Motivation and context of concurrent stimulant and opioid use among persons who use drugs in the rural United States: a multi-site qualitative inquiry.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, stimulant use has increased among persons who use opioids in the rural U.S., leading to high rates of overdose and death. We sought to understand motivations and contexts for stimulant use among persons who use opioids in a large, geographically diverse sample of persons who use drugs (PWUD) in the rural settings. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured individual interviews with PWUD at 8 U.S. sites spanning 10 states and 65 counties. Content areas included general substance use, injection drug use, changes in drug use, and harm reduction practices. We used an iterative open-coding process to comprehensively itemize and categorize content shared by participants related to concurrent use. RESULTS: We interviewed 349 PWUD (64% male, mean age 36). Of those discussing current use of stimulants in the context of opioid use (n = 137, 39%), the stimulant most used was methamphetamine (78%) followed by cocaine/crack (26%). Motivations for co-use included: 1) change in drug markets and cost considerations; 2) recreational goals, e.g., seeking stronger effects after heightened opioid tolerance; 3) practical goals, such as a desire to balance or alleviate the effects of the other drug, including the use of stimulants to avoid/reverse opioid overdose, and/or control symptoms of opioid withdrawal; and 4) functional goals, such as being simultaneously energized and pain-free in order to remain productive for employment. CONCLUSION: In a rural U.S. cohort of PWUD, use of both stimulants and opioids was highly prevalent. Reasons for dual use found in the rural context compared to urban studies included changes in drug availability, functional/productivity goals, and the use of methamphetamine to offset opioid overdose. Education efforts and harm reduction services and treatment, such as access to naloxone, fentanyl test strips, and accessible drug treatment for combined opioid and stimulant use, are urgently needed in the rural U.S. to reduce overdose and other adverse outcomes.

Barriers to opioid use disorder treatment among people who use drugs in the rural United States: A qualitative, multi-site study.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 2.8 million people required substance use disorder (SUD) treatment in nonmetropolitan or 'rural' areas in the U.S. Among this population, only 10% received SUD treatment from a specialty facility, and 1 in 500 received medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). We explored the context surrounding barriers to SUD treatment in the rural United States. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews from 2018 to 2019 to assess barriers to SUD treatment among people who use drugs (PWUD) across seven rural U.S. study sites. Using the social-ecological model (SEM), we examined individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy factors contributing to perceived barriers to SUD treatment. We employed deductive and inductive coding and analytical approaches to identify themes. We also calculated descriptive statistics for participant characteristics and salient themes. RESULTS: Among 304 participants (55% male, mean age 36 years), we identified barriers to SUD treatment in rural areas across SEM levels. At the individual/interpersonal level, relevant themes included: fear of withdrawal, the need to "get things in order" before entering treatment, close-knit communities and limited confidentiality, networks and settings that perpetuated drug use, and stigma. Organizational-level barriers included: strict facility rules, treatment programs managed like corrections facilities, lack of gender-specific treatment programs, and concerns about jeopardizing employment. Community-level barriers included: limited availability of treatment in local rural communities, long distances and limited transportation, waitlists, and a lack of information about treatment options. Policy-level themes included insurance challenges and system-imposed barriers such as arrest and incarceration. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight multi-level barriers to SUD treatment in rural U.S. communities. Salient barriers included the need to travel long distances to treatment, challenges to confidentiality due to small, close-knit communities where people are highly familiar with one another, and high-threshold treatment program practices. Our findings point to the need to facilitate the elimination of treatment barriers at each level of the SEM in rural America.

Barriers to retention in inpatient and residential drug treatment among persons who use opioids and/or injection drugs living in the rural U.S.

AIM: Barriers to retention in inpatient and residential care for persons who use drugs are understudied in the rural context. We sought to better understand barriers to retention in inpatient and residential drug treatment in a large, multi-site, geographically diverse sample of persons who use opioids and/or injection drugs in the rural U.S. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured individual interviews with persons currently using opioids and/or injection drugs in 9 U.S. states, including Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Content areas included substance use history and experiences with all modalities of drug treatment. We performed initial structural coding followed by an iterative "open-coding" process of itemizing and categorizing content within each code, and a multi-coder memoing process to summarize themes. We identified themes using three levels of the Social-Ecological Model (SEM): individual, interpersonal, and facility-level (organizational) barriers. RESULTS: Among 304 interviewed, over half (n = 166, 54 %) reported having experienced inpatient and residential treatment. Lack of treatment retention was driven by interrelated factors at all levels of the SEM. Person-level factors inhibiting retention included lack of readiness to stop using, which was particularly true for court-ordered treatment, and dislike of "freedom limitations". The sole interpersonal-level factor was the influence of other patients on re-initiation of drug use. Facility-level barriers included unaddressed withdrawal symptoms and lack of access to MOUD, staff relatability, inadequate staff training, and, particularly in residential treatment, lack of structure and supervision. Lack of preparation for coping with real-world triggers was seen as a barrier to engagement in ongoing treatment. CONCLUSION: Barriers to retention in inpatient and residential substance use treatment were present at three levels of the SEM. Interviews suggest much room for improvement in inpatient and residential drug treatment programs with respect to improving access to MOUD, tailoring content to better address social challenges in the rural context, and improving quality control measures with respect to staff and resident supervision.