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.

Alcohol and drug use severity are independently associated with antiretroviral adherence in the current treatment era.

Substance use in people with HIV (PWH) negatively impacts antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence. However, less is known about this in the current treatment era and the impact of specific substances or severity of substance use. We examined the associations of alcohol, marijuana, and illicit drug use (methamphetamine/crystal, cocaine/crack, illicit opioids/heroin) and their severity of use with adherence using multivariable linear regression in adult PWH in care between 2016 and 2020 at 8 sites across the US. PWH completed assessments of alcohol use severity (AUDIT-C), drug use severity (modified ASSIST), and ART adherence (visual analogue scale). Among 9400 PWH, 16% reported current hazardous alcohol use, 31% current marijuana use, and 15% current use of ≥1 illicit drugs. In multivariable analysis, current methamphetamine/crystal use, particularly common among men who had sex with men, was associated with 10.1% lower mean ART adherence (p < 0.001) and 2.6% lower adherence per 5-point higher severity of use (ASSIST score) (p < 0.001). Current and more severe use of alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drugs were also associated with lower adherence in a dose-dependent manner. In the current HIV treatment era, individualized substance use treatment, especially for methamphetamine/crystal, and ART adherence should be prioritized.

Vaporized nicotine use among patients in HIV care who smoke tobacco: perceived health effects and effectiveness as a smoking cessation tool.

Evidence suggests adverse health effects from vaporized nicotine (VN) use, such as electronic "e" cigarettes, and limited efficacy to aid tobacco cessation. People with HIV (PWH) smoke tobacco at higher rates than the general population, with greater morbidity, highlighting the necessity of effective tobacco cessation tools. PWH may be more vulnerable to adverse effects of VN. Using semi-structured 1:1 interviews, we examined health beliefs regarding VN, patterns of use, and perceived effectiveness for tobacco cessation among PWH in HIV care at three geographically diverse U.S. sites. PWH (n = 24) had limited understanding of VN product content or health effects, presuming VN less harmful than tobacco cigarettes (TC). VN failed to adequately replicate the psychoactive effects or desired ritual of smoking TC. Concurrent TC use, and continuous VN use throughout the day, was common. Satiety using VN was elusive, and consumption quantity was difficult to track. VN had limited desirability and durability as a TC cessation tool among the interviewed PWH.

Individual and poly-substance use and condomless sex among HIV-uninfected adults reporting heterosexual sex in a multi-site cohort.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed the association between substance use (SU) and condomless sex (CS) among HIV-negative adults reporting heterosexual sex in the Seek, Test, Treat, and Retain (STTR) consortium. We describe the impact of SU as well as person/partner and context-related factors on CS, identifying combinations of factors that indicate the highest likelihood of CS. METHODS: We analyzed data from four US-based STTR studies to examine the effect of SU on CS using two SU exposures: 1) recent SU (within 3 months) and 2) SU before/during sex. Behavioral data were collected via 1:1 or self-administered computerized interviews. Adjusted individual-study, multivariable relative risk regression was used to examine the relationship between CS and SU. We also examined interactions with type of sex and partner HIV status. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using traditional fixed-effects meta-analysis. We analyzed data for recent SU (n = 6781; 82% men, median age = 33 years) and SU before/during sex (n = 2915; 69% men, median age = 40 years). RESULTS: For both exposure classifications, any SU other than cannabis increased the likelihood of CS relative to non-SU (8-16%, p-values< 0.001). In the recent SU group, however, polysubstance use did not increase the likelihood of CS compared to single-substance use. Cannabis use did not increase the likelihood of CS, regardless of frequency of use. Type of sex was associated with CS; those reporting vaginal and anal sex had a higher likelihood of CS compared to vaginal sex only for both exposure classifications (18-21%, p < 0.001). Recent SU increased likelihood of CS among those reporting vaginal sex only (9-10%, p < 0.001); results were similar for those reporting vaginal and anal sex (5-8%, p < 0.01). SU before/during sex increased the likelihood of CS among those reporting vaginal sex only (20%; p < 0.001) and among those reporting vaginal and anal sex (7%; p = 0.002). Single- and poly-SU before/during sex increased the likelihood of CS for those with exclusively HIV-negative partners (7-8%, p ≤ 0.02), and for those reporting HIV-negative and HIV-status unknown partners (9-13%, p ≤ 0.03). CONCLUSION: Except for cannabis, any SU increased the likelihood of CS. CS was associated with having perceived HIV-negative partners and with having had both anal/vaginal sex.

Correlates of psychological intimate partner violence with HIV care outcomes on patients in HIV care.

BACKGROUND: Among people living with HIV (PLWH), physical intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with poor virologic, psychiatric, and behavioral outcomes. We examined non-physical, psychological intimate partner violence (psy-IPV) and HIV care outcomes using data from two U.S. consortia. METHODS: We conducted multivariable analyses with robust standard errors to compare patients indicating/not indicating psy-IPV. RESULTS: Among PLWH (n = 5950), 9.5% indicated psy-IPV; these individuals were younger (- 3; 95% CI [- 2,-4], p-value < 0.001), less likely to be on antiretroviral treatment (ART) (0.73 [0.55,0.97], p = 0.03), less adherent to ART (- 4.2 [- 5.9,-2.4], p < 0.001), had higher odds of detectable viral load (1.43 [1.15,1.78], p = 0.001) and depression (2.63 [2.18,3.18], p < 0.001), and greater use of methamphetamines/crystal [2.98 (2.30,3.87),p < 0.001], cocaine/crack [1.57 (1.24,1.99),p < 0.001], illicit opioids [1.56 (1.13,2.16),p = 0.007], and marijuana [1.40 (1.15,1.70), p < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Psychological IPV, even in the absence of physical or sexual IPV, appears to be associated with HIV care outcomes and should be included in IPV measures integrated into routine HIV care.

Impact and correlates of sub-optimal social support among patients in HIV care.

Social support (SS) predicts health outcomes among patients living with HIV. We administered a brief, validated measure of SS, the Multifactoral Assessment of Perceived Social Support, within a patient-reported outcomes assessment of health domains in HIV care at 4 U.S. clinics in English and Spanish (n = 708). In univariate analysis, low SS was associated with poorer engagement in care, antiretroviral adherence, and health-related quality of life; current methamphetamine/crystal use, depression, anxiety, and HIV stigma (all p < 0.001); any use of either methamphetamines/crystal, illicit opioids, or cocaine/crack (p = 0.001), current marijuana use (p = 0.012), nicotine use (p = 0.005), and concern for sexually transmitted infection exposure (p = 0.001). High SS was associated with undetectable viral load (p = 0.031). Multivariate analyses found low SS independently associated with depression (risk ratio (RR) 3.72, 95% CI 2.93-4.72), lower adherence (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.89), poor engagement in care (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.44-2.96), and having more symptoms (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.92-2.75). Medium SS was independently associated with depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 2.00-3.36), poor engagement in care (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15-2.29) and having more symptoms (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44-2.13). SS assessment may help identify patients at risk for these outcomes.

Patient acceptability and usability of a self-administered electronic patient-reported outcome assessment in HIV care: relationship with health behaviors and outcomes.

We assessed acceptability/usability of tablet-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments among patients in HIV care, and relationships with health outcomes using a modified Acceptability E-Scale (AES) within a self-administered PRO assessment. Using multivariable linear regression, we measured associations between patient characteristics and continuous combined AES score. Among 786 patients (median age=48; 91% male; 49% white; 17% Spanish-speaking) overall mean score was 26/30 points (SD: 4.4). Mean scores per dimension (max 5, 1=lowest acceptability, 5=highest): ease of use 4.7, understandability 4.7, time burden 4.3, overall satisfaction 4.3, helpfulness describing symptoms/behaviors 4.2, and enjoyability 3.8. Higher overall score was associated with race/ethnicity (+1.3 points/African-American patients (95%CI:0.3-2.3); +1.6 points/Latino patients (95%CI:0.9-2.3) compared to white patients). Patients completing PROs in Spanish scored +2.4 points on average (95%CI:1.6-3.3). Higher acceptability was associated with better quality of life (0.3 points (95%CI:0.2-0.5)) and adherence (0.4 points (95%CI:0.2-0.6)). Lower acceptability was associated with: higher depression symptoms (-0.9 points (95%CI:-1.4 to -0.4)); recent illicit opioid use (-2.0 points (95%CI:-3.9 to -0.2)); multiple recent sex partners (-0.8 points (95%CI:-1.5 to -0.1)). While patients endorsing depression symptoms, recent opioid use, condomless sex, or multiple sex partners found PROs less acceptable, overall, patients found the assessments highly acceptable and easy to use.

Development and content validation of measures assessing adherence barriers and behaviors for use in clinical care.

BACKGROUND: Providers are often unaware of poor adherence to prescribed medications for their patients with chronic diseases. OBJECTIVE: To develop brief, computer-administered patient-reported measures in English and Spanish assessing adherence behaviors and barriers. Design, Participants, and Main Measures: Item pools were constructed from existing measures of medication adherence behaviors and barriers, which informed development of a patient concept elicitation interview guide to identify medication adherence behavior and barrier-related concepts. Two hundred six patients either living with HIV (PLWH) or without were interviewed. Interviews were coded, concepts matched to item pool content, and new items were developed for novel concepts. A provider/investigator team highlighted clinically relevant items. Cognitive interviews were conducted with patients on final candidate items (n = 37). The instruments were administered to 2081 PLWH. KEY RESULTS: Behavioral themes from concept elicitation interviews included routines incorporating time of day, placement, visual cues, and intentionality to miss or skip doses. Barrier themes included health-related (e.g. depressed mood, feeling ill), attitudes/beliefs (e.g., need for medication), access (e.g., cost/insurance problems), and circumstantial barriers (e.g., lack of privacy, disruption of daily routine). The final instruments included 6 behavior items, and 1 barrier item with up to 23 response options. PLWH endorsed a mean (SD) of 3.5 (1.1) behaviors. The 201 PLWH who missed ≥2 doses in the previous week endorsed a mean (SD) of 3.1 (2.5) barriers. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the numbers of behaviors endorsed in 61 PLWH after 4-16 days was 0.54 and for the number of barriers for the 20 PLWH with ≥2 missed doses the ICC was 0.89, representing fair and excellent test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION: Measures of medication adherence behaviors and barriers were developed for use with patients living with chronic diseases focusing on clinical relevance, brevity, and content validity for use in clinical care.

Medication understanding among patients living with multiple chronic conditions: Implications for patient-reported measures of adherence.

BACKGROUND: Low health literacy is associated with poor medication adherence and poor health outcomes. Limited understanding of prescribed medications may decrease validity of patient-reported adherence measures. OBJECTIVES: To assess knowledge of names and purposes of prescribed medications among patients with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS: Individual interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of patients from six U.S. primary care clinics. Participants (n = 57) were English and/or Spanish-speaking patients prescribed 3+ medications for chronic conditions, for which non-adherence may lead to disability or death. In individual interviews, patients were asked to name their medications, explain the purpose of each, and to explain how they distinguish them from one another. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded; coded content was quantified by 1) whether or not the patient could name medications; 2) method of categorizing medications; 3) whether or not the purpose of the medication was understood. Descriptive statistics were compiled using Fisher's exact test to determine the relationship between patient knowledge and medication characteristics. RESULTS: Thirty percent of patients could not name at least one of their medications; 19% did not know their purpose; 30% held misconceptions about the purpose of one or more medications. There was no significant difference in ability to name medications or state their medication's purpose between patients using medi-sets, pre-packaged rolls, or blister packs, and patients who stored pills in their original containers (p = 0.56 and p = 0.73, respectively), or across demographic groups (p = 0.085 to 0.767). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients demonstrated difficulty identifying the name and purpose of prescribed medications; this did not differ by demographic group or medication storage type. Patients may benefit from routine review of medications with their provider in order to improve health literacy, outcomes, and patient-reported adherence measurement.

A Comparison of Adherence Timeframes Using Missed Dose Items and Their Associations with Viral Load in Routine Clinical Care: Is Longer Better?

Questions remain regarding optimal timeframes for asking about adherence in clinical care. We compared 4-, 7-, 14-, 30-, and 60-day timeframe missed dose items with viral load levels among 1099 patients on antiretroviral therapy in routine care. We conducted logistic and linear regression analyses examining associations between different timeframes and viral load using Bayesian model averaging (BMA). We conducted sensitivity analyses with subgroups at increased risk for suboptimal adherence (e.g. patients with depression, substance use). The 14-day timeframe had the largest mean difference in adherence levels among those with detectable and undetectable viral loads. BMA estimates suggested the 14-day timeframe was strongest overall and for most subgroups although findings differed somewhat for hazardous alcohol users and those with current depression. Adherence measured by all missed dose timeframes correlated with viral load. Adherence calculated from intermediate timeframes (e.g. 14-day) appeared best able to capture adherence behavior as measured by viral load.

Provider perceptions of the value of same-day, electronic patient-reported measures for use in clinical HIV care.

Strong evidence suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) aid in managing chronic conditions, reduce omissions in care, and improve patient-provider communication. However, provider acceptability of PROs and their use in clinical HIV care is not well known. We interviewed providers (n = 27) from four geographically diverse HIV and community care clinics in the US that have integrated PROs into routine HIV care, querying perceived value, challenges, and use of PRO data. Perceived benefits included the ability of PROs to identify less-observable behaviors and conditions, particularly suicidal ideation, depression, and substance use; usefulness in agenda setting prior to a visit; and reduction of social desirability bias in patient-provider communication. Challenges included initial flow integration issues and ease of interpretation of PRO feedback. Providers value same-day, electronic patient-reported measures for use in clinical HIV care with the condition that PROs are (1) tailored to be the most clinically relevant to their population; (2) well integrated into clinic flow; and (3) easy to interpret, highlighting chief patient concerns and changes over time.

Evaluation of the single-item self-rating adherence scale for use in routine clinical care of people living with HIV.

The self-rating scale item (SRSI) is a single-item self-report adherence measure that uses adjectives in a 5-point Likert scale, from "very poor" to "excellent," to describe medication adherence over the past 4 weeks. This study investigated the SRSI in 2,399 HIV-infected patients in routine care at two outpatient primary HIV clinics. Correlations between the SRSI and four commonly used adherence items ranged from 0.37 to 0.64. Correlations of adherence barriers, such as depression and substance use, were comparable across all adherence items. General estimating equations suggested the SRSI is as good as or better than other adherence items (p's <0.001 vs. <0.001-0.99) at predicting adherence-related clinical outcomes, such as HIV viral load and CD4(+) cell count. These results and the SRSI's low patient burden suggest its routine use could be helpful for assessing adherence in clinical care and should be more widespread, particularly where more complex instruments may be impractical.