A trauma-informed examination of the hardships experienced by abortion fund patients in the United States.

Researchers describe hardships experienced by abortion patients, examining administrative health cases from 2010 to 2015 in the United States. All patients received financial assistance from an abortion fund to help pay for abortion. Case data were analyzed to assess types and numbers of hardships experienced by age, race, and geographic origin. Hardships ranged from homelessness to parenting multiple children. Patients from the geographic South experienced the most hardships, followed by those from the Midwest. Hardships experienced by abortion fund patients are like those reported in other samples of abortion patients; hardships potentially cause or exacerbate trauma. Results are discussed in the context of a trauma-informed perspective.

The undue burden of paying for abortion: An exploration of abortion fund cases.

The results of a secondary data analysis of 3,999 administrative cases from a national abortion fund, representing patients who received pledges for financial assistance to pay for an abortion from 2010 to 2015, are presented. Case data from the fund's national call center was analyzed to assess the impact of the fund and examine sample demographics which were compared to the demographics of national abortion patients. Procedure costs, patient resources, funding pledges, additional aid, and changes over time in financial pledges for second-trimester procedures were also examined. Results indicate that the fund sample differed from national abortion patients in that fund patients were primarily single, African American, and seeking funding for second trimester abortions. Patients were also seeking to fund expensive procedures, costing an average of over $2,000; patients were receiving over $1,000 per case in pledges and other aid; and funding pledges for second trimester procedures were increasing over time. Abortion funding assistance is essential for women who are not able to afford abortion costs, and it is particularly beneficial for patients of color and those who are younger and single. Repeal of policy banning public funding of abortion would help to eliminate financial barriers that impede abortion access.

Community advisory board members' perspectives on their contributions to a large multistate cluster RCT: a mixed methods study.

Background: Community advisory boards (CABs) are an established approach to ensuring research reflects community priorities. This paper examines two CABs that are part of the HEALing Communities Study which aims to reduce overdose mortality. This analysis aimed to understand CAB members' expectations, experiences, and perspectives on CAB structure, communication, facilitation, and effectiveness during the first year of an almost fully remote CAB implementation. Current literature exploring these perspectives is limited. Methods: We collected qualitative and survey data simultaneously from members (n = 53) of two sites' CABs in the first 9 months of CAB development. The survey assessed trust, communication, and relations; we also conducted 32 semi-structured interviews. We analyzed the survey results descriptively. The qualitative data were analyzed using a deductive codebook based on the RE-AIM PRISM framework. Themes were drawn from the combined qualitative data and triangulated with survey results to further enrich the findings. Results: CAB members expressed strong commitment to overall study goals and valued the representation of occupational sectors. The qualitative data described a dissonance between CAB members' commitment to the mission and unmet expectations for influencing the study within an advisory role. Survey results indicated lower satisfaction with the research teams' ability to create a mutually beneficial process, clear communication, and sharing of power. Conclusion: Building a CAB on a remote platform, within a study utilizing a community engagement strategy, still presents challenges to fully realizing the potential of a CAB. These findings can inform more effective operationalizing of community-engaged research through enhanced CAB engagement.

The role of health plans in addressing the opioid crisis: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Health plans are key players in substance use treatment in the United States, and the opioid crisis presents new challenges for them. This article is part of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS) funded by NIH, which seeks to facilitate communities' adoption of activities that might reduce overdose deaths, including overdose prevention education and naloxone distribution, medication for opioid use disorder, and safer opioid prescribing. We examine how health plans in one state (Massachusetts) are adapting to encourage and sustain activities that help communities to address opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with managers of behavioral health services at eight health plans in Massachusetts that that have Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial lines of business. Two plans in this sample contract with a specialized behavioral health organization ("carve-out"). The interviewees also completed a survey on policies regarding access to treatment and opioid prescribing. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Analysis of the data included intended influence of the policies at three levels: member level (micro), group or community level (meso), and system or institutional level (macro). RESULTS: All health plans developed strategies to increase access to treatment for OUD, primarily through eliminating or decreasing cost-sharing, eliminating pre-authorization for MOUD, and increasing supply of providers. Health plans encourage qualified practitioners to offer MOUD, but most do not provide incentives or training. Identifying high risk populations is a focus of health plans in this sample. Naloxone is a covered benefit in all health plans, although with variation in monthly limits and cost-sharing. Most health plans take measures to influence opioid prescribing. Health plans' activities are predominately aimed at the micro (member) level with little ability to influence at the macro (wider system-level changes). CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into how health plans develop strategies to address the rise in OUD and fatal opioid overdoses, many of which are key in the HCS initiative. How active a role health plans play in addressing the opioid crisis varies, even within the insurance industry in one state (Massachusetts).

Community engagement to implement evidence-based practices in the HEALing communities study.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths within communities remains suboptimal. Community engagement can improve the uptake and sustainability of evidence-based practices. The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) aims to reduce opioid overdose deaths through the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention, a community-engaged, data-driven planning process that will be implemented in 67 communities across four states. METHODS: An iterative process was used in the development of the community engagement component of the CTH. The resulting community engagement process uses phased planning steeped in the principles of community based participatory research. Phases include: 0) Preparation, 1) Getting Started, 2) Getting Organized, 3) Community Profiles and Data Dashboards, 4) Community Action Planning, 5) Implementation and Monitoring, and 6) Sustainability Planning. DISCUSSION: The CTH protocol provides a common structure across the four states for the community-engaged intervention and allows for tailored approaches that meet the unique needs or sociocultural context of each community. Challenges inherent to community engagement work emerged early in the process are discussed. CONCLUSION: HCS will show how community engagement can support the implementation of evidence-based practices for addressing the opioid crisis in highly impacted communities. Findings from this study have the potential to provide communities across the country with an evidence-based approach to address their local opioid crisis; advance community engaged research; and contribute to the implementation, sustainability, and adoption of evidence-based practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04111939).