Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing HIV Testing and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Substance Use Treatment Programs: Perspectives of Non-medical Staff.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorder (SUD) are at increased risk of HIV infection. HIV testing and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are evidence-based practices to prevent HIV infection, yet these approaches are not regularly provided in SUD treatment programs. To address this evidence-to-practice gap, this study aimed to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing PrEP services in SUD treatment programs from the perspective of non-medical staff and administrators. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted from February to June 2022 with non-medical staff (N = 10) and administrators (N = 11) from 3 academic and 8 community-based SUD treatment programs in Philadelphia. Interview guides were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Qualitative descriptive techniques were used to examine interview data and identify key facilitators and barriers, which were grouped within CFIR domains and constructs. RESULTS: Of the 11 SUD treatment programs, 5 provided PrEP services. Most interviewees at programs without PrEP services reported high levels of receptivity to implementing PrEP and identified leadership engagement as a key determinant, but several lacked comfort with PrEP counseling. Inner setting facilitators included compatibility with workflows (eg, intake assessments), alignment with cultures of holistic care, and programs' longstanding community trust. Inner setting barriers included limited time to discuss PrEP, insufficient resources and staff (eg, phlebotomy), perception of clients' HIV risk, and lower prioritization of HIV prevention versus other services. Intervention facilitators included robust evidence and addressing costs through grants and drug pricing programs, and barriers included the time needed to initiate PrEP, loss to follow-up, and HIV stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of HIV testing and PrEP in SUD treatment programs requires addressing multi-level barriers. Including perspectives of non-medical staff and administrators is important for implementation. Potential strategies include supporting organizational networks, leveraging peer specialists' expertise, and packaging PrEP to better meet client priorities and needs.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing CareConnect: A telehealth, low-barrier buprenorphine bridge clinic in Philadelphia.

INTRODUCTION: Rates of fatal overdose continue to rise in the United States, and most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) are not engaged in evidence-based treatment with medications. In Philadelphia, a city with one of the highest fatal overdose rates in the country, many residents face significant care access barriers. The COVID-19 pandemic - which destabilized the street drug supply and forced many clinics to limit services - worsened this crisis, but also led to regulatory changes that allowed for buprenorphine induction and maintenance visits via telehealth in the U.S. To increase access to buprenorphine across the Philadelphia area and reach individuals who struggle to access care, Penn Medicine developed the CareConnect Warmline in October 2021. CareConnect is embedded in an existing virtual urgent care practice. Staffed by advanced practice providers and substance use navigators (SUNs), CareConnect provides same-day buprenorphine bridge (i.e., short-term) prescriptions and linkage to longitudinal OUD care. OBJECTIVE: To examine barriers and facilitators to implementing CareConnect from the perspective of key stakeholders, including CareConnect leadership, clinicians, and staff, and attitudes and beliefs about providing care for patients with OUD via this model. METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, we interviewed 14 participants and used thematic analysis to analyze the data. The sample included CareConnect prescribing clinicians, SUNs, and administrative staff. RESULTS: Our analysis yielded four themes: 1/ CareConnect is a unique program that fills an important care gap; 2/ Benefits of leveraging existing infrastructure; 3/ Importance of an interdisciplinary team; and 4/ Necessity of relationships with outside stakeholders. Prescribing clinicians and administrative staff - most of whom had little experience with OUD care before CareConnect - stressed how embedding the model within an existing virtual clinic and involving experienced SUNs increased their comfort prescribing buprenorphine. However, all participants highlighted how the program's effectiveness is contingent upon buy-in from outside stakeholders, including pharmacists who fill the prescriptions and longitudinal care providers in the community. CONCLUSIONS: Innovative delivery models can help expand OUD care access to individuals who are poorly served by traditional treatment infrastructure. Our findings provide valuable insight to improve and sustain CareConnect and can guide the development and implementation of future programs nationally.

Racial and ethnic diversity in academic nursing leadership: A cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To characterize the representation of racial and ethnic minoritized faculty in leadership positions at the top 50 National Institutes of Health-ranked academic nursing institutions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study to characterize the racial/ethnic composition of academic leaders, including those in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) positions from September 2020 to December 2020. DISCUSSION: Among the 409 leaders, the sample was predominantly composed of females (86.6%), White leaders (80.9%), affiliated with public institutions (75.1%), and in the southern region (42.1%). Exactly 13.6% were from minoritized groups. Minoritized leaders were less likely to hold dean and higher executive positions than their nonminoritized counterparts (p < .002). DEI leadership positions were mostly concentrated in lower executive positions (e.g., director) and primarily consisted of minoritized leaders (>60%). CONCLUSION: Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minoritized individuals in academic nursing leadership persists, necessitating structural interventions within nursing academia to promote inclusivity. Achieving this goal requires a concerted investment in diversifying academic nursing leadership and ensuring positions that minoritized leaders are in, hold weight.

Mapping Buprenorphine Access at Philadelphia Pharmacies.

OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine is not reliably stocked in many pharmacies, and pharmacy-level barriers may deter patients from opioid use disorder care. We surveyed all outpatient pharmacies in Philadelphia to describe variation in buprenorphine access and developed a map application to aid in identifying pharmacies that stock the medication. METHODS: Using a dataset from the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, we conducted a telephone survey of operating outpatient pharmacies (N = 422) about their buprenorphine stocking and dispensing practices. We used ArcGIS Pro 3.0.3 to join US Census Bureau ZIP code-level race and ethnicity data, conduct descriptive analyses, and create a map application. RESULTS: We collected data from 351 pharmacies (83% response rate). Two hundred thirty-eight pharmacies (68%) indicated that they regularly stock buprenorphine; 6 (2%) would order it when a prescription is sent. Ninety-one (26%) said that they do not stock or order buprenorphine, and 16 (5%) were unsure. We identified 137 "easier access" pharmacies (39%), meaning they regularly stock buprenorphine, dispense to new patients, and have no dosage maximums. Zip codes with predominantly White residents had a median (interquartile range) of 3 (2-4) "easier access" pharmacies, and those with predominantly Black residents a median (interquartile range) of 2 (1-4.5). Nine zip codes had no "easier access" pharmacies, and 3 had only one; these 3 zip codes are areas with predominantly Black residents. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine access is not equitable across Philadelphia and a quarter of pharmacies choose not to carry the medication. Our map application may be used to identify pharmacies in Philadelphia that stock buprenorphine.

Development of a systematic social observation tool for monitoring use of harm reduction supplies.

BACKGROUND: Harm reduction services such as safer injection supply distribution are essential to reducing morbidity and mortality among people who use drugs (PWUD); however, local use of harm reduction supplies (e.g., tourniquets, saline solution) is difficult to routinely and systematically monitor. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a systematic social observation tool designed to assess use of harm reduction supplies at the street block level. METHODS: Data collection took place on a random sample of 150 blocks located throughout the Kensington neighborhood of North Philadelphia from November 2021 to January 2022. We measured inter-rater reliability by two-way mixed-effects intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) with the consistency agreement definition and internal consistency reliability using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Exploratory factor analysis with principal component extraction and promax rotation assessed internal consistency. We validated scales against locations of public syringe disposal boxes, a proxy measure for areas of concentrated drug use, using logistic regression. RESULTS: Naloxone canisters, syringe caps, saline and sterile water solution bottles showed the highest reliability (ICC≥0.7). Items also showed high internal consistency (alpha, omega>0.7). Exploratory factor analysis identified one, three-item scale with high internal consistency: syringe caps, vials, and baggies (alpha = 0.85; omega = 0.85)-all supplies used concurrently with drug injection but not discarded in syringe disposal boxes. Drug use (OR = 1.78, 95 % CI = (1.48, 2.23)), harm reduction (OR = 3.53, 95 % CI = (2.20, 6.12)), and EFA scales (OR = 1.85, 95 %CI = (1.51, 2.34)) were significantly and positively associated with being within walking distance (≤0.25 miles or 0.4 km) of a syringe disposal box. CONCLUSION: This study provides an efficient tool with high reliability and validity metrics to assess community uptake of harm reduction supplies designed for use by community organizations, policy makers, or other groups providing resources to PWUD.

Reducing the harms of xylazine: clinical approaches, research deficits, and public health context.

OBJECTIVES: Xylazine has emerged as a consistent part of the unregulated drug supply in recent months. We discuss major domains of xylazine's harm, current knowledge deficits, clinical and harm reduction strategies for minimizing harm, and xylazine's public health and policy context. As an interdisciplinary team from across the USA, we have pooled our knowledge to provide an overview of xylazine's current and emerging contexts. METHODS: To inform this essay, the pertinent literature was reviewed, clinical knowledge and protocols were shared by multiple clinicians with direct expertise, and policy and public health context were added by expert authors. RESULTS: We describe xylazine's major harm domains-acute poisoning, extended sedation, and wounds, along with anemia and hyperglycemia, which have been reported anecdotally but lack as clear of a connection to xylazine. Current successful practices for xylazine wound care are detailed. Understanding xylazine's epidemiology will also require greater investment in drug checking and surveillance. Finally, approaches to community-based wound care are discussed, along with an orientation to the larger policy and public health context. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the harms of xylazine requires interdisciplinary participation, investment in community-based harm reduction strategies, and improved drug supply surveillance. The relatively unique context of xylazine demands buy-in from public health professionals, harm reduction professionals, clinicians, basic science researchers, policymakers and more.

"Because of this rotation, this is what I want to do": Implementation and evaluation of a telehealth opioid use disorder clinical placement for nurse practitioner students.

ABSTRACT: The lack of clinicians comfortable prescribing buprenorphine is a barrier to access for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Accordingly, a telehealth OUD treatment clinic, Ophelia, launched a clinical training program for nurse practitioner (NP) students. The goal of this study was to assess a telehealth-based model of OUD clinical training. To evaluate the program, we (1) identified students' knowledge related to providing OUD care to patients before and after their clinical rotation with Ophelia and (2) characterized students' attitudes about providing OUD care following their clinical rotation with Ophelia. Online pre- and postsurveys were conducted with 57 and 29 students, respectively, and semistructured interviews were conducted with 19 students who completed clinical rotations with Ophelia. We used quantitative descriptive analysis to compare presurvey and postsurvey results and conducted thematic analysis to analyze qualitative interview data. We identified three themes from the interviews: the continuum of learning opportunities, the comfort providing OUD treatment following participants' clinical rotation, and the relevance of a substance use disorder clinical rotation for all NP students. The survey also supported these findings. Of note, there were descriptive differences between presurvey and postsurvey responses related to an increase in knowledge, preparedness, and acquisition of skills to treat OUD. Using a telehealth clinical rotation for NP students to learn about OUD treatment may represent an important step in increasing the number of clinicians who can prescribe buprenorphine. These findings can inform interventions and policies that target clinician training barriers.

Urine Drug Screening in a Telehealth Setting for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Amid rapid and widespread adoption of telehealth-based opioid treatment (TBOT), there is an urgent need for rigorous studies exploring the feasibility and characteristics of urine drug screening (UDS). Objective: To investigate administration patterns and results of UDS to assess feasibility of UDS and patient outcomes in a TBOT setting. Design: This observational cohort study was conducted between January 1, 2021, and December 6, 2022, and included patients with opioid use disorder treated in Ophelia, a TBOT treatment platform in 14 states. Data analysis was performed from January to March 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and percentage of patients with UDS within 30, 90, and 180 days of intake, grouped by adherence to clinical protocols. Associations were assessed between baseline characteristics and UDS completion and opioid positivity in first 30 days using χ2 tests. Baseline and 180-day follow-up UDS results were compared using McNemar tests. Results: Among 3395 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.2 [9.3] years, mostly male [54.1%], non-Hispanic White [81.5%], urban-residing [80.3%], and cash-pay at intake [74.0%]), 2782 (83.3%) completed a UDS within 30 days (90.0% among protocol-adherent patients, 67.0% among protocol-nonadherent patients). A total of 2750 of 2817 (97.6%) patients retained more than 90 days completed 1 or more UDS, as did 2307 of 2314 (99.7%) patients retained more than 180 days. Younger patients, patients of a racial and ethnic minority group, those living in urban areas, and cash-pay patients were less likely to complete a UDS in the first 30 days. Buprenorphine positivity increased (from 96.9% to 98.4%, P = .004) and opioid positivity declined (from 7.9% to 3.3%, P < .001) over time. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with opioid use disorder receiving buprenorphine in a remote care environment, UDS was highly feasible, though early UDS completion rates varied across demographic subgroups. The prevalence of unexpected UDS results was low and declined over time in treatment.

Thematic Analysis of State Medicaid Buprenorphine Prior Authorization Requirements.

Importance: Prior authorization (PA) requirements for buprenorphine are associated with lower provision of the medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). While Medicare plans have eliminated PA requirements for buprenorphine, many Medicaid plans continue to require them. Objective: To describe and classify buprenorphine coverage requirements based on thematic analysis of state Medicaid PA forms. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used a thematic analysis of 50 states' Medicaid PA forms for buprenorphine between November 2020 and March 2021. Forms were obtained from the jurisdiction's Medicaid websites and assessed for features suggesting barriers to buprenorphine access. A coding tool was developed based on a review of a sample of forms, including fields for behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates, drug screening requirements, and dosage limitations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included PA requirements for different buprenorphine formulations. Additionally, PA forms were evaluated for various criteria such as behavioral health, drug screenings, dose-related recommendations or mandates or patient education. Results: Among the total of 50 US states in the analysis, most states' Medicaid plans required PA for at least 1 formulation of buprenorphine. However, the majority did not require a PA for buprenorphine-naloxone. Four key themes of coverage requirements were identified: restrictive surveillance (eg, requirements for urine drug screenings, random drug screenings, pill counts), behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates (eg, mandatory counseling or 12-step meeting attendance), interfering with or restricting medical decision-making (eg, maximum daily dosages of 16 mg, requiring additional steps for dosages higher than 16 mg), and patient education (eg, information about adverse effects and interactions with other medications). Eleven states (22%) required urine drug screenings, 6 states (12%) required random urine drug screenings, and 4 states (8%) required pill counts. Fourteen states' forms (28%) recommended therapy, and 7 (14%) required therapy, counseling, or participation in group sessions. Eighteen states (36%) specified dosage maximums; among them, 11 (22%) required additional steps for a daily dosage higher than 16 mg. Conclusion: In this qualitative study of state Medicaid PA requirements for buprenorphine, themes were identified that included patient surveillance with drug screenings and pill counts, behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates, patient education, and dosing guidance. These results suggest that state Medicaid plans' buprenorphine PA requirements for OUD are in conflict with existing evidence and may negatively affect states' efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

"I wouldn't need Narcan for myself, but I can have it for somebody else:" perceptions of harm reduction among hospitalized patients with OUD.

BACKGROUND: Extant literature is limited on adoption of evidence-based harm reduction strategies in hospitals. We explored patient perceptions of incorporating harm reduction supplies and education in hospital care with patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: Qualitative descriptive study of hospitalized patients with OUD in Philadelphia, PA using semi-structured interviews conducted between April and August of 2022. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged from 21 interviews with hospitalized patients with OUD: (1) Applicability and Acceptability of Harm Reduction Practices for Oneself; (2) Applicability and Acceptability of Harm Reduction Practices for Others; (3) Perceptions of Harm Reduction Conversations. Most participants were familiar with harm reduction but varied in their perceptions of its relevance for their lives. We noted differences in how participants viewed the applicability and acceptably of harm reduction practices that they perceived as intended to help others (e.g., naloxone) versus intended to help themselves (e.g., syringes). Most participants reported that meaningful conversations about drug use did not happen with their care team but that these conversations would have been acceptable if they were conducted in a way consistent with their individual substance use goals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' interest and perceived acceptability of harm reduction services during hospitalization varied by individual patient factors and the perceived user of specific interventions. Given their positive potential, harm reduction practices should be incorporated in hospitals, but this must be done in a way that is acceptable to patients. Our findings reveal ways to integrate concepts from a harm reduction approach within a traditional medical model. More work is needed to understand the impact of such integration.

What Were the Information Voids? A Qualitative Analysis of Questions Asked by Dear Pandemic Readers between August 2020-August 2021.

In the current infodemic, how individuals receive information (channel), who it is coming from (source), and how it is framed can have an important effect on COVID-19 related mitigation behaviors. In light of these challenges presented by the infodemic, Dear Pandemic (DP) was created to directly address persistent questions related to COVID-19 and other health topics in the online environment. This is a qualitative analysis of 3806 questions that were submitted by DP readers to a question box on the Dear Pandemic website between August 30, 2020 and August 29, 2021. Analyses resulted in four themes: the need for clarification of other sources; lack of trust in information; recognition of possible misinformation; and questions on personal decision-making. Each theme reflects an unmet informational need of Dear Pandemic readers, which may be reflective of the broader informational gaps in our science communication efforts.This study highlights the role of an ad hoc risk communication platform in the current environment and uses questions submitted to the Dear Pandemic question box to identify informational needs of DP readers over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings may help clarify how organizations addressing health misinformation in the digital space can contribute to timely, responsive science communication and improve future communication efforts.

Rethinking urban-rural designations in public health surveillance of the overdose crisis and crafting an agenda for future monitoring.

Rurality has served as a key concept in popular and scientific understandings of the US overdose crisis, with White, rural, and low-income areas thought to be most heavily affected. However, we observe that overdose trends have risen nearly uniformly across the urban-rural designations employed in most research, implying that their importance has likely been overstated or incorrectly conceptualized. Nevertheless, urbanicity/rurality does serve as a key axis to understand inequalities in overdose mortality when assessed with more nuanced modalities-employing a more granular analysis of geography at the sub-county level, and intersecting rurality sociodemographic indices such as race/ethnicity. Using national overdose data from 1999-2021, we illustrate the intersectional importance of rurality for overdose surveillance. Finally, we offer recommendations for integrating these insights into drug overdose surveillance moving forward.

"Come try it out. Get your foot in the door:" Exploring patient perspectives on low-barrier treatment for opioid use disorder.

PURPOSE: Low-barrier treatment is an emerging strategy for opioid use disorder (OUD) care that prioritizes access to evidence-based medication while minimizing requirements that may limit treatment access in more traditional delivery models, particularly for marginalized patients. Our objective was to explore patient perspectives about low-barrier approaches, with a focus on understanding barriers to and facilitators of engagement from the patient point of view. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients accessing buprenorphine treatment from a multi-site, low-barrier mobile treatment program in Philadelphia, PA from July-December 2021. We analyzed interview data using thematic content analysis and identified key themes. RESULTS: The 36 participants were 58% male, 64% Black, 28% White, and 31% Latinx. 89% were enrolled in Medicaid, and 47% were unstably housed. Our analysis revealed three main facilitators of treatment in the low-barrier model. These included 1) program structure that met participant needs, such as flexibility, rapid medication access and robust case management services; 2) harm reduction approach that included acceptance of patient goals other than abstinence and provision of harm reduction services on-site; and 3) strong interpersonal connections with team members, including those with lived experience. Participants contrasted these experiences with other care they had received in the past. Barriers related to lack of structure, limitations of street-based care, and limited support for co-occurring needs, particularly mental health. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides key patient perspectives on low-barrier approaches for OUD treatment. Our findings can inform future program design to increase treatment access and engagement for individuals poorly served by traditional delivery models.

Telehealth for opioid use disorder: retention as a function of demographics and rurality.

Background: Despite lifesaving medications such as buprenorphine and methadone, the majority of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) face access barriers to evidence-based treatment. COVID-19 era regulatory reforms have shown that telehealth can improve access to care, although disparities in clinical outcomes are likely to persist.Objective: We aimed to analyze 180-day and 365-day retention in treatment with buprenorphine for OUD overall and by demographics, hypothesizing that retention would be lower among racial/ethnic minorities and rural patients.Methods: We analyzed data from a cohort of individuals with OUD enrolled in treatment from April 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, in Pennsylvania and New York using a virtual-first telehealth OUD treatment platform to assess rates of 180-day and 365-day retention. Associations between demographic characteristics and retention were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models.Results: Among 1,378 patients (58.8% male), 180-day retention was 56.4%, and 365-day retention was 48.3%. Adjusted analyses found that only an association between older age and greater odds of 180-day retention was significant (aOR for patients aged 30-50 vs. <30: 1.83 [1.37-2.45]). There were no significant associations between sex, race/ethnicity, state, or rurality with retention.Conclusion: While we were unable to control for socioeconomic variables, we found retention within telehealth services for buprenorphine was high irrespective of geography or race/ethnicity, but disparities with age indicate a subset of patients who may benefit from more intensive services early in care.

"The new normal has become a nonstop crisis": a qualitative study of burnout among Philadelphia's harm reduction and substance use disorder treatment workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic worsened the ongoing overdose crisis in the United States (US) and caused significant mental health strain and burnout among health care workers (HCW). Harm reduction, overdose prevention, and substance use disorder (SUD) workers may be especially impacted due to underfunding, resources shortages, and chaotic working environments. Existing research on HCW burnout primarily focuses on licensed HCWs in traditional environments and fails to account for the unique experiences of harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis descriptive study of 30 Philadelphia-based harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians about their experiences working in their roles during the COVID-19 pandemic in July-August 2020. Our analysis was guided by Shanafelt and Noseworthy's model of key drivers of burnout and engagement. We aimed to assess the applicability of this model to the experiences of SUD and harm reduction workers in non-traditional settings. RESULTS: We deductively coded our data in alignment with Shanafelt and Noseworthy's key drivers of burnout and engagement: (1) workload and job demands, (2) meaning in work, (3) control and flexibility, (4) work-life integration, (5) organizational culture and values, (6) efficiency and resources and (7) social support and community at work. While Shanafelt and Noseworthy's model broadly encompassed the experiences of our participants, it did not fully account for their concerns about safety at work, lack of control over the work environment, and experiences of task-shifting. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout among healthcare providers is receiving increasing attention nationally. Much of this coverage and the existing research have focused on workers in traditional healthcare spaces and often do not consider the experiences of community-based SUD treatment, overdose prevention, and harm reduction providers. Our findings indicate a gap in existing frameworks for burnout and a need for models that encompass the full range of the harm reduction, overdose prevention, and SUD treatment workforce. As the US overdose crisis continues, it is vital that we address and mitigate experiences of burnout among harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians to protect their wellbeing and to ensure the sustainability of their invaluable work.

Barriers and facilitators to primary care engagement for people who inject drugs: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: People who inject drugs (PWID) have a greater burden of multimorbid chronic diseases than the general population. However, little attention has been paid to the engagement in primary care for services related specifically to injection drug use and management of underlying chronic comorbid diseases for this population. This systematic review identified facilitators and barriers to healthcare engagement in the primary care setting among PWID. DESIGN AND METHODS: Studies were identified by a literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE, and by searching the references of retrieved articles. Studies were included if they measured active injection drug use, and outcomes related to primary care engagement characterized by: diagnosis of a health condition, linkage or retention in care, health condition-related outcomes, and reported patient-provider relationship. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were included. Using the behavioral model, factors within predisposing, enabling, need, and health behavior domains were identified. Having co-located services and a positive patient-provider relationship were among the strongest factors associated with healthcare utilization and engagement while active injection drug use was associated with decreased engagement. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the only review of evidence that has examined factors related to primary care engagement for people who inject drugs. Most articles were observational studies utilizing descriptive designs. Although the assessment of the evidence was primarily rated 'Good', this review identifies a significant need to improve our understanding of primary care engagement for PWID. Future research and intervention strategies should consider these findings to better integrate the holistic care needs of PWID into primary care to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with injection drug use and chronic disease. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Primary care engagement is important for preventative care, early diagnosis of disease, and management of chronic diseases, including addressing problems of substance use. This review highlights factors nurses can utilize to facilitate primary care engagement of PWID.