Come back when you're infected: pharmacy access to sterile syringes in an Arizona Secret Shopper Study, 2023.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacies are critical healthcare partners in community efforts to eliminate bloodborne illnesses. Pharmacy sale of sterile syringes is central to this effort. METHODS: A mixed methods "secret shopper" syringe purchase study was conducted in the fall of 2022 with 38 community pharmacies in Maricopa and Pima Counties, Arizona. Pharmacies were geomapped to within 2 miles of areas identified as having a potentially high volume of illicit drug commerce. Daytime venue sampling was used whereby separate investigators with lived/living drug use experience attempted to purchase syringes without a prescription. Investigator response when prompted for purchase rationale was "to protect myself from HIV and hepatitis C." A 24-item instrument measured sales outcome, pharmacy staff interaction (hostile/neutral/friendly), and the buyer's subjective experience. RESULTS: Only 24.6% (n = 28) of 114 purchase attempts across the 38 pharmacies resulted in syringe sale. Less than one quarter (21.1%) of pharmacies always sold, while 44.7% never sold. Independent and food store pharmacies tended not to sell syringes. There emerged distinct pharmacy staff interactions characterized by body language, customer query, normalization or othering response, response to purchase request and closure. Pharmacy discretion and pharmacy policy not to sell syringes without a prescription limited sterile syringe access. Investigators reported frequent and adverse emotional impact due to pharmacy staff negative and stigmatizing interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacies miss opportunities to advance efforts to eliminate bloodborne infections by stringent no-sale policy and discretion about syringe sale. State regulatory policy facilitating pharmacy syringe sales, limiting pharmacist discretion for syringe sales, and targeting pharmacy-staff level education may help advance the achievement of public health goals to eliminate bloodborne infections in Arizona.

Insufficient Impact: Limited Implementation of Federal Regulatory Changes to Methadone and Buprenorphine Access in Arizona During COVID-19.

Introduction: This study examined the impact of federal regulatory changes on methadone and buprenorphine treatment during COVID-19 in Arizona. Methods: A cohort study of methadone and buprenorphine providers from September 14, 2021 to April 15, 2022 measured the proportion of 6 treatment accommodations implemented at 3 time periods: before COVID-19, during Arizona's COVID-19 shutdown, and at the time of the survey completion. Accommodations included (1) telehealth, (2) telehealth buprenorphine induction, (3) increased multiday dosing, (4) license reciprocity, (5) home medications delivery, and (6) off-site dispensing. A multilevel model assessed the association of treatment setting, rurality, and treatment with accommodation implementation time. Results: Over half (62.2%) of the 74-provider sample practiced in healthcare settings not primarily focused on addiction treatment, 19% practiced in methadone clinics, and 19% practiced in treatment clinics not offering methadone. Almost half (43%) were unaware of the regulatory changes allowing treatment accommodation. Telehealth was most frequently reported, increasing from 30% before COVID-19 to 80% at the time of the survey. Multiday dosing was the only accommodation substantially retracted after COVID-19 shutdown: from 41% to 23% at the time of the survey. Providers with higher patient limits were 2.5-3.2 times as likely to implement telehealth services, 4.4 times as likely to implement buprenorphine induction through telehealth, and 15.2-20.9 times as likely to implement license reciprocity as providers with lower patient limits. Providers of methadone implemented 12% more accommodations and maintained a higher average proportion of implemented accommodations during the COVID-19 shutdown period but were more likely to reduce the proportion of implemented accommodations (a 17-percentage point gap by the time of the survey). Conclusions: Federal regulatory changes are not sufficient to produce a substantive or sustained impact on provider accommodations, especially in methadone medical treatment settings. Practice change interventions specific to treatment settings should be implemented and studied for their impact.

SI-CBPAR: Towards structural indicators of community-based participatory action research.

INTRODUCTION: Structural aspects of community-engaged research are not well measured yet have critical implications for community research empowerment. This is particularly so with people who use drugs. We introduce the Structural Indicators of Community-Based Participatory Action Research (SI-CBPAR) to measure structural indicators of community-research entity relationships. METHODS: A three-phased process of iterative development, feasibility and applicability assessment was used to examine the instrument with community-engaged studies as a first stage of instrument development. The development team included people with university, non-government organisation and lived/ing drug use experience. Four studies on the health of people who use drugs were reviewed for indicator evidence followed by iterative discussion about construct and item discrepancies. Indicators were measured for the degree to which they were observed using a three-point scale. RESULTS: All but two constructs were confirmed for meaning. Constructs of 'community' and 'coalition' required revision and explanation. The need for further exploration of power differentials between community and community-based organisations was identified. Indicator evidence was found for all six categories across studies. The instrument was deemed applicable and easy to use. It was observed that categories could apply to studies with various degrees of community engagement and to other research focal areas. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: SI-CBPAR applicability testing and initial category confirmation indicate its potential utility for community research collaboratives. The next phase of development involves cognitive interviewing with researchers from across community engaged research orientations, and with communities engaged in research beyond drug user health.

Opportunities and Challenges: Hepatitis C Testing and Treatment Access Experiences Among People in Methadone and Buprenorphine Treatment During COVID-19, Arizona, 2021.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to characterize hepatitis C virus screening and treatment access experiences among people in treatment for opioid use disorder in Arizona during COVID-19. Methods: Arizonans receiving treatment for opioid use disorder from methadone clinics and buprenorphine providers during COVID-19 were interviewed about hepatitis C virus testing, curative treatment, and knowledge about screening recommendations. Interviews were conducted with 121 people from August 4, 2021 to October 10, 2021. Qualitative data were coded using the categories of hepatitis C virus testing, knowledge of screening recommendations, diagnosis, and experiences seeking curative treatment. Data were also quantitated for bivariate testing with outcome variables of last hepatitis C virus test, diagnosis, and curative treatment process. Findings were arrayed along an adapted hepatitis C virus cascade framework to inform program and policy improvements. Results: Just over half of the sample reported ever having tested for hepatitis C virus (51.2%, n=62) and of this group, 58.1% were tested in the past 12 months. Among those who were ever tested, 54.8% reported a hepatitis C virus diagnosis and 16.1% reported either being in treatment or having been declared cured of the hepatitis C virus. Among those who were diagnosed with hepatitis C, 14.7% indicated that they unsuccessfully tried to access curative treatment and would not attempt to again. Reasons cited for not accessing or receiving curative treatment included beliefs about treatment safety, barriers created by access requirements, natural resolution of the infection, and issues with healthcare coverage and authorization. Conclusions: Structural barriers continue to prevent curative hepatitis C virus treatment access. Given that methadone and buprenorphine treatment providers serve patients who are largely undiagnosed or treated for hepatitis C virus, opportunities exist for them to screen their patients regularly and provide support for and/or navigation to hepatitis C virus curative treatment.

Nothing really changed: Arizona patient experience of methadone and buprenorphine access during COVID.

OBJECTIVE: To understand patient experience of federal regulatory changes governing methadone and buprenorphine (MOUD) access in Arizona during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This community-based participatory and action research study involved one-hour, audio-recorded field interviews conducted with 131 people who used methadone and/or buprenorphine to address opioid use disorder at some point during COVID (January 1, 2020- March 31, 2021) in Arizona. Transcribed data were analyzed using a priori codes focused on federally recommended flexibilities governing MOUD access. Data were quantitated to investigate associations with COVID risk and services access. RESULTS: Telehealth was reported by 71.0% of participants, but the majority were required to come to the clinic to attend video appointments with an offsite provider. Risk for severe COVID outcomes was reported by 40.5% of the sample. Thirty-eight percent of the sample and 39.7% of methadone patients were required to be at the clinic daily to get medication and 47.6% were at high risk for COVID severe outcomes. About half (54.2%) of methadone patients indicated that some form of multi-day take home dosing was offered at their clinic, and 45.8% were offered an extra day or two of multi-day doses; but no participants received the federally allowed 14- or 28-day methadone take-home doses for unstable and stable patients respectively. All participants expressed that daily clinic visits interrupted their work and home lives and desired more take-home dosing and home delivery options. CONCLUSIONS: MOUD patients in Arizona were not offered many of the federally allowed flexibilities for access that were designed to reduce their need to be at the clinic. To understand the impact of these recommended treatment changes in Arizona, and other states where they were not well implemented, federal and state regulators must mandate these changes and support MOUD providers to implement them.