Direct-To-Definitive Urine and Oral Fluid Test Results for Unscreened and Rarely Screened Drugs in Individuals Applying for Methadone Treatment in 7 U.S. States.

The standard protocol in addiction treatment/pain management is to conduct immunoassay screens for major drugs subject to misuse, followed by confirmatory testing of positive results. However, this may miss unscreened or rarely screened drugs that could pose risks, especially to polydrug users. We sought to determine the prevalences of unscreened/rarely screened drugs in a sample of individuals misusing drugs in 7 U.S. states, and to compare the results of urine vs. oral testing for these drugs by direct-to-definitive liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). The five drugs with the highest prevalences were: gabapentin (16.8%), quetiapine (6.2%), chlorpheniramine (5.3%), hydroxyzine (4.9%), and ephedrine (3.5%). All have clinical significance as indicated by severity of possible side effects, interactions with other drugs, and/or misuse potential. Drugs were generally detected more frequently in oral fluid than urine, but gabapentin was more frequently detected in urine. The prevalences of the included drugs seem high enough, and their clinical significance important enough, to warrant consideration of expanding clinical drug test panels, either by direct-to-definitive testing or the addition of selected immunoassay screens when available. Oral fluid was usually more suitable than urine as the test matrix, given the higher rates of detection in oral fluid for most substances included in this study.

Comparing presumptive with direct-to-definitive drug testing in oral fluid vs. urine for a U.S. national sample of individuals misusing drugs.

BACKGROUND: The aims are to compare the results of presumptive drug testing with confirmation of positives vs. direct-to-definitive drug testing, combined with investigation of urine vs. oral fluid as test matrices. METHODS: Paired oral fluid and urine specimens were collected voluntarily and anonymously from 1098 individuals applying for methadone treatment in 11 clinics across 7 U.S. states. All specimens were analyzed by immunoassay (IA) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). RESULTS: Confirmed IA prevalences for urine were significantly higher than for oral fluid for 7 out of 10 drug classes - benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, methadone, opiates, oxycodone and tramadol. Drug prevalences by direct-to-definitive LC-MS-MS were either the same or higher than prevalences by confirmed IA. Drug prevalences by LC-MS-MS were higher in urine for two drug classes (cocaine, methadone) and higher in oral fluid for two drug classes (buprenorphine, tramadol), but were equivalent in urine and oral fluid when averaged over all 10 drug classes. Certain drugs of special concern such as heroin and buprenorphine were more frequently detected in oral fluid than urine. CONCLUSIONS: Urine analysis showed some technical advantage over oral fluid in sensitivity to several drug classes within a confirmed IA testing protocol, but this may be outweighed if there is reason to believe that tampering with urine specimens is a significant problem. Overall drug detection by direct-to-definitive testing was similar for oral fluid and urine, but one matrix may be preferable if there is a particular drug of clinical or epidemiological interest.

A Scoping Review of the Influence of Evidence-Based Program Resources (EBPR) Websites for Behavioral Health.

Evidence-based program resources (EBPR) websites evaluate behavioral health programs, practices or policies (i.e., interventions) according to a predetermined set of research criteria and standards, usually resulting in a summary rating of the strength of an intervention's evidence base. This study is a mixed-methods analysis of the peer-reviewed academic literature relating to the influence of EBPRs on clinical practice and policy in the behavioral health field. Using an existing framework for a scoping review, we searched for research articles in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and ProQuest that were published between January 2002 and March 2022, referenced an EBPR or multiple EBPRs, and presented data showing the influence of one or more EBPRs on behavioral health. A total of 210 articles met the inclusion criteria and were classified into five distinct categories of influence, the most important of which was showing the direct impact of one or more EBPRs on behavioral health (8.1% of articles), defined as documenting observable changes in interventions or organizations that are at least partly due to information obtained from EBPR(s). These included impacts at the state legislative and policy-making level, at the community intervention level, provider agency level, and individual practitioner level. The majority of influences identified in the study were indirect demonstrations of how EBPRs are used in various ways. However, more studies are needed to learn about the direct impact of information from EBPRs on the behavioral health field, including impact on clinician practice and treatment outcomes for consumers.

The influence of evidence-based program registry websites for dissemination of evidence-based interventions in behavioral healthcare.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based program registries (EBPRs) are web-based databases of evaluation studies that summarize the available evidence for the effectiveness of behavioral healthcare programs, including programs addressing substance misuse, mental health, child welfare, or offender rehabilitation. The study determined the extent to which visitors to selected EBPRs accomplished the objectives of their visits and how often those visits resulted in the adoption of new or improved evidence-based interventions (EBIs). METHOD: A follow-up telephone survey was conducted with 216 visitors to a convenience sample of six EBPRs an average of six months after the visitors' incident visit to the EBPR. RESULTS: The most frequent objective was to identify evidence-based programs/services, curricula or assessments, followed by finding resources to implement or improve the preceding and writing a grant proposal including to comply with funding requirements; 71% of such objectives were achieved across the full set of objectives. Implementation of an EBI was completely achieved for 31% of relevant objectives and some progress on EBI implementation occurred for 19% of relevant objectives. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to document the usage of EBPRs as a modality to increase the utilization of EBIs in the actual practice of behavioral healthcare. The results support the continued use of web-based EBPRs for disseminating information on evidence-based interventions for behavioral healthcare.

Utilization of Evidence-based Intervention Criteria in U.S. Federal Grant Funding Announcements for Behavioral Healthcare.

Recent U.S. federal government policy has required or recommended the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), so that it is important to determine the extent to which this priority is reflected in actual federal solicitations for intervention funding, particularly for behavioral healthcare interventions. Understanding how well such policies are incorporated in federal opportunity announcements (FOAs) for grant funding could improve compliance with policy and increase the societal use of evidence-based interventions for behavioral healthcare. FOAs for discretionary grants (n = 243) in fiscal year 2021 were obtained from the Grants.gov website for 44 federal departments, agencies and sub-agencies that were likely to fund interventions in behavioral health-related areas. FOAs for block/formula grants to states that included behavioral healthcare (n = 17) were obtained from the SAM.gov website. Across both discretionary and block grants, EBIs were required in 60% and recommended in 21% of these FOAs for funding. Numerous different terms were used to signify EBIs by the FOAs, with the greatest variation occurring among the block grants. Lack of adequate elaboration or definition of alternative EBI terms prominently characterized FOAs issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, although less so for those issued by the Departments of Justice and Education. Overall, 43% of FOAs referenced evidence-based program registers on the web, which are scientifically credible sources of EBIs. Otherwise, most of the remaining elaborations of EBI terms in these FOAs were quite brief, often idiosyncratic, and not scientifically vetted. The FOAs generally adhered to federal policy requiring or encouraging the use of EBIs for funding requests. However, an overall pattern showing lack or inadequate elaboration of terms signifying EBIs makes it difficult for applicants to comply with federal policies regarding use of EBIs for behavioral healthcare.

Visitors' Assessment and Utilization of Evidence-Based Program Resources (EBPR) Websites.

Background: Evidence-based program resources (EBPR) websites for behavioral health are a potentially useful tool to assist decision-makers and practitioners in deciding which behavioral health interventions to implement. EBPR websites apply rigorous research standards to assess the effectiveness of behavioral healthcare programs, models, and clinical practices. Method: Visitors to a convenience sample of six EBPR websites (N=369, excluding students) were recruited for telephone interviews primarily by means of a pop-up invitation on the sites. Results: The visitors view the EBPR sites as important sources of information to support the identification and adoption of evidence-based programs/practices (EBPs) in behavioral healthcare, which aligns with the primary mission of EBPRs. For repeat visitors, there was some indication that the information obtained helped effect certain changes in their agencies' programs and policies. However, increased or improved guidance on EBP implementation was also requested. Conclusion: EBPR websites should be better publicized to the behavioral healthcare field.

Variations in Definitions of Evidence-Based Interventions for Behavioral Health in Eight Selected U.S. States.

BACKGROUND: U.S. state legislatures fill a vital role in supporting the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) through statutes and regulations (mandates). OBJECTIVE: The study determined the terms used by selected states to describe EBIs and how those terms are defined in mandates. RESEARCH METHODS: The mandates of eight purposely selected states were accessed and coded using the Westlaw Legal Research Database. RESULTS: Considerable variation was found in the terms used by states to describe EBIs. Although "evidence-based" was the most frequently utilized term (60% of mandates), an additional 29 alternative terms appeared with varying frequencies. Most terms were simply mentioned, with no further definition or elaboration. When terms were further defined or elaborated, the majority were defined using numerous and different types of external sources or references. Three approaches were found in the mandates defining EBIs: "single definition," "hierarchies of evidence levels," and "best available evidence"; the states differed considerably in the approaches used in their mandates. CONCLUSIONS: The variations in EBI-related terminology across states and within states, coupled with a lack of elaboration on the meaning of important terms and the predominant use of external rather than internal guidelines, may be a source of confusion for behavioral health provider agencies that seek direction about what constitutes an EBI. Prior studies indicate that many agencies may lack staff with the technical ability to adequately evaluate what constitutes an EBI. Thus, lack of clear guidance from official state government mandates may impede the implementation of EBIs within states.