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy for morning bright light therapy to improve sleep and plasma biomarkers in US Veterans with TBI. A prospective, open-label, single-arm trial.

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with persistent sleep-wake dysfunction, including insomnia and circadian rhythm disruption, which can exacerbate functional outcomes including mood, pain, and quality of life. Present therapies to treat sleep-wake disturbances in those with TBI (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia) are limited by marginal efficacy, poor patient acceptability, and/or high patient/provider burden. Thus, this study aimed to assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of morning bright light therapy, to improve sleep in Veterans with TBI (NCT03578003). Thirty-three Veterans with history of TBI were prospectively enrolled in a single-arm, open-label intervention using a lightbox (~10,000 lux at the eye) for 60-minutes every morning for 4-weeks. Pre- and post-intervention outcomes included questionnaires related to sleep, mood, TBI, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and pain; wrist actigraphy as a proxy for objective sleep; and blood-based biomarkers related to TBI/sleep. The protocol was rated favorably by ~75% of participants, with adherence to the lightbox and actigraphy being ~87% and 97%, respectively. Post-intervention improvements were observed in self-reported symptoms related to insomnia, mood, and pain; actigraphy-derived measures of sleep; and blood-based biomarkers related to peripheral inflammatory balance. The severity of comorbid PTSD was a significant positive predictor of response to treatment. Morning bright light therapy is a feasible and acceptable intervention that shows preliminary efficacy to treat disrupted sleep in Veterans with TBI. A full-scale randomized, placebo-controlled study with longitudinal follow-up is warranted to assess the efficacy of morning bright light therapy to improve sleep, biomarkers, and other TBI related symptoms.

A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial to Decrease Prescription Opioid Misuse: Improving the Safety of Opioid Therapy (ISOT).

BACKGROUND: Interventions to reduce harms related to prescription opioids are needed in primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multicomponent intervention, Improving the safety of opioid therapy (ISOT), is efficacious in reducing prescription opioid harms. DESIGN: Clinician-level, cluster randomized clinical trial. ( ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02791399) SETTING: Eight primary care clinics at 1 Veterans Affairs health care system. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five primary care clinicians and 286 patients who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). INTERVENTION: All clinicians participated in a 2-hour educational session on patient-centered care surrounding opioid adherence monitoring and were randomly assigned to education only or ISOT. ISOT is a multicomponent intervention that included a one-time consultation by an external clinician to the patient with monitoring and feedback to clinicians over 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were changes in risk for prescription opioid misuse (Current Opioid Misuse Measure) and urine drug test results. Secondary outcomes were quality of the clinician-patient relationship, other prescription opioid safety outcomes, changes in clinicians' opioid prescribing characteristics, and a non-inferiority analysis of changes in pain intensity and functioning. KEY RESULTS: ISOT did not decrease risk for prescription opioid misuse (difference between groups = -1.12, p = 0.097), likelihood of an aberrant urine drug test result (difference between groups = -0.04, p=0.401), or measures of the clinician-patient relationship. Participants allocated to ISOT were more likely to discontinue prescription opioids (20.0% versus 8.1%, p = 0.007). ISOT did not worsen participant-reported scores of pain intensity or function. CONCLUSIONS: ISOT did not impact risk for prescription opioid misuse but did lead to increased likelihood of prescription opioid discontinuation. More intensive interventions may be needed to impact treatment outcomes.

Risk of Suicidal Self-directed Violence Among US Veteran Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer.

Importance: Head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors are about twice as likely to die by suicide compared with other cancer survivors. Objective: To examine the associations between precancer mental health and pain and postcancer receipt of mental health, substance use disorder (SUD), or palliative care services with risk of suicidal self-directed violence (SSDV). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the Veterans Health Administration data of 7803 veterans with a diagnosis of HNC (stage I-IVB) who received cancer treatment between January 1, 2012, and January 1, 2018. Data were analyzed between May 2020 and July 2021. Exposures: Presence of precancer chronic pain and SUD diagnoses, and postcancer SUD, mental health, or palliative care treatment. Exposures were defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes in Veterans Health Administration administrative data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Documented SSDV event, including suicide attempt or death by suicide, after HNC diagnosis. Results: Among the cohort of 7803 veterans (7685 [98.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 65 [10.7] years), 72 (0.9%) had at least 1 documented SSDV event following their cancer diagnosis, and 51 (0.7%) died by suicide. Four adjusted modified Poisson regression analyses identified that precancer chronic pain (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.58; 95% CI 1.54-4.32) or mood disorder diagnoses (IRR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.17-3.24) were associated with higher risk of postcancer SSDV. Those who had at least 1 documented mental health (IRR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.24-6.03) or SUD (IRR, 3.92; 95% CI, 2.46-6.24) treatment encounter in the 90 days following HNC diagnosis were at higher risk for SSDV. A palliative care encounter within 90 days of postcancer diagnosis was associated with decreased risk of SSVD (IRR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.78). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, a high proportion of HNC survivors with an SSVD event died from their injuries. Identification of risk factors for SSDV among HNC survivors may help direct additional resources to those who are at high risk. Referral to palliative care appears to be an important component of supportive oncologic care to reduce the risk of SSDV.

Adjunct interventions to standard medical management of buprenorphine in outpatient settings: A systematic review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of research has examined adjunctive interventions supportive of engagement and retention in treatment among patients receiving buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). We conducted a systematic review of the literature addressing the effect on key outcomes of adjunctive interventions provided alongside standard medical management of buprenorphine in outpatient settings. METHODS: We included prospective studies examining adults receiving buprenorphine paired with an adjunctive intervention for the treatment of OUD in an outpatient setting. Data sources included Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception through January 2020. Two raters independently reviewed full-text articles, abstracted data and appraised risk of bias. Outcomes examined included abstinence, retention in treatment and non-addiction-related health outcomes. RESULTS: The final review includes 20 manuscripts, 11 randomized control trials (RCTs), three secondary analyses of RCTs and six observational studies. Most studies examined psychosocial interventions (n = 14). Few examined complementary therapies (e.g., yoga; n = 2) or technological interventions (e.g., electronic pill dispensation; n = 3); one study examined an intervention addressing structural barriers to care (patient navigators; n = 1). Low risk of bias RCTs found no evidence that adding psychosocial interventions to buprenorphine treatment improves substance use outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Research is needed to identify adjunctive interventions with potential to support medication adherence and addiction-related outcomes for patients engaged in buprenorphine treatment. Data from clinical trials suggest that lack of ready access to psychosocial treatments should not discourage clinicians from prescribing buprenorphine.

Analysis of State Cannabis Laws and Dispensary Staff Recommendations to Adults Purchasing Medical Cannabis.

Importance: Over the last decade, cannabis has become more accessible through the proliferation of dispensaries in states that have legalized its use. Most patients using cannabis for medical purposes report getting advice from dispensaries, yet there has been little exploration of frontline dispensary staff practices. Objective: To describe the practices of frontline dispensary workers who interact with customers purchasing cannabis for medical purposes and assess whether dispensary practices are associated with medicalization of state cannabis laws (degree to which they resemble regulation of prescription or over-the-counter drugs) and statewide adult use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide cross-sectional survey study was conducted from February 13, 2020, to October 2, 2020, using an online survey tool. Potential respondents were eligible if they reported working in a dispensary that sells tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products and interacting with customers about cannabis purchases. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant responses to questions about formulating customer recommendations and talking to customers about risks. Results: The 434 survey responses from 351 unique dispensaries were most often completed by individuals who identified as budtenders (40%), managers (32%), and pharmacists (13%). Most respondents reported basing customer recommendations on the customer's medical condition (74%), the experiences of other customers (70%), the customer's prior experience with cannabis (67%), and the respondent's personal experience (63%); fewer respondents relied on clinician input (40%), cost (45%), or inventory (12%). Most respondents routinely advised customers about safe storage and common adverse effects, but few counseled customers about cannabis use disorder, withdrawal, motor vehicle collision risk, or psychotic reactions. A higher state medicalization score was significantly associated with using employer training (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.67) and physician or clinician input (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43) as a basis for recommendation. Medicalization score was not associated with counseling about cannabis risks. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study provides insight into how frontline dispensary staff base cannabis recommendations and counsel about risks. The findings may have utility for clinicians to counsel patients who purchase cannabis, customers who want to be prepared for a dispensary visit, and policy makers whose decisions affect cannabis laws.

Perspectives on opioid misuse from public service psychology: An introduction.

Despite practicing in multiple venues where people with opioid use disorders require services, most public service psychology providers are not delivering, or being trained to deliver, treatment for substance use disorders. In addition, unintentional overdose and death from opioids continue, treatment options for chronic pain remain limited, and a larger discussion on the problem and role of drug and alcohol addiction in society remains largely unspoken. The articles received and included in this special section present some changes in the way that precipitants and prevention of opioid use disorder may be addressed and the role of psychologists in this work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

How medical are states' medical cannabis policies?: Proposing a standardized scale.

BACKGROUND: There are important differences in medical cannabis laws across the U.S.. However, prior studies investigating the effect of medical cannabis laws on outcomes disregard this heterogeneity. Findings from the body of literature using a simple dichotomous assessment of whether a particular state has enacted a medical cannabis law are equivocal or conflicting. To advance the science, a national advisory group of experts in medical cannabis developed and utilized a systematic methodology, the "medicalization of cannabis laws standardized scale" (MCLaSS), to characterize and quantify state laws' degree of medicalization, the extent to which medical cannabis is treated similarly to pharmaceutical medications. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of state-level medical cannabis laws in the U.S. Using the novel MCLaSS, we calculated seven domain scores (patient-clinician relationship, manufacturing and testing, product labeling, types of products, supply and dose limit, prescription drug monitoring program, and dispensing practices) and a summary score for each state which had enacted medical cannabis laws as of July 2019. RESULTS: There is substantial heterogeneity in the degree of medicalization of states' medical cannabis laws, as demonstrated by the MCLaSS summary score, which ranged from 23 (least medicalized) to 86 (most medicalized). CONCLUSION: This methodology will advance the evidence base about the impact of medical cannabis laws on patient and public health outcomes, which is urgently needed to ensure the development of policies that minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of medical cannabis.

Associations of Pain Numeric Rating Scale Scores Collected during Usual Care with Research Administered Patient Reported Pain Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which numeric rating scale (NRS) scores collected during usual care are associated with more robust and validated measures of pain, disability, mental health, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: We included 186 patients with musculoskeletal pain who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy. SETTING: VA Portland Health Care System outpatient clinic. METHODS: All patients had been screened with the 0-10 NRS during routine outpatient visits. They also completed research visits that assessed pain, mental health and HRQOL every 6 months for 2 years. Accounting for nonindependence of repeated measures data, we examined associations of NRS data obtained from the medical record with scores on standardized measures of pain and its related outcomes. RESULTS: NRS scores obtained in clinical practice were moderately associated with pain intensity scores (B's = 0.53-0.59) and modestly associated with pain disability scores (B's = 0.33-0.36) obtained by researchers. Associations between pain NRS scores and validated measures of depression, anxiety, and health related HRQOL were low (B's = 0.09-0.26, with the preponderance of B's < .20). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized assessments of pain during usual care are moderately associated with research-administered measures of pain intensity and would be improved from the inclusion of more robust measures of pain-related function, mental health, and HRQOL.

Cannabis Use and Nonfatal Opioid Overdose among Patients Enrolled in Methadone Maintenance Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Some ecological studies found lower rates of opioid overdose in states with liberalized cannabis legislation, but results are mixed, and the association has not been analyzed in individuals. We quantified the association between cannabis use and nonfatal opioid overdose among individuals enrolled in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) for opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of individuals enrolled in four MMT clinics in Washington State and southern New England who completed a one-time survey.Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression compared the prevalence and risk of nonfatal opioid overdose in the past 12 months between participants reporting frequent (at least weekly) or infrequent (once or none) cannabis use in the past month. RESULTS: Of 446 participants, 35% (n = 156) reported frequent cannabis use and 7% (n = 32) reported nonfatal opioid overdose in the past year. The prevalence of nonfatal opioid overdose was 3% among reporters of frequent cannabis use, and 9% among reporters of infrequent/no use (p = 0.02). After imputing missing data and controlling for demographic and clinical factors, the likelihood of self-reported nonfatal opioid overdose in the past year was 71% lower among reporters of frequent cannabis use in the past month (adjusted RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.10-0.80, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals enrolled in MMT, frequent cannabis use in the past month was associated with fewer self-reported nonfatal opioid overdoses in the past year. Methodological limitations caution against causal interpretation of this relationship. Additional studies are needed to understand the prospective impact of co-occurring cannabis on opioid-related outcomes.