The Relationship between Vaping Cannabis and Frequency of Cannabis Use and Cannabis-Related Problems among Urban High School Students.

Background: Vaping, including vaping cannabis, is increasing among adolescents. In this longitudinal study, we examined the relationship between vaping cannabis and frequency of cannabis use and related problems over 6 months among adolescents. Material and Methods: Data were from 233 participants (46.8% male, 93.1% African American, mean age = 16.4 years) reporting cannabis use. The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) assessed frequency of past 30-day cannabis use and cannabis-related problems at baseline, 3- and 6-months post-baseline. We used latent growth curve modeling to compare vaping to non-vaping adolescents on trends in cannabis use frequency and ASSIST cannabis scores. Results: Adolescents who vaped cannabis (11.7%) had higher past 30-day frequency (mean = 17.89 days, SD = 10.49) of cannabis use at baseline compared to adolescents who had not vaped (mean = 12.1 days, SD = 10.93), but reported a significantly sharper decline in frequency of cannabis use (b = -0.34, p = 0.017). A significantly steeper decrease existed in the mean cannabis ASSIST scores for the vaping group than for the non-vaping group (b = -0.34, p = 0.014). Mean ASSIST scores on the cannabis subscale between the two groups were significantly different at 6-month follow-up (Vape mean = 6.00, SD = 8.12 vs. Non-vape mean = 9.6, SD = 9.39; p < 0.021). Conclusions: In a sample of cannabis-using adolescents, adolescents with experience vaping cannabis, compared to adolescents without vaping experience, on average reported sharper decreases in frequency of cannabis use and cannabis-related problems such as health or social problems.

Sustainability of Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention Services in Primary Care After Removal of Implementation Supports.

OBJECTIVE: Although many health care organizations have sought to increase the integration of substance use services into clinical practice, such practice changes can prove difficult to sustain. METHOD: Seven primary care clinics participated in an implementation study of screening and brief intervention (BI) services for adolescent patients (ages 12-17). All sites delivered screening and brief advice (BA) for low-risk use using a uniform protocol. Clinics were randomized to deliver BI using generalist (provider-delivered) or specialist (behavioral health clinician-delivered) models. Implementation was facilitated by multiple supporting activities (e.g., trainings, local "champion," electronic health record [EHR] integration of screening and documentation, individualized feedback, project-specific materials, etc.). Data on the penetration of screening, BA, and BI delivery (N = 14,486 adolescent patient visits) were abstracted from the EHR for the 20-month implementation phase and a 12-month sustainability phase (during which implementation supports were removed). RESULTS: Penetration of screening continued to slowly increase across the implementation-to-sustainability phases (62% vs. 70%; p = .04). Although uptake during implementation was low for BA (29%) and BI (22%), there was no significant decrease in service provision during the sustainability phase. Although overall delivery of BI was significantly higher in generalist compared with specialist sites (p < .001), sustainability did not differ by generalist versus specialist conditions. There were considerable differences in penetration across clinic sites. CONCLUSIONS: Clinics sustained a high level of substance use screening. Uptake of intervention services was low but did not decrease further following the cessation of implementation supports. This study illustrates the challenges of successfully implementing and sustaining substance use services in adolescent primary care.

Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Linkage at Strategic Touchpoints Using Buprenorphine (OUTLAST-B): Rationale, Design, and Evolution of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Despite the effectiveness and growing availability of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine, many people with OUD do not access treatment services. This article describes the rationale, methodological design, evolution, and progress of an ongoing clinical trial of treatment linkage strategies for people with untreated OUD. Methods: The study, titled Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Linkage at Strategic Touchpoints using Buprenorphine (OUTLAST-B), uses "strategic touchpoints", initially sexual health clinics and subsequently broadened to other service venues and participant social networks, for recruitment and screening. Adults with untreated OUD (target N = 360) are randomized to one of the three arms: Usual Care (UC, enhanced with overdose education and naloxone distribution), Patient Navigation (PN), or Patient Navigation with an immediate short-term bridge prescription for buprenorphine (PN + BUP). In the PN and PN + BUP arms, the Patient Navigator works with participants for 2 months to facilitate treatment entry and early retention, resolve barriers (e.g., ID cards, transportation), and provide motivational support. Results: The primary outcome is OUD treatment entry within 30 days of enrollment. Participants are assessed at baseline and followed at 3- and 6-months post-enrollment on measures of healthcare utilization, substance use, and general functioning. Challenges and recruitment adaptations pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed. Conclusions: This study could provide insights on how to reach people with untreated OUD and link them to care through non-traditional routes. Trial Registration: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04991974).

Characteristics and correlates of fentanyl preferences among people with opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Fentanyl has come to dominate the U.S. illicit opioid supply. We aimed to characterize and examine correlates of preferences for fentanyl vs. other opioids among individuals starting OUD treatment. METHODS: We interviewed 250 adults initiating buprenorphine treatment with positive fentanyl toxicology at intake. We characterized opioid preferences and examined bivariate associations between opioid preference (preference for heroin, fentanyl, heroin-fentanyl mix, or other opioid) and sociodemographic characteristics, psychosocial factors, and substance use behaviors. We then used multinomial logistic regression to examine factors independently associated with fentanyl preferences. RESULTS: Over half (52.0 %) of participants preferred fentanyl (21.2 % fentanyl alone, 30.8 % heroin-fentanyl mix). In bivariate comparisons, participants who preferred fentanyl were a higher acuity group with respect to risks and problems in general. In the multinomial logistic regression, people who preferred fentanyl, either alone or mixed with heroin, used non-prescribed buprenorphine less in the 30 days preceding treatment entry compared to people who preferred heroin or other opioids (RRRalone= 0.88 [0.78, 0.99]; P = 0.037 and RRRmixed= 0.91 [0.84, 0.99]; P = 0.046). People who preferred fentanyl alone were also younger (RRR= 0.93 [0.90, 0.97]; P < 0.001) and more likely to have severe mental illness (RRR= 2.5 [1.1, 5.6]; P = 0.027) than people who prefer heroin or other opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Many people with OUD report preferring fentanyl. People who express preference for fentanyl differ substantively from those with other opioid preferences, and may be at elevated risk for poor health outcomes. Understanding preferences surrounding fentanyl could inform treatment and harm reduction interventions.

Costs and Implementation Effectiveness of Generalist Versus Specialist Models for Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed the marginal service and program costs, and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of two models of implementation of adolescent substance screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster-randomized trial, through a Specialist model (behavioral health counselor-delivered brief intervention), and a Generalist model (primary care provider-delivered brief intervention). The CEA calculated marginal costs using an activity-based costing methodology for direct SBIRT services, and effectiveness was measured by the proportion of brief interventions delivered among patients who screened positive for alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. Site-level program costs comprised start-up and maintenance (training and technical assistance). Costs were estimated in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: The marginal cost of SBIRT per patient with a positive screen for brief intervention was $6.72 in the Specialist model and $6.05 in the Generalist model. Implementation effectiveness was 7.2% (SE = 2.9%) in the Specialist model and 37.7% (SE = 5.6%) in the Generalist model. The program costs to provide SBIRT for 1 year per site were $13,548 for the Specialist site and $12,081 for the Generalist. CONCLUSIONS: The Generalist model was more effective in implementing brief intervention and less expensive than the Specialist model. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Brief intervention delivered by primary care providers rather than by handoff to a behavioral health counselor may ensure greater penetration and a lower cost of these services in primary care settings.

Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing After Brief Intervention for Risk Behaviors in School-Based Health Centers.

PURPOSE: The initiation and escalation of substance use and sex behaviors is prevalent during adolescence. School-based health centers (SBHCs) are well-equipped to provide interventions for risky behaviors and offer sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing services. This study examined receipt of STI testing following brief intervention (BI) among sexually active adolescents. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial comparing computer versus nurse practitioner-delivered BI approaches among adolescents (ages 14-18) with risky alcohol and/or cannabis use at two SBHCs within two urban high schools. Associations were examined among receipt of STI testing and participant characteristics, BI format, site, and frequency of substance use/sexual behaviors. RESULTS: Among sexually active participants (N = 254), 64.2% received STI testing at their SBHC within 6 months of receiving a BI. Participants receiving nurse practitioner-delivered BI had higher odds of getting STI testing than participants receiving computer-delivered BI (adjusted odds ratio 2.51, 95% confidence interval 1.41-4.47, p = .002). Other variables associated with STI testing in multivariable logistic regression included female sex (p = .001), being in a serious relationship (p = .018), and SBHC site (p < .001). Frequency of substance use and sexual risk behaviors were not independently associated with receipt of STI testing services. CONCLUSION: Sexually active adolescents who received in-person BI from a nurse practitioner were more likely to get STI testing than adolescents who received BI via computer. Nurse practitioners working in SBHCs can successfully engage adolescents in additional sexual health services subsequent to BI for risky behaviors.

Organizational Acceptability of Implementing SBIRT for Adolescents in Primary Care.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescent illicit drug, tobacco, and alcohol use can result in sudden and long-term negative health consequences. Primary care environments present the optimal opportunity for screening and brief interventions that target prevention and curtailing use. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a service delivery method that could potentially be well-integrated into primary care settings and used to serve a high volume of adolescents. Methods: This qualitative analysis of clinic staff interviews (N = 20), collected during a large cluster-randomized trial to implement two models of adolescent SBIRT, examined barriers and facilitating factors to overall acceptability of SBIRT. This study was conducted in a large, urban Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) at 7 sites throughout Baltimore City, Maryland, USA. Participants from each clinic included a range of various roles and responsibilities including: medical assistants (n = 3), nurses (n = 3), primary care providers (n = 4), behavioral health counselors (n = 4), and administrators (n = 6). Results: Results indicate both barriers and facilitating factors for acceptability of SBIRT in terms of (1) universal screening, (2) provider time demands, (3) behavioral health collaboration, and (4) behavioral health caseloads. Discussion: Universal screening was acceptable to participants across organizational roles, but brief interventions and referrals to treatment were found substantially less acceptable.

Use of non-prescribed buprenorphine in the criminal justice system: Perspectives of individuals recently released from incarceration.

Buprenorphine, an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), remains underutilized in many U.S. jails and prisons. However, use of non-prescribed (i.e., diverted) buprenorphine has been reported in these settings. The current study examined non-prescribed buprenorphine use experiences in correctional and community contexts. The study conducted face-to-face interviews with 300 adults with OUD/opioid misuse and recent incarceration, recruited in Baltimore, MD, and New York, NY (n = 150 each). Illicit/non-prescribed opioid use during incarceration was reported by 63% of participants; 39% reported non-prescribed buprenorphine. Non-prescribed buprenorphine was considered the most widely available opioid in jails/prisons in both states (81% reported "very" or "somewhat" easy to get). The average price of non-prescribed buprenorphine in jail/prison was ~10× higher than in the community (p < 0.001). Participants were more likely to endorse getting high/mood alteration as reasons for using non-prescribed buprenorphine during incarceration, but tended to ascribe therapeutic motives to use in the community (e.g., self-treatment; p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that different individual-level characteristics were associated with history of non-prescribed buprenorphine use during incarceration and in the community. Use of non-prescribed buprenorphine during incarceration was associated with younger age (p = 0.006) and longer incarceration history (p < 0.001), while use of non-prescribed buprenorphine in the community was associated with MD recruitment site (p = 0.001), not being married (p < 0.001), prior buprenorphine treatment experience (p < 0.001), and housing situation (p = 0.01). These findings suggest that different dynamics and demand characteristics underlie the use of non-prescribed buprenorphine in community and incarceration contexts, with implications for efforts to expand OUD treatment in correctional settings.

Exploring nonprescribed use of buprenorphine in the criminal justice system through qualitative interviews among individuals recently released from incarceration.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine treatment remains unavailable in many jails and prisons, but use of nonprescribed (i.e., diverted) buprenorphine has been reported in these settings. The purpose of this analysis is to explore the experiences and motivations behind the use of diverted buprenorphine among recently incarcerated individuals. METHODS: Adults with opioid misuse who were recently released from jail or prison (n= 26; 58% male) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews as part of a study focused on buprenorphine diversion in the criminal justice system. Qualitative interviews explored participants' incarceration experiences and opioid use background, knowledge of buprenorphine and other substance use in jails/prisons, personal use of buprenorphine while incarcerated, reasons for using buprenorphine while incarcerated, and knowledge of how buprenorphine is brought into and acquired in jails/prisons. The study recorded and transcribed interviews, and analyzed the narratives for content related to these predetermined thematic areas. RESULTS: Key themes emerging from the interviews surrounding buprenorphine diversion during incarceration included: 1) the perceived high prevalence of diverted buprenorphine in jail/prison settings, 2) how the perception of prevalence is related to buprenorphine sublingual film formulation, 3) adaptive routes of administration related to the high cost of diverted buprenorphine, and 4) reasons individuals who are incarcerated use diverted buprenorphine (to achieve euphoric effects and cope with confinement, in contrast to using for self-treatment/withdrawal management as is done in the community). CONCLUSION: Participants reported widespread availability of diverted buprenorphine in criminal justice facilities, and characterized reasons for its use specific to these contexts. More research is needed to determine the impact of expanding buprenorphine treatment in jails and prisons on inmates' use of diverted buprenorphine, and future research should explore these intersections as treatment initiation opportunities.

Computer- vs. nurse practitioner-delivered brief intervention for adolescent marijuana, alcohol, and sex risk behaviors in school-based health centers.

BACKGROUND: This study examined approaches to delivering brief interventions (BI) for risky substance use and sexual behaviors in school-based health centers (SBHCs). METHODS: 300 Adolescents (ages 14-18; 54 % female) with risky marijuana and/or alcohol use identified via CRAFFT screening (scores >1) were recruited from two SBHCs and randomized to computer-delivered BI (CBI) or nurse practitioner-delivered BI (NBI). Both BIs included motivational and didactic content targeting marijuana, alcohol, and risky sexual behaviors. Assessments at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up included past 30-day frequency of marijuana use, alcohol use, binge drinking, unprotected sex, and sex while intoxicated; marijuana and alcohol problems; and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). A focused cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. An historical 'assessment-only' cohort (N=50) formed a supplementary quasi-experimental comparison group. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between NBI and CBI on any outcomes considered (e.g., days of marijuana use; p=.26). From a cost-effectiveness perspective, CBI was 'dominant' for HRQoL and marijuana use. Participants' satisfaction with BI was significantly higher for NBI than CBI. Compared to the assessment-only cohort, participants who received a BI had lower frequency of marijuana (3-months: Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] = .74 [.57, .97], p=.03), alcohol (3-months: IRR = .43 [.29, .64], p<.001; 6-months: IRR = .58 [.34, .98], p = .04), alcohol-specific problems (3-months: IRR = .63 [.45, .89], p=.008; 6-months: IRR = .63 [.41, .97], p = .04), and sex while intoxicated (6-months: IRR = .42 [.21, .83], p = .013). CONCLUSIONS: CBI and NBI did not yield different risk behavior outcomes in this randomized trial. Supplementary quasi-experimental comparisons suggested potential superiority over assessment-only. Both NBI and CBI could be useful in SBHCs.

Adolescent SBIRT implementation: Generalist vs. Specialist models of service delivery in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among adolescents pose significant short- and long-term health consequences and are associated with more severe use as adults. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in primary care settings has the potential to deliver preventive interventions to a diverse range of adolescents, but optimal implementation of these services needs to be determined. The purpose of this study was to compare implementation of two different SBIRT service delivery models in primary care settings. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial assigned 7 primary care clinics of a federally qualified health center to implement brief interventions (BI) using a Generalist model (4 sites), in which BIs were delivered by the primary care provider (PCP), or a Specialist model (3 sites), in which BIs were delivered by a behavioral health counselor (BHC) for adolescent patients ages 12-17 years. Implementation was tracked through the clinic's electronic health record, spanning 9639 clinic visits over 20 months. Multilevel logistic regression modeling was used to compare Generalist and Specialist strategies on penetration of BI for patients scoring ≥2 on the CRAFFT substance use screen, delivered by the PCP in the Generalist sites, and via warm hand-off to a BHC in the Specialist sites. RESULTS: Approximately 62% of adolescent patient visits were screened with the CRAFFT (with <4% screening positive with a CRAFFT score ≥ 2). The Generalist Condition had significantly higher self-reported penetration of BI delivery than the Specialist Condition (38% vs. 8%; Adjusted Odds Ratio = 6.53; p = .005). DISCUSSION: Despite having co-located behavioral health services at all sites, a Specialist approach to providing BI was less effectively implemented than a Generalist approach in this FQHC. BI delivered by PCPs rather than by hand-off to a BHC may ensure greater penetration of these services in primary care settings. Both implementation models provided a framework for identifying and intervening with adolescent primary care patients whose substance use might have otherwise gone undetected.

Application of System Dynamics to Inform a Model of Adolescent SBIRT Implementation in Primary Care Settings.

System dynamics (SD) modeling is used to compare and contrast strategies for effective implementation of an evidence-based adolescent behavioral health treatment in primary care settings. With qualitative and quantitative data from an on-going cluster-randomized trial in 7 federally qualified health center sites, two implementation conditions were compared: generalist vs. specialist. In the generalist approach, the primary care provider (PCP) delivered brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse (n = 4 clinics). In the specialist approach, BIs were delivered by behavioral health counselors (BHCs) (n = 3 clinics). The resultant SD model compared 'basecase' dynamics to strategic approaches to deploying continuous technical assistance (TA) and performance feedback reporting (PFR). The basecase effectively represented the SBIRT intervention, which reflected actual monthly volume of adolescent primary care visits (N = 9639), screenings (N = 5937), positive screenings (N = 246), and brief interventions (BIs; N = 50) over the 20-month implementation period. Insights gained suggest that implementation outcomes are sensitive to frequency of PFR, with bimonthly events generating the most rapid and sustained screening results. Simulated trends indicated that availability of the BHC directly impacts success of the specialist model. Similarly, understanding PCPs' perception of severity of need for intervention is key to outcomes in either condition.

A Comparison of Screening Practices for Adolescents in Primary Care After Implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment.

PURPOSE: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening adolescents for substance use at all well-child and appropriate acute-care visits. However, many pediatric practices aim for such screenings annually at well-child visits. METHODS: As part of a larger study, 7 urban Federally Qualified Health Center clinics implemented universal screening for risky alcohol and drug use using the Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) screening tool. The present study compared uptake of screening and screening results at well-child versus acute-care visits. RESULTS: Over a period of 13 months for which encounter-level electronic medical records data were available, there were 6,346 clinic visits by 3,475 unique patients aged 12-17 years, at which 76.6% (n = 4,865) of visits had a screening for problematic substance use conducted. Rates of screening were 95.1% (2,750/2,891 involving 2,629 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 61.2% (2,115/3,455 involving 1,535 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Rates of positive screening results were 9.0% (248/2,750 involving 245 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 7.8% (164/2,115 involving 126 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Of the 469 unique adolescents screened only during an acute-care visit during that same period, 40 unique adolescents had positive screening results for a positive screening rate of 8.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 10% of adolescent patients screened only at acute-care visits would not have been screened if screening was implemented solely at well-child visits, and 40 adolescents reporting substance use would have been missed. The findings highlight the benefits of screening adolescents at every primary care visit to better detect and intervene in adolescents' substance use.

Disclosure of Adolescent Substance Use in Primary Care: Comparison of Routine Clinical Screening and Anonymous Research Interviews.

PURPOSE: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends substance use screening in adolescent primary care. Many studies of substance use prevalence and screening tool validation are conducted under research protocols that differ from routine clinical screening in context, consequences, and privacy implications. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis drawing from two projects focused on adolescent primary care patients, aged 12-17, conducted nearly contemporaneously in a Federally Qualified Health Center system. The first project conducted anonymous research interviews with patients (N = 525), while the other tracked routine clinical screening as part of a larger service implementation project (N = 5,971). Both projects assessed substance use with the CRAFFT screening tool. RESULTS: Rates of substance use disclosure and substance use problems were over three and four times higher, respectively, in the anonymous research interview sample compared to rates found in routine clinical screening (p values < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Routine clinical screening may underestimate substance use among adolescents.

Start-Up Costs of SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the costs to implement Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescent substance use in primary care settings is important for providers in planning for services and for decision makers considering dissemination and widespread implementation of SBIRT. We estimated the start-up costs of two models of SBIRT for adolescents in a multisite U.S. Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). In both models, screening was performed by a medical assistant, but models differed on delivery of brief intervention, with brief intervention delivered by a primary care provider in the generalist model and a behavioral health specialist in the specialist model. METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster randomized trial. SBIRT implementation costs were calculated using an activity-based costing methodology. Start-up activities were defined as (a) planning activities (e.g., changing existing electronic medical record system and tailoring service delivery protocols); and (b) initial staff training. Data collection instruments were developed to collect staff time spent in start-up activities and quantity of nonlabor resources used. RESULTS: The estimated average costs to implement SBIRT were $5,182 for the specialist model and $3,920 for the generalist model. Planning activities had the greatest impact on costs for both models. Overall, more resources were devoted to planning and training activities in specialist sites, making the specialist model costlier to implement. CONCLUSIONS: The initial investment required to implement SBIRT should not be neglected. The level of resources necessary for initial implementation depends on the delivery model and its integration into current practice.

SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use remains highly prevalent among US adolescents and is a threat to their well-being and to the public health. Evidence from clinical trials and meta-analyses supports the effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescents with substance misuse but primary care providers have been slow to adopt this evidence-based approach. The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretically informed methodology of an on-going implementation study. METHODS: This study protocol is a multi-site, cluster randomized trial (N=7) guided by Proctor's conceptual model of implementation research and comparing two principal approaches to SBIRT delivery within adolescent medicine: Generalist vs. Specialist. In the Generalist Approach, the primary care provider delivers brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse. In the Specialist Approach, BIs are delivered by behavioral health counselors. The study will also examine the effectiveness of integrating HIV risk screening within an SBIRT model. Implementation Strategies employed include: integrated team development of the service delivery model, modifications to the electronic medical record, regular performance feedback and supervision. Implementation outcomes, include: Acceptability, Appropriateness, Adoption, Feasibility, Fidelity, Costs/Cost-Effectiveness, Penetration, and Sustainability. DISCUSSION: The study will fill a major gap in scientific knowledge regarding the best SBIRT implementation strategy at a time when SBIRT is poised to be brought to scale under health care reform. It will also provide novel data to inform the expansion of the SBIRT model to address HIV risk behaviors among adolescents. Finally, the study will generate important cost data that offer guidance to policymakers and clinic directors about the adoption of SBIRT in adolescent health care.

Patient perspectives on choosing buprenorphine over methadone in an urban, equal-access system.

BACKGROUND: Recent policy initiatives in Baltimore City, MD significantly reduced access disparities between methadone and buprenorphine in the publicly funded treatment sector. OBJECTIVES: This study examines reasons for choosing buprenorphine over methadone among patients with access to both medications. METHOD: This study was embedded within a larger clinical trial conducted at two outpatient substance abuse treatment programs offering buprenorphine. Qualitative and quantitative data on treatment choice were collected for new patients starting buprenorphine treatment (n = 80). The sample consisted of predominantly urban African American (94%) heroin users who had prior experience with non-prescribed street buprenorphine (85%), and opioid agonist treatment (68%). Qualitative data were transcribed and coded for themes, while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. RESULTS: Participants typically conveyed their choice of buprenorphine treatment as a decision against methadone. Buprenorphine was perceived as a helpful medication while methadone was perceived as a harmful narcotic with multiple unwanted physical effects. Positive experiences with non-prescribed "street buprenorphine" were a central factor in participants' decisions to seek buprenorphine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in service structure between methadone and buprenorphine did not strongly influence treatment-seeking decisions in this sample. Personal experiences with medications and the street narrative surrounding them play an important role in treatment selection decisions. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study characterizes important decision factors that underlie patients' selection of buprenorphine over methadone treatment.