Are we being equitable enough? Lessons learned from sites lost in an implementation trial.

Background: There is a growing interest in practice-based implementation research, yet too often research prioritizes and is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites. Method: To better understand needed supports for implementation trial participation, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with key staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using Rapid Assessment Process. Qualitative themes were iteratively reviewed by the study team. Results: Three themes emerged characterizing challenges for community sites, including that: (1) research threatens sites' most precious resource-staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research; and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment. Conclusions: Learnings from this work illuminate some of the barriers community sites face when trying to participate in multisite implementation research. An undercurrent of participant perspectives was the belief that community sites like theirs are just not set up to successfully participate in clinical trial research, including population-based implementation trials. Future implementation trials should consider strategies that disrupt traditional approaches, increasing the equitable inclusion of diverse practice settings in implementation research.

There is a growing interest in research that reflects community settings. Yet too often, research is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites. To better understand their perspectives, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Analysis identified three themes: (1) research threatens sites' most precious resource­staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research, and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment. Community sites face many barriers to participating in implementation research trials. Future trials should consider ways to disrupt traditional approaches and increase the equitable inclusion of community settings in implementation research.

Prevalence of alcohol use disorders documented in electronic health records in primary care across intersections of race or ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic status.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in primary care is critical for increasing access to alcohol treatment. However, AUD is underdiagnosed and may be inequitably diagnosed due to societal structures that determine access to resources (e.g., structural racism that limits opportunities for some groups and influences interpersonal interactions in and beyond health care). This study described patterns of provider-documented AUD in primary care across intersections of race, ethnicity, sex, and community-level socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS: This cross-sectional study used EHR data from a regional healthcare system with 35 primary care clinics that included adult patients who completed alcohol screenings between 3/1/2015 and 9/30/2020. The prevalence of provider-documented AUD in primary care based on International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) and ICD-10 diagnoses was compared across intersections of race, ethnicity, sex, and community-level SES. RESULTS: Among 439,375 patients, 6.6% were Latine, 11.0% Asian, 5.4% Black, 1.3% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI), 1.5% American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), and 74.2% White, and 58.3% women. The overall prevalence of provider-documented AUD was 1.0% and varied across intersecting identities. Among women, the prevalence was highest for AI/AN women with middle SES, 1.5% (95% CI 1.0-2.3), and lowest for Asian women with middle SES, 0.1% (95% CI 0.1-0.2). Among men, the prevalence was highest for AI/AN men with high and middle SES, 2.0% (95% CI 1.1-3.4) and 2.0% (95% CI 1.2-3.2), respectively, and lowest for Asian men with high SES, 0.5% (95% CI 0.3-0.7). Black and Latine patients tended to have a lower prevalence of AUD than White patients, across all intersections of sex and SES except for Black women with high SES. There were no consistent patterns of the prevalence of AUD diagnosis that emerged across SES. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of provider-documented AUD in primary care was highest in AI/AN men and women and lowest in Asian men and women. Findings of lower prevalence of provider-documented AUD in Black and Hispanic than White patients across most intersections of sex and SES differed from prior studies. Findings may suggest that differences in access to resources, which vary in effects across these identity characteristics and lived experiences, influence the diagnosis of AUD in clinical care.

Primary care team perspectives on approaches to engaging patients in treatment for opioid use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Engagement is a critical component of successful treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, rates of patient engagement in OUD treatment, especially in outpatient settings, are variable and often low. Little is known about the specific strategies members of primary care teams use to initiate and encourage ongoing participation in OUD treatment. In a national cohort of primary care clinics in the U.S., we explored the perspectives of primary care team members on the meaning of and approaches to OUD treatment engagement. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 providers from multidisciplinary primary care teams in an existing national cohort of 13 clinics across seven states. Teams were delivering OUD treatment via the Collaborative Care Model, a model that combines primary care providers (PCP), behavioral health care managers (BHCM) and consulting psychiatric providers (CPP) in a structured way to provide patient-centered, team-based, and measurement-based care. Interview participants included 14 PCPs, 13 BHCMs, and 8 CPPs. Interviews asked open-ended questions about provider experiences and practices that aided or hindered patient engagement in OUD treatment. Interview transcripts were double-coded by trained qualitative researchers and analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches to identify themes. RESULTS: Two themes emerged that describe provider perspectives on the meaning of engagement: 1) qualifying engagement by the volume of contact with patients, and 2) the need for more multidimensional measures of engagement. Six themes emerged that characterized provider engagement practices: 1) creating an environment of disclosure, 2) normalizing OUD treatment, 3) offering gentle but persistent outreach, 4) providing human connection and encouragement, 5) tailoring treatment to patient needs, and 6) avoiding stigmatizing responses. Analysis identified multiple replicable strategies that providers used to support these engagement practices. CONCLUSIONS: Providers consistently apply a range of strategies when trying to engage patients in OUD treatment. Specific engagement strategies used embodied compassion and pragmatism, hallmarks of patient-centered care. Further research is needed to understand the impact of scaling engagement approaches across all care settings.

Assessing Substance Use Disorder Symptoms with a Checklist among Primary Care Patients with Opioid Use Disorder and/or Long-Term Opioid Treatment: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care (PC) offers an opportunity to treat opioid use disorders (OUD). The Substance Use Symptom Checklist ("Checklist") can assess DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD) symptoms in PC. OBJECTIVE: To test the psychometric properties of the Checklist among PC patients with OUD or long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) in Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA). DESIGN: Observational study using item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of measurement consistency across age, sex, race and ethnicity, and receipt of treatment. PATIENTS: Electronic health records (EHR) data were extracted for all adult PC patients visiting KPWA 3/1/15-8/30/2020 who had ≥ 1 Checklist documented and indication of either (a) clinically-recognized OUD (i.e., documented OUD diagnosis and/or OUD medication treatment) or (b) LTOT in the year prior to the checklist. MAIN MEASURE: The Checklist includes 11 items reflecting DSM-5 criteria for SUD. We described the prevalence of 2 SUD symptoms reported on the Checklist (consistent with mild-severe DSM-5 SUD). Analyses were conducted in the overall sample and in two subsamples (clinically-recognized OUD and LTOT only). KEY RESULTS: Among 2007 eligible patients, 39.9% endorsed ≥ 2 SUD symptoms (74.3% in the clinically-recognized OUD subsample and 13.1% in LTOT subsample). IRT indicated that a unidimensional model for the 11 checklist items had excellent fit (comparative fit index = 0.998) with high item-level discrimination parameters for the overall sample and both subsamples. DIF across age, race and ethnicity, and treatment was observed for one item each, but had minimal impact on expected number of criteria (0-11) patients endorse. CONCLUSIONS: The Substance Use Symptom Checklist measured SUD symptoms consistent with DSM-5 conceptualization (scaled, unidimensional) in patients with clinically-recognized OUD and LTOT and had similar measurement properties across demographic subgroups. The Checklist may support symptom assessment in patients with OUD and diagnosis in patients with LTOT.

Harm Reduction in the Field: First Responders' Perceptions of Opioid Overdose Interventions.

Introduction: Recent policy changes in Washington State presented a unique opportunity to pair evidence-based interventions with first responder services to combat increasing opioid overdoses. However, little is known about how these interventions should be implemented. In partnership with the Research with Expert Advisors on Drug Use team, a group of academically trained and community-trained researchers with lived and living experience of substance use, we examined facilitators and barriers to adopting leave-behind naloxone, field-based buprenorphine initiation, and HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing for first responder programs. Methods: Our team completed semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 32 first responders, mobile integrated health staff, and emergency medical services (EMS) leaders in King County, Washington, from February-May 2022. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using an integrated deductive and inductive thematic analysis approach grounded in community-engaged research principles. We collected data until saturation was achieved. Data collection and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Two investigators coded independently until 100% consensus was reached. Results: Our thematic analysis revealed several perceived facilitators (ie, tension for change, relative advantage, and compatibility) and barriers (ie, limited adaptability, lack of evidence strength and quality, and prohibitive cost) to the adoption of these evidence-based clinical interventions for first responder systems. There was widespread support for the distribution of leave-behind naloxone, although funding was identified as a barrier. Many believed field-based initiation of buprenorphine treatment could provide a more effective response to overdose management, but there were significant concerns that this intervention could run counter to the rapid care model. Lastly, participants worried that HIV and HCV testing was inappropriate for first responders to conduct but recommended that this service be provided by mobile integrated health staff. Conclusion: These results have informed local EMS strategic planning, which will inform roll out of process improvements in King County, Washington. Future work should evaluate the impact of these interventions on the health of overdose survivors.

COVID-19 Breakthrough Infection after Vaccination and Substance Use Disorders: A Longitudinal Cohort of People with and without HIV Receiving Care in the United States Veterans Health Administration.

Research regarding HIV, substance use disorders (SUD), and SARS-CoV-2 infections after COVID-19 vaccination is limited. In the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS)-HIV cohort, we followed vaccinated persons with HIV (PWH) and without HIV (PWoH) from 12/2020 to 3/2022 and linked SARS-CoV-2 test results for laboratory-confirmed breakthrough infection through 9/2022. We examined associations of substance use (alcohol use disorder [AUD], other SUD, smoking status) and HIV status and severity with breakthrough infections, using Cox proportional hazards regression hazard ratios (HR). To test for potential interactions between substance use and HIV, we fit survival models with a multiplicative interaction term. Among 24,253 PWH and 53,661 PWoH, 8.0% of PWH and 7.1% of PWoH experienced COVID-19 breakthrough. AUD (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.32, 1.52) and other SUD (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.39, 1.59) were associated with increased risk of breakthrough, and this was similar by HIV status (p-interaction > 0.09). Smoking was not associated with breakthrough. Compared to PWoH, PWH at all HIV severity levels had increased risk of breakthrough ranging from 9% for PWH with CD4 count ≥ 500 cells/µl (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02, 1.17) to 59% for PWH with CD4 count < 200 (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.31, 1.92). Patients with AUD (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.33, 1.52) and other SUD (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.38, 1.59) had increased COVID-19 breakthrough risk, regardless of HIV status. HIV was associated with breakthrough; risk was greatest among PWH with lower CD4 count. In addition to inhibiting HIV treatment adherence and increasing HIV progression, AUD and other SUD may increase COVID-19 breakthrough risk.

Optimizing Patient Engagement in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: Primary Care Team Perspectives on Influencing Factors.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) care engagement rates in primary care (PC) settings are often low. Little is known about PC team experiences when delivering OUD treatment and potential factors that influence their capacity to engage patients in treatment. Exploring PC team experiences may inform needed supports that can optimize OUD care delivery and improve outcomes for patients with OUD. OBJECTIVE: We explored multidisciplinary PC team perspectives on barriers and facilitators to engaging patients in OUD treatment. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinical teams. APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 35) with PC team members involved in OUD care delivery, recruited using a combination of criterion and maximal variation sampling. Data collection and analysis were informed by existing theoretical literature about patient engagement, specifically that patient engagement is influenced by factors across individual (patient, provider), interpersonal (patient-provider), and health system domains. Interviews were professionally transcribed and doubled-coded using a coding schema based on the interview guide while allowing for emergent codes. Coding was iteratively reviewed using a constant comparison approach to identify themes and verified with participants and the full study team. KEY RESULTS: Analysis identified five themes that impact PC team ability to engage patients effectively, including limited patient contact (e.g., phone, text) in between visits, varying levels of provider confidence to navigate OUD treatment discussions, structural factors (e.g., schedules, productivity goals) that limited provider time, the role of team-based approaches in lessening discouragement and feelings of burnout, and lack of shared organizational vision for reducing harms from OUD. CONCLUSIONS: While the capacity of PC teams to engage patients in OUD care is influenced across multiple levels, some of the most promising opportunities may involve addressing system-level factors that limit PC team time and collaboration and promoting organizational alignment on goals for OUD treatment.

No change in substance use disorders or overdose after implementation of state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

BACKGROUND: Inadequate income is associated with higher likelihood of experiencing a substance use disorder (SUD). This study tests whether the earned income tax credit (EITC), which issues supplemental income for workers with children in the U.S., is associated with lower rates of SUD and fatal overdose. METHODS: We examined the effects of state-level refundable EITC presence and generosity (i.e., state EITC rate as a % of federal rate) on SUD-related outcomes (SUD prevalence and intentional and unintentional fatal overdose) using a difference-in-difference methodology, with both two-way fixed-effects models and event study plots. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of findings. Five data sources were used to create a combined state-level longitudinal dataset. RESULTS: We did not find significant effects of refundable EITC presence or generosity on unintentional or intentional fatal overdose or SUD prevalence in two-way models. Event study models detected a very slight upward shift in SUD prevalence following refundable EITC implementation (not seen in sensitivity analyses) and no significant effects of EITC implementation on any of the fatal overdose outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence regarding income support programs is being highly sought by policy makers as income support programs have become increasingly popular policy levers since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study indicates EITC policies likely have no impact on SUD or overdose, however, other income support programs without family restrictions are important to investigate further.

"I Thought Cancer was a Tobacco Issue": Perspectives of Veterans with and without HIV on Cancer and Other Health Risks Associated with Alcohol and Tobacco/Nicotine Use.

U.S. Veterans and people living with HIV (PWH) experience higher rates of unhealthy alcohol and tobacco/nicotine use than non-Veterans and people without HIV (PWoH). Both groups are susceptible to adverse health outcomes associated with alcohol and tobacco/nicotine use. We explored awareness of alcohol- and tobacco/nicotine-related cancer and immune health risks among Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients with and without HIV. Among a sample of 41 (46% PWH; 73% male; 39% Black) purposively-selected VA patients receiving care 2020-2021 we conducted semi-structured interviews via telephone; interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process. Purposive selection was based on HIV status, alcohol and/or tobacco/nicotine use, and demographics. Among participants, 66% reported current smoking, and most screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use. Participants had high awareness of cancer and other health risks related to smoking but low awareness of synergistic risks and cancer risks associated with alcohol use despite awareness of a range of other alcohol-related risks. Awareness of alcohol and/or tobacco/nicotine's impacts on the immune system was variable. Findings did not distinctly differ between PWH and PWoH. Low awareness of alcohol-related cancer risk, risks of co-occurring use, and varying awareness of the impacts of alcohol and tobacco/nicotine on the immune system suggest a need for improved messaging regarding substance use-related cancer and immune risk. This may be especially important among PWH, for whom the prevalence and adverse effects of alcohol and tobacco use, and immune dysfunction are higher.

Receipt of Medications for Alcohol Use Disorder in the Veterans Health Administration: Comparison of Rates at the Intersections of Racialized and Ethnic Identity With Both Sex and Transgender Status.

OBJECTIVES: Medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUDs) are recommended for patients with alcohol use disorder yet are underprescribed. Consistent with Minority Stress and Intersectionality theories, persons with multiple sociodemographically marginalized identities (eg, Black women) often experience greater barriers to care and have poorer health outcomes. We use data from the Veterans Health Administration to assess disparities in Federal Drug Administration (FDA)-approved MAUDs and all effective MAUDs between the following groups: racialized and ethnic identity, sex, transgender status, and their intersections. METHODS: Among all Veterans Health Administration outpatients between August 1, 2015, and July 31, 2017, with documented alcohol screenings and an International Classification of Diseases diagnosis for alcohol use disorder in the 0-365 days prior (N = 308,238), we estimated the prevalence and 95% confidence intervals of receiving FDA-approved MAUDs and any MAUDs in the following year and compared them using χ2 or Fisher's exact test. Analyses are unadjusted to present true prevalence and group differences. RESULTS: The overall prevalence for MAUDs was low (FDA-MAUDs = 8.7%, any MAUDs = 20.0%). Within sex, Black males had the lowest rate of FDA-MAUDs (7.3%, [7.1-7.5]), whereas American Indian/Alaskan Native females had the highest (18.4%, [13.8-23.0]). Among those identified as transgender, Asian and Black transgender persons had the lowest rates of FDA-MAUDs (0%; 4.3%, [1.8-8.5], respectively), whereas American Indian/Alaskan Native transgender patients had the highest (33.3%, [2.5-64.1]). Similar patterns were observed for any MAUDs, with higher rates overall. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation exists in MAUD prescribing, with marginalized veterans disproportionately receiving MAUDs at lower and higher rates than average. Implementation and quality improvement efforts are needed to improve MAUD prescribing practices and reduce disparities.

High-Acuity Alcohol-Related Complications During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Research has demonstrated an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and increased alcohol-related liver disease hospitalizations and deaths. However, trends in alcohol-related complications more broadly are unclear, especially among subgroups disproportionately affected by alcohol use. Objective: To assess trends in people with high-acuity alcohol-related complications admitted to the emergency department, observation unit, or hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on demographic differences. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal interrupted time series cohort study analyzed US national insurance claims data using Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart database from March 2017 to September 2021, before and after the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic onset. A rolling cohort of people 15 years and older who had at least 6 months of continuous commercial or Medicare Advantage coverage were included. Subgroups of interest included males and females stratified by age group. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to January 2024. Exposure: COVID-19 pandemic environment from March 2020 to September 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Differences between monthly rates vs predicted rates of high-acuity alcohol-related complication episodes, determined using claims-based algorithms and alcohol-specific diagnosis codes. The secondary outcome was the subset of complication episodes due to alcohol-related liver disease. Results: Rates of high-acuity alcohol-related complications were statistically higher than expected in 4 of 18 pandemic months after March 2020 (range of absolute and relative increases: 0.4-0.8 episodes per 100 000 people and 8.3%-19.4%, respectively). Women aged 40 to 64 years experienced statistically significant increases in 10 of 18 pandemic months (range of absolute and relative increases: 1.3-2.1 episodes per 100 000 people and 33.3%-56.0%, respectively). In this same population, rates of complication episodes due to alcohol-related liver disease increased above expected in 16 of 18 pandemic months (range of absolute and relative increases: 0.8-2.1 episodes per 100 000 people and 34.1%-94.7%, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a national, commercially insured population, high-acuity alcohol-related complication episodes increased beyond what was expected in 4 of 18 COVID-19 pandemic months. Women aged 40 to 64 years experienced 33.3% to 56.0% increases in complication episodes in 10 of 18 pandemic months, a pattern associated with large and sustained increases in high-acuity alcohol-related liver disease complications. Findings underscore the need for increased attention to alcohol use disorder risk factors, alcohol use patterns, alcohol-related health effects, and alcohol regulations and policies, especially among women aged 40 to 64 years.

Implementation of Opioid Safety Efforts: Influence of Academic Detailing on Adverse Outcomes Among Patients in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented academic detailing (AD) to support safer opioid prescribing and overdose prevention initiatives. METHODS: Patient-level data were extracted monthly from VA's electronic health record to evaluate whether AD implementation was associated with changes in all-cause mortality, opioid poisoning inpatient admissions, and opioid poisoning emergency department (ED) visits in an observational cohort of patients with long-term opioid prescriptions (≥45-day supply of opioids 6 months prior to a given month with ≤15 days between prescriptions). A single-group interrupted time series analysis using segmented logistic regression for mortality and Poisson regression for counts of inpatient admissions and ED visits was used to identify whether the level and slope of these outcomes changed in response to AD implementation. RESULTS: Among 955 376 unique patients (19 431 241 person-months), there were 53 369 deaths (29 025 pre-AD; 24 344 post-AD), 1927 opioid poisoning inpatient admissions (610 pre-AD; 1317 post-AD), and 408 opioid poisoning ED visits (207 pre-AD; 201 post-AD). Immediately after AD implementation, there was a 5.8% reduction in the odds of all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.897, 0.990). However, patients had a significantly increased incidence rate of inpatient admissions for opioid poisoning immediately after AD implementation (incidence rate ratio = 1.523; 95% CI: 1.118, 2.077). No significant differences in ED visits for opioid poisoning were observed. CONCLUSIONS: AD was associated with decreased all-cause mortality but increased inpatient hospitalization for opioid poisoning among patients prescribed long-term opioids. Mechanisms via which AD's efforts influenced opioid-related outcomes should be explored.

Socioeconomic Status and CD4 Count Among People with HIV Who Inject Drugs in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Lack of access to resources is a "fundamental cause" of poor HIV outcomes across the care cascade globally and may have the greatest impact on groups with co-existing marginalized identities. In a sample of people living with HIV (PWH) who inject drugs and were not on antiretroviral therapy (ART), we explored associations between access to resources and HIV severity. Fundamental Cause Theory (FCT) sees socioeconomic status/access to resources as a root cause of disease and emphasizes that individuals with limited resources have fewer means to mitigate health risks and implement protective behaviors, which ultimately generates disparities in health outcomes. Guided by the FCT, we hypothesized that resource depletion (primary aim) and lower income (secondary aim) were associated with increased HIV severity. Using baseline data from the Linking Infectious and Narcology Care (LINC-II) trial of ART-naive PWH who inject drugs in St. Petersburg, Russia (n = 225), we examined the association between "past year resource runout" (yes vs. no) and "low-income (< 300 USD a month)" and the outcome HIV severity (CD4 count, continuous). We fit two separate linear regression models adjusted for gender, age, time since HIV diagnosis, and prior ART use. Participants had a mean age of 37.5 years and were 60% male. Two thirds (66%) reported resource depletion, and 30% had income below 300 USD a month. Average CD4 count was 416 cells/mm3 (SD 285). No significant association was identified between either resource depletion or low-income and HIV severity (adjusted mean difference in CD4 count for resource depletion: - 4.16, 95% CI - 82.93, 74.62; adjusted mean difference in CD4 count for low-income: 68.13, 95% CI - 15.78, 152.04). Below-average income and running out of resources were common among PWH who inject drugs and are not on ART in St. Petersburg, Russia. Resource depletion and low-income were not significantly associated with HIV disease severity as captured by CD4 count. The nuanced relationship between socioeconomic status and HIV severity among people with HIV who inject drugs and not on ART merits further examination in a larger sample.

Alcohol-Related Care Among Veterans With Unhealthy Alcohol Use: The Role of Long-Term Opioid Therapy Receipt.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) is potentially dangerous among patients with unhealthy alcohol use because of possible adverse interactions. We examined receipt of alcohol-related care among patients with unhealthy alcohol use receiving LTOT and without opioid receipt. METHODS: We use data collected from 2009 to 2017 in the Women Veterans Cohort Study, a national cohort of Veterans engaged in Veterans Health Administration care. We included patients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use (score ≥5) using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Consumption questionnaire. Our primary exposure was LTOT (receipt of prescribed opioids for ≥90 days) versus no opioid receipt at the time of the first positive Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Consumption. Our primary outcome was receipt of brief intervention within 14 days of positive alcohol screen. Unadjusted and 4 adjusted modified Poisson regression models assessed prevalence and relative rates (RRs) of outcomes. RESULTS: Among eligible veterans, 6222 of 113,628 (5.5%) received LTOT at screening. Among patients receiving LTOT, 67.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.3%-68.6%) had a documented brief intervention within 14 days of positive screen, compared with 70.1% (95% CI, 69.8%-70.4%) among patients without opioid receipt (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98; P < 0.001). Within adjusted models, the rate of brief intervention among patients receiving LTOT remained lower than patients without opioid receipt. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with unhealthy alcohol use, patients receiving LTOT had significantly lower rates of brief intervention receipt compared with those without opioid receipt, and they should be a focus for interventions to improve alcohol-related care and safer opioid prescribing.

"The Only Reason I Am Willing to Do It at All": Evaluation of VA's SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center.

OBJECTIVES: Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is effective and recommended for outpatient settings. We implemented and evaluated the SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center-a quality improvement partnership to implement stepped care for MOUD in 2 Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care (PC) clinics. METHODS: SUPPORT provided a dedicated clinical team (nurse practitioner prescriber and social worker) and stepped care ([1] identification, assessment, referral; [2] MOUD induction; [3] stabilization; and [4] maintenance supporting PC providers [PCPs] to initiate and/or sustain treatment) coupled with ongoing internal facilitation (consultation, trainings, informatics support). Qualitative interviews with stakeholders (PCPs and patients) and meeting notes identified barriers and facilitators to implementation. Electronic health record and patient tracking data measured reach, adoption, and implementation outcomes descriptively. RESULTS: SUPPORT's implementation barriers included the need for an X-waiver, VA's opioid tapering policies, patient and PCP knowledge gaps and PCP discomfort, and logistical compatibility and sustainability challenges for clinics. SUPPORT's dedicated clinical staff, ongoing internal facilitation, and high patient and PCP satisfaction were key facilitators. SUPPORT (January 2019 to September 2021) trained 218 providers; 63 received X-waivers, and 23 provided MOUD (10.5% of those trained). SUPPORT provided care to 167 patients, initiated MOUD for 33, and provided education and naloxone to 72 (all = 0 in year before launch). CONCLUSIONS: SUPPORT reached many PCPs and patients and resulted in small increases in MOUD prescribing and high levels of stakeholder satisfaction. Dedicated clinical staff was key to observed successes. Although resource-intensive, SUPPORT offers a potential model for outpatient MOUD provision.

Buprenorphine Receipt and Retention for Opioid Use Disorder Following an Initiative to Increase Access in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine, a medication for opioid use disorder (OUD), is underutilized in general medical settings. Further, it is inequitably received by racialized groups and persons with comorbidities. The Veterans Health Administration launched an initiative to increase buprenorphine receipt in primary care. The project's objective was to identify patient-related factors associated with buprenorphine receipt and retention in primary care clinics (n = 18) participating in the initiative. METHODS: Retrospective cohort quality improvement evaluation of patients 18 years or older with 2 or more primary care visits in a 1-year period and an OUD diagnosis in the year before the first primary care visit (index date). Buprenorphine receipt was the proportion of patients with OUD who received 1 or more buprenorphine prescriptions from primary care providers during the post-index year and retention the proportion who received buprenorphine for 180 days or longer. RESULTS: Of 2880 patients with OUD seen in primary care, 11.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6%-12.9%) received buprenorphine in primary care, 58.2% (95% CI, 52.8%-63.3%) of whom were retained on buprenorphine for 180 days or longer. Patients with alcohol use disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57), nonopioid drug use disorder (AOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93), and serious mental illness (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97) had lower buprenorphine receipt. Those with an anxiety disorder had higher buprenorphine receipt (AOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.04-1.95). Buprenorphine receipt (AOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.87) and 180-day retention (AOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.84) were less likely among non-Hispanic Black patients. CONCLUSIONS: Further integration of addiction services in primary care may be needed to enhance buprenorphine receipt for patients with comorbid substance use disorders, and interventions are needed to address disparities in receipt and retention among non-Hispanic Black patients.

Perspectives of clinical stakeholders and patients from four VA liver clinics to tailor practice facilitation for implementing evidence-based alcohol-related care.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is particularly dangerous for people with chronic liver disease. Liver clinics may be an important setting in which to provide effective alcohol-related care by integrating evidence-based strategies, such as brief intervention and medications for alcohol use disorder. We conducted qualitative interviews with clinical stakeholders and patients at liver clinics in four Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers to understand barriers and facilitators of integrating alcohol-related care and to support tailoring of a practice facilitation implementation intervention. METHODS: Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) guided by the CFIR. RESULTS: We interviewed 46 clinical stakeholders and 41 patient participants and analyzed findings based on the CFIR. Clinical stakeholders described barriers and facilitators that ranged from operations/clinic resource-based (e.g., time and capacity, desire for additional provider types, referral processes) to individual perspective and preference-based (e.g., supportiveness of leadership, individual experiences/beliefs). Patient participants shared barriers and facilitators that ranged from relationship-based (e.g., trusting the provider and feeling judged) to resource and education-based (e.g., connection to a range of treatment options, education about impact of alcohol). Many barriers and facilitators to integrating alcohol-related care in liver clinics were similar to those identified in other clinical settings (e.g., time, resources, role clarity, stigmatizing beliefs). However, some barriers (e.g., fellow-led care and lack of integration of liver clinics with addictions specialists) and facilitators (e.g., presence of quality improvement staff in clinics and integrated pharmacists and behavioral health specialists) were more unique to liver clinics. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the possibility of integrating alcohol-related care into liver clinics but highlight the importance of tailoring efforts to account for variation in provider beliefs and experiences and clinic resources. The barriers and facilitators identified in these interviews were used to tailor a practice facilitation implementation intervention in each clinic setting.

Test-retest reliability of DSM-5 substance use symptom checklists used in primary care and mental health care settings.

INTRODUCTION: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are underdiagnosed in healthcare settings. The Substance Use Symptom Checklist (SUSC) is a practical, patient-report questionnaire that has been used to assess SUD symptoms based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th edition (DSM-5) criteria. This study evaluates the test-retest reliability of SUSCs completed in primary and mental health care settings. METHODS: We identified 1194 patients who completed two SUSCs 1-21 days apart as part of routine care after reporting daily cannabis use and/or any past-year other drug use on behavioral health screens. Test-retest reliability of SUSC scores was evaluated within the full sample, subsamples who completed both checklists in primary care (n=451) or mental health clinics (n=512) where SUSC implementation differed, and subgroups defined by sex, insurance status, age, and substance use reported on behavioral health screens. RESULTS: In the full sample, test-retest reliability was high for indices reflecting the number of SUD symptoms endorsed (ICC=0.75, 95% CI:0.72-0.77) and DSM-5 SUD severity (kappa=0.72, 95% CI:0.69-0.75). These reliability estimates were higher in primary care (ICC=0.81, 95% CI:0.77-0.84; kappa=0.79, 95% CI:0.75-0.82, respectively) than in mental health clinics (ICC=0.74, 95% CI:0.70-0.78; kappa=0.73, 95% CI:0.68-0.77). Reliability differed by age and substance use reported on behavioral health screens, but not by sex or insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: The SUSC has good-to-excellent test-retest reliability when completed as part of routine primary or mental health care. Symptom checklists can reliably measure symptoms consistent with DSM-5 SUD criteria, which may aid SUD-related care in primary care and mental health settings.

Pain Care Disparities and the Use of Virtual Care Among Racial-Ethnic Minority Groups During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 led to an unprecedented reliance on virtual modalities to maintain care continuity for patients living with chronic pain. We examined whether there were disparities in virtual specialty pain care for racial-ethnic minority groups during COVID-19. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective national cohort study with two comparison groups: primary care patients with chronic pain seen immediately prior to COVID-19 (3/1/19-2/29/20) (N = 1,649,053) and a cohort of patients seen in the year prior (3/1/18-2/28-19; n = 1,536,954). MAIN MEASURES: We assessed use of telehealth (telephone or video) specialty pain care, in-person care specialty pain care, and any specialty pain care for both groups at 6 months following cohort inclusion. We used quasi-Poisson regressions to test associations between patient race and ethnicity and receipt of care. KEY RESULTS: Prior to COVID-19, there were Black-White (RR = 0.64, 95% CI [0.62, 0.67]) and Asian-White (RR = 0.63, 95% CI [0.54, 0.75]) disparities in telehealth use, and these lessened during COVID-19 (Black-White: RR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.73, 0.77], Asian-White: RR = 0.81, 95% CI [0.74, 0.89]) but did not disappear. Individuals identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native used telehealth less than White individuals during early COVID-19 (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.85, 1.13] to RR = 0.87, 95% CI [0.79, 0.96]). Hispanic/Latinx individuals were less likely than non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals to use telehealth prior to COVID-19 but more likely during early COVID-19 (RR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.66, 0.75] to RR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.02, 1.09]). Disparities in virtual pain care occurred over the backdrop of overall decreased specialty pain care during the early phase of the pandemic (raw decrease of n = 17,481 specialty care encounters overall from pre-COVID to COVID-era), including increased disparities in any VA specialty pain care for Black (RR = 0.81, 95% CI [0.80, 0.83] to RR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.77, 0.80]) and Asian (RR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.86, 0.97] to RR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.82, 0.94]) individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in virtual specialty pain care were smaller during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic than prior to the pandemic but did not disappear entirely, despite the rapid growth in telehealth. Targeted efforts to increase access to specialty pain care need to be concentrated among racial-ethnic minority groups.