Lifting Universal Masking in Schools - Covid-19 Incidence among Students and Staff.

BACKGROUND: In February 2022, Massachusetts rescinded a statewide universal masking policy in public schools, and many Massachusetts school districts lifted masking requirements during the subsequent weeks. In the greater Boston area, only two school districts - the Boston and neighboring Chelsea districts - sustained masking requirements through June 2022. The staggered lifting of masking requirements provided an opportunity to examine the effect of universal masking policies on the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in schools. METHODS: We used a difference-in-differences analysis for staggered policy implementation to compare the incidence of Covid-19 among students and staff in school districts in the greater Boston area that lifted masking requirements with the incidence in districts that sustained masking requirements during the 2021-2022 school year. Characteristics of the school districts were also compared. RESULTS: Before the statewide masking policy was rescinded, trends in the incidence of Covid-19 were similar across school districts. During the 15 weeks after the statewide masking policy was rescinded, the lifting of masking requirements was associated with an additional 44.9 cases per 1000 students and staff (95% confidence interval, 32.6 to 57.1), which corresponded to an estimated 11,901 cases and to 29.4% of the cases in all districts during that time. Districts that chose to sustain masking requirements longer tended to have school buildings that were older and in worse condition and to have more students per classroom than districts that chose to lift masking requirements earlier. In addition, these districts had higher percentages of low-income students, students with disabilities, and students who were English-language learners, as well as higher percentages of Black and Latinx students and staff. Our results support universal masking as an important strategy for reducing Covid-19 incidence in schools and loss of in-person school days. As such, we believe that universal masking may be especially useful for mitigating effects of structural racism in schools, including potential deepening of educational inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Among school districts in the greater Boston area, the lifting of masking requirements was associated with an additional 44.9 Covid-19 cases per 1000 students and staff during the 15 weeks after the statewide masking policy was rescinded.

Multilevel Factors Impacting Substance Use Treatment Access, Engagement, and Racial Equity Among Opioid Overdose Survivors in Boston, MA.

BACKGROUND: There are well-documented racial/ethnic inequities in drug-related overdoses and access to evidence-based opioid use services nationally and in Boston, MA. OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively explore the drivers of racial/ethnic inequities in access to opioid use disorder treatment and services in Boston. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Using purposive sampling, researchers recruited 59 opioid overdose survivors in Boston who self-identified as Black, Hispanic or Latino/a/x, and/or White. APPROACH: Interviewers administered a socio-demographic and drug use survey, and used a semi-structured interview guide to explore experiences with and perspectives on substance use treatment and services. KEY RESULTS: Participants' racial/ethnic identities were distributed across three subgroups: non-Hispanic Black (n = 18; 31%), non-Hispanic White (n = 18; 31%), and Latino/a/x (n = 23; 39%). Qualitative analysis identified multiple themes that were organized into four social-ecological levels after analysis. At the individual level, some participants emphasized the importance of personal responsibility and individual motivation in determining access to services. Participants expressed a range of perspectives about using medication for opioid use disorder treatment; Black and Latino/a/x participants were more likely than White participants to have critical perspectives. At the interpersonal level, experiences of bias, stigma, and racism from staff in healthcare and treatment settings were common. At the program/process level, participants described challenges connecting to services following overdose and barriers within specific programs, with Black and Latino/a/x participants experiencing particular gaps. At the systems level, the limited availability of housing, employment, and mental health care negatively impacted treatment access and engagement. CONCLUSION: A racism lens was used during data interpretation to apply the themes at a broader population level. Through this lens, the identified barriers can be understood to have a disproportionate impact on people of color. Findings call for programmatic and policy solutions that address racism, break down stigma, and ensure equitable access to evidence-based services and social supports.

Perspectives and recommendations of opioid overdose survivors experiencing unsheltered homelessness on housing, overdose, and substance use treatment in Boston, MA.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid overdose causes one in four deaths among people experiencing homelessness in Boston, MA. To reduce overdose risks, the experience and perspectives of people experiencing homelessness should be incorporated into housing, overdose prevention, and substance use treatment efforts. METHODS: In 2021, we conducted qualitative interviews with 59 opioid overdose survivors to inform equitable access to treatment services. In response to policy debate surrounding a public drug scene near a key recruitment site, we conducted a targeted thematic analysis of transcribed interview data from a subset of participants experiencing unsheltered homelessness (n=29) to explore their perspectives and recommendations on housing, overdose prevention, and substance use treatment. RESULTS: Among 29 participants who identified as non-Hispanic Black (n=10), Hispanic/Latinx (n=10), or as non-Hispanic White (n=9), the median number of self-reported opioid overdoses in the past three months was 2.0 (SD 3.7). Three themes emerged from this targeted analysis: (1) Participants described inadequate housing resources and unwelcoming shelter environments. (2) Participants near a large public drug scene explained how unsheltered homelessness was chaotic, dangerous, and disruptive to recovery goals. (3) Participants provided recommendations for improving housing and addiction treatment systems and including their perspectives in the development of solutions to the intersecting housing and opioid overdose crises. CONCLUSIONS: The overdose prevention, housing and substance use treatment systems must address the needs of opioid overdose survivors experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Overdose survivors experiencing unsheltered homelessness described a chaotic public drug scene but resorted to residing in nearby encampments because the existing shelter, housing, and addiction treatment systems were unwelcoming, difficult to navigate, or unaffordable. Despite efforts to provide low-threshold housing in Boston, additional low-barrier housing services (i.e., including harm reduction resources and without "sobriety" requirements) could promote the health and safety of people who use drugs and are experiencing homelessness.