Implementation of Overdose Prevention in Maryland: Implications for Resource Allocation, Program Scale-Up, and Evaluation.

Overdose mortality in the United States continues to climb, with Maryland being one of the hardest hit states. We summarized implementation of overdose prevention and response programs in Maryland and identified associations between opioid overdose deaths by jurisdiction in 2019 and implementation of overdose programs by 2021. Data on program implementation are from Maryland's Opioid Operational Command Center (OOCC) Program Inventory. OOCC coordinates the state's response to overdose, and their Program Inventory tracks implementation of 145 programs across 12 domains (e.g., public health, education, and judiciary), including 10 programs designed to broaden naloxone access. The level of program implementation was dichotomized as substantial implementation versus other levels (i.e., partial, planned, and none). We estimated associations between per capita opioid overdose deaths and substantial implementation of: all 145 programs in the Inventory, programs within each of 12 domains, and 10 naloxone programs. Data on program implementation and overdose mortality are summarized at the jurisdiction level. Across jurisdictions, the median proportion of programs with substantial implementation was 51% across all programs and 70% among naloxone programs. Overdose mortality was associated with subsequent substantial implementation of programs within the public health domain (p = .04), but not in the other 11 domains. We did not find evidence that per capita overdose deaths in 2019 spurred overdose program implementation by 2021, with the exception of public health programs. The OOCC Program Inventory is a novel way to track implementation across jurisdictions. Findings can inform the implementation and evaluation of overdose programs in other jurisdictions across the United States.

Area-level deprivation and adverse childhood experiences among high school students in Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Nearly one-half of Americans have been exposed to at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) before turning 18, contributing to a broad array of problems spanning physical health, mental and behavioral health, and psychosocial functioning. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, survey research study, using 2018 data from a state adolescent health surveillance system, i.e., Maryland Youth Risk Behavior Survey/Youth Tobacco Survey. The population-based sample of Maryland high school students (n = 41,091) is representative at the state and county levels. The outcome variables included five binary measures of ACEs (i.e., food insecurity, parental substance use/gambling, parental mental illness, family member in jail/prison, and caregiver verbal abuse), and number of ACEs. The main exposure variable, area-level socioeconomic disadvantage, was assessed at the county level using a continuous measure of the area deprivation index (ADI). Additional covariates included: rural county status, age, race/ethnicity, sex, and sexual or gender minority (SGM) status. We used mixed-effect multivariate logistic regression to estimate the odds of ACEs in association with socioeconomic deprivation. Models were adjusted for all covariates. RESULTS: County-level ADI was associated with 3 of the 5 ACES [i.e., food insecurity (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.07-1.13), parental substance use/gambling (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.07), and incarceration of a family member (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.19)]; and with having at least one ACE (i.e., OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.05-1.10). Odds of reporting at least one ACE were higher among girls, older adolescents (i.e., aged 16 and ≥ 17 relative to those aged ≤ 14 years), and among SGM, Black, and Latinx students (all ORs > 1.20). CONCLUSIONS: ACEs greatly increase risk for adolescent risk behaviors. We observed an increased likelihood of adversity among youth in more deprived counties and among Black, Latinx, or SGM youth, suggesting that social and structural factors play a role in determining the adversity that youth face. Therefore, efforts to address structural factors (e.g., food access, family financial support, imprisonment as a sanction for criminal behavior) could be a critical strategy for primary prevention of ACEs and promoting adolescent health.

Survey of equine veterinarians regarding primary equine back pain in the United States.

Back pain is a common complaint, clinical finding and performance limiting factor in sport horses. This study sought to gather current veterinary trends in the diagnosis, treatment and management of primary equine back pain in the United States. A 22 question survey was distributed electronically to equine practitioners through AAEP and ACVSMR listservs and through closed social media groups. The survey was open from April 20, 2022 to July 5, 2022. Responses were analyzed using Microsoft excel pivot tables. Ninety-seven survey responses were obtained and analyzed. Respondents reported the clinical signs most frequently relayed to them by the owner/rider/trainer of horses diagnosed with primary back pain were behavioral issues and poor performance. Most common diagnostic tests reported were radiography of the spinous processes, thoraco-lumbar vertebral bodies, and transcutaneous ultrasound of the thoraco-lumbar region. Most common pathologies reported were impinging dorsal spinous processes, degenerative sacro-iliac joint disease, and osteoarthritis in lumbar or thoracic articular process joints. In regards to impinging spinous process ("kissing spine") treatments, 72.2% of respondents recommended surgery only after non-surgical treatments failed, and 14.6% of respondents never recommended surgery. The majority (82%) of respondents reported some level of improvement in clinical signs of primary back pain with rehabilitation alone. To date, there has been no consensus or discussion about common abnormalities, diagnostic tests, treatments or management options for primary equine back pain in the United States. Results of this survey are a starting point showing current trends in diagnosis, treatment and management of primary equine back pain among equine practitioners in the United States showing 82% of practitioners using rehabilitation as a component of treatment.