Effects of state opioid prescribing laws on rates of fatal crashes in the USA.

BACKGROUND: State opioid prescribing cap laws, mandatory prescription drug monitoring programme query or enrolment laws and pill mill laws have been implemented across US states to curb high-risk opioid prescribing. Previous studies have measured the impact of these laws on opioid use and overdose death, but no prior work has measured the impact of these laws on fatal crashes in a multistate analysis. METHODS: To study the association between state opioid prescribing laws and fatal crashes, 13 treatment states that implemented a single law of interest in a 4-year period were identified, together with unique groups of control states for each treatment state. Augmented synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the association between each state law and the overall rate of fatal crashes, and the rate of opioid-involved fatal crashes, per 100 000 licensed drivers in the state. Fatal crash data came from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. RESULTS: Results of augmented synthetic control analyses showed small-in-magnitude, non-statistically significant changes in all fatal crash outcomes attributable to the 13 state opioid prescribing laws. While non-statistically significant, results attributable to the laws varied in either direction-from an increase of 0.14 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.60) fatal crashes per 100 000 licensed drivers attributable to Ohio's opioid prescribing cap law, to a decrease of 0.30 (95% CI, -1.17 to 0.57) fatal crashes/100 000 licensed drivers attributable to Mississippi's pill mill law. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that state-level opioid prescribing laws are insufficient to help address rising rates of fatally injured drivers who test positive for opioids. Other options will be needed to address this continuing injury problem.

Effects of U.S. State Medical Cannabis Laws on Treatment of Chronic Noncancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: State medical cannabis laws may lead patients with chronic noncancer pain to substitute cannabis in place of prescription opioid or clinical guideline-concordant nonopioid prescription pain medications or procedures. OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of state medical cannabis laws on receipt of prescription opioids, nonopioid prescription pain medications, and procedures for chronic noncancer pain. DESIGN: Using data from 12 states that implemented medical cannabis laws and 17 comparison states, augmented synthetic control analyses estimated laws' effects on receipt of chronic noncancer pain treatment, relative to predicted treatment receipt in the absence of the law. SETTING: United States, 2010 to 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 583 820 commercially insured adults with chronic noncancer pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, nonopioid prescription pain medication, or procedure for chronic noncancer pain; volume of each treatment type; and mean days' supply and mean morphine milligram equivalents per day of prescribed opioids, per patient in a given month. RESULTS: In a given month during the first 3 years of law implementation, medical cannabis laws led to an average difference of 0.05 percentage points (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21 percentage points), 0.05 percentage points (CI, -0.13 to 0.23 percentage points), and -0.17 percentage points (CI, -0.42 to 0.08 percentage points) in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, any nonopioid prescription pain medication, or any chronic pain procedure, respectively, relative to what we predict would have happened in that month had the law not been implemented. LIMITATIONS: This study used a strong nonexperimental design but relies on untestable assumptions involving parallel counterfactual trends. Statistical power is limited by the finite number of states. Results may not generalize to noncommercially insured populations. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Does a Survivorship Model of Opioid Use Disorder Improve Public Stigma or Policy Support? A General Population Randomized Experiment.

BACKGROUND: The chronic disease model of opioid use disorder (OUD) is promoted by many public health authorities, yet high levels of stigma persist along with low support for policies that would benefit people with OUD. OBJECTIVE: Determine if a survivorship model of OUD, which does not imply a chronic, relapsing disease state, compared to a chronic disease model improves public stigma and support for opioid-related policies. Explore if race or gender moderates any effect. DESIGN: Online, vignette-based randomized study. PARTICIPANTS: US adults recruited through a market research firm. INTERVENTION: Participants viewed one of 8 vignettes depicting a person with OUD in sustained remission. Vignettes varied in terms of the OUD model (survivorship, chronic disease) and vignette individual's race (Black, White) and gender (man, woman). MAIN MEASURES: (1) Public stigma measured by desire for social distance, perceptions of dangerousness, and overall feelings toward the vignette individual. (2) Support for 7 opioid-related policies. Overall feelings were measured on a feelings thermometer (0/cold-100/warm). Stigma and policy support responses were measured on Likert scales dichotomized to indicate a positive (4, 5) or negative/indifferent (1-3) response. KEY RESULTS: Of 1440 potential participants, 1172 (81%) were included in the analysis. Exposure to the survivorship model resulted in warmer feelings (mean 72, SD 23) compared to the chronic disease (mean 67, SD 23; difference 4, 95%CI 1-6). There was no effect modification from the vignette individual's race or gender. There was no significant difference between OUD models on other measures of public stigma or support for policies. CONCLUSIONS: The survivorship model of OUD improved overall feelings compared to the chronic disease model, but we did not detect an effect of this model on other domains of public stigma or support for policies. Further refinement and testing of this novel, survivorship model of OUD could improve public opinions.

Effects of Opioid Prescribing Cap Laws on Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Persons with Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Many states have adopted laws that limit the amount or duration of opioid prescriptions. These limits often focus on prescriptions for acute pain, but there may be unintended consequences for those diagnosed with chronic pain, including reduced opioid prescribing without substitution of appropriate non-opioid treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid and non-opioid treatment among those diagnosed with chronic pain. DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences approach that accounts for staggered policy adoption. Treated states included 32 states that implemented a prescribing cap law between 2017 and 2019. POPULATION: A total of 480,856 adults in the USA who were continuously enrolled in medical and pharmacy coverage from 2013 to 2019 and diagnosed with a chronic pain condition between 2013 and 2016. MAIN MEASURES: Among individuals with chronic pain in each state: proportion with at least one opioid prescription and with prescriptions of a specific duration or dose, average number of opioid prescriptions, average opioid prescription duration and dose, proportion with at least one non-opioid chronic pain prescription, average number of such prescriptions, proportion with at least one chronic pain procedure, and average number of such procedures. KEY RESULTS: State laws limiting opioid prescriptions were not associated with changes in opioid prescribing, non-opioid medication prescribing, or non-opioid chronic pain procedures among patients with chronic pain diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: These findings do not support an association between state opioid prescribing cap laws and changes in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain.

Effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on providers' opioid prescribing patterns among patients with chronic non-cancer pain.

Prior work suggests opioid prescribing cap laws are not associated with changes in opioid prescribing among patients with chronic pain. It is unknown how these effects differ by provider specialty, provider opioid prescribing volume, or patient insurer. This study assessed effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing among providers of patients with chronic non-cancer pain, by high volume prescribing, provider specialty, and patient insurer. We identified 224,290 providers of patients with low back pain, fibromyalgia, or headache from the IQVIA administrative database. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we examined impacts of opioid prescribing cap laws implemented between 2016 and 2018 on the annual proportion of a provider's patient panel who received any opioid prescription, as well as on dose and duration of opioid prescriptions. For providers overall, high volume prescribers, all specialties, and patient insurance categories, prescribing cap laws were associated with non-significant changes of <1.0, 1.5, and 3.5 percentage points in the proportion of chronic non-cancer patients receiving any opioid prescription, a prescription with 7 days' supply, or with >50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day, per year, respectively. There were two exceptions with high dose prescribing: prescribing cap laws were associated with a 1.5 percentage point increase in the proportion of high-volume prescribers' patient panel receiving an opioid prescription with ≥50 MME/day, and a 3.0 percentage point decrease in the same measure among surgeons. Among nearly all measured subgroups of providers and patient insurers, opioid prescribing cap laws were not associated with changes in opioid prescribing.

Effects of State Opioid Prescribing Laws on Use of Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Commercially Insured U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: There is concern that state laws to curb opioid prescribing may adversely affect patients with chronic noncancer pain, but the laws' effects are unclear because of challenges in disentangling multiple laws implemented around the same time. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws, pill mill laws, and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program query or enrollment laws and trends in opioid and guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment among commercially insured adults, including a subgroup with chronic noncancer pain conditions. DESIGN: Thirteen treatment states that implemented a single law of interest in a 4-year period and unique groups of control states for each treatment state were identified. Augmented synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the association between each state law and outcomes. SETTING: United States, 2008 to 2019. PATIENTS: 7 694 514 commercially insured adults aged 18 years or older, including 1 976 355 diagnosed with arthritis, low back pain, headache, fibromyalgia, and/or neuropathic pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription or guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment per month, and mean days' supply and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of prescribed opioids per day, per patient, per month. RESULTS: Laws were associated with small-in-magnitude and non-statistically significant changes in outcomes, although CIs around some estimates were wide. For adults overall and those with chronic noncancer pain, the 13 state laws were each associated with a change of less than 1 percentage point in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription and a change of less than 2 percentage points in the proportion receiving any guideline-concordant nonopioid treatment, per month. The laws were associated with a change of less than 1 in days' supply of opioid prescriptions and a change of less than 4 in average monthly MME per day per patient prescribed opioids. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to non-commercially insured populations and were imprecise for some estimates. Use of claims data precluded assessment of the clinical appropriateness of pain treatments. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify changes in opioid prescribing or nonopioid pain treatment attributable to state laws. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Perspectives of U.S. harm reduction advocates on persuasive message strategies.

BACKGROUND: The messages used to communicate about harm reduction are critical in garnering public support for adoption of harm reduction interventions. Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of harm reduction interventions at reducing overdose deaths and disease transmission, the USA has been slow to adopt harm reduction to scale. Implementation of evidence-based interventions has been hindered by a historical framing of drug use as a moral failure and related stigmatizing attitudes among the public toward people who use drugs. Understanding how professional harm reduction advocates communicate to audiences about the benefits of harm reduction is a critical step to designing persuasive messaging strategies. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with a purposively recruited sample of U.S. professional harm reduction advocates (N = 15) to examine their perspectives on which types of messages are effective in persuading U.S. audiences on the value of harm reduction. Participants were professionals working in harm reduction advocacy at national- or state-level organizations promoting and/or implementing harm reduction. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. RESULTS: Interviewees agreed that messages about the scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of harm reduction approaches are important but insufficient, on their own, to persuade audiences. Interviewees identified two overarching messaging strategies they perceived as persuasive: using messages about harm reduction that align with audience-specific values, for example centering the value of life or individual redemption; and positioning harm reduction as part of the comprehensive solution to current issues audiences are facing related to drug use and overdose in their community. Interviewees discussed tailoring messages strategies to four key audiences: policymakers; law enforcement; religious groups; and the family and friends of people who use, or have used, drugs. For example, advocates discussed framing messages to law enforcement from the perspective of public safety. CONCLUSIONS: Interviewees viewed messages as most persuasive when they align with audience values and audience-specific concerns related to drug use and overdose death. Future research should test effectiveness of tailored messaging strategies to audiences using experimental approaches.

Factors Affecting State-Level Enforcement of the Federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act: A Cross-Case Analysis of Four States.

CONTEXT: The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires coverage for mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits to be no more restrictive than for medical/surgical benefits in commercial health plans. State insurance departments oversee enforcement for certain plans. Insufficient enforcement is one potential source of continued MH/SUD treatment gaps among commercial insurance enrollees. This study explored state-level factors that may drive enforcement variation. METHODS: The authors conducted a four-state multiple-case study to explore factors influencing state insurance offices' enforcement of MHPAEA. They interviewed 21 individuals who represented state government offices, advocacy organizations, professional organizations, and a national insurer. Their analysis included a within-case content analysis and a cross-case framework analysis. FINDINGS: Common themes included insurance office relationships with other stakeholders, policy complexity, and political priority. Relationships between insurance offices and other stakeholders varied between states. MHPAEA complexity posed challenges for interpretation and application. Policy champions influenced enforcement via priorities of insurance commissioners, governors, and legislatures. Where enforcement of MHPAEA was not prioritized by any actors, there was minimal state enforcement. CONCLUSIONS: Within a state, enforcement of MHPAEA is influenced by insurance office relationships, legal interpretation, and political priorities. These unique state factors present significant challenges to uniform enforcement.

Development and Implementation of State and Federal Child Welfare Laws Related to Drug Use in Pregnancy.

Policy Points Over the past several decades, states have adopted policies intended to address prenatal drug use. Many of these policies have utilized existing child welfare mechanisms despite potential adverse effects. Recent federal policy changes were intended to facilitate care for substance-exposed infants and their families, but state uptake has been incomplete. Using legal mapping and qualitative interviews, we examine the development of state child welfare laws related to substance use in pregnancy from 1974 to 2019, with a particular focus on laws adopted between 2009 and 2019. Our findings reveal policies that may disincentivize treatment-seeking and widespread implementation challenges, suggesting a need for new treatment-oriented policies and refined state and federal guidance. CONTEXT: Amid increasing drug use among pregnant individuals, legislators have pursued policies intended to reduce substance use during pregnancy. Many states have utilized child welfare mechanisms despite evidence that these policies might disincentivize treatment-seeking. Recent federal changes were intended to facilitate care for substance-exposed infants and their families, but implementation of these changes at the state level has been slowed and complicated by existing state policies. We seek to provide a timeline of state child welfare laws related to prenatal drug use and describe stakeholder perceptions of implementation. METHODS: We catalogued child welfare laws related to prenatal drug use, including laws that defined child abuse and neglect and established child welfare reporting standards, for all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC), from 1974 to 2019. In the 19 states that changed relevant laws between 2009 and 2019, qualitative interviews were conducted with stakeholders to capture state-level perspectives on policy implementation. FINDINGS: Twenty-four states and DC have passed laws classifying prenatal drug use as child abuse or neglect. Thirty-seven states and DC mandate reporting of suspected prenatal drug use to the state. Qualitative findings suggested variation in implementation within and across states between 2009 and 2019 and revealed that implementation of changes to federal law during that decade, intended to encourage states to provide comprehensive social services and linkages to evidence-based care to drug-exposed infants and their families, has been complicated by existing policies and a lack of guidance for practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Many states have enacted laws that may disincentivize treatment-seeking among pregnant people who use drugs and lead to family separation. To craft effective state laws and support their implementation, state policymakers and practitioners could benefit from a treatment-oriented approach to prenatal substance use and additional state and federal guidance.

The influence of civic associations and exposure to ideological heterogeneity on public views on mask wearing and social distancing.

Mask wearing and social distancing have been essential public health guidelines throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, but faced resistance from skeptical subgroups in the United States, including Republicans and evangelicals. We examined the effects of participation in ideologically heterogeneous civic associations on attitudes toward public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among partisan and religious subgroups most resistant to public health guidelines. We analyzed panel survey data from a nationally representative cohort of 1222 U.S. adults collected in April, July, and November 2020, and July/August 2021. Data on the importance of social distancing and mask wearing were collected in November 2020. Evangelicals and Republicans who participated in ideologically diverse civic associations were more likely to support mask wearing compared to those participating in ideologically homogenous associations (difference in predicted policy support on a 0-1 scale: 0.084, p ≤ .05 and 0.020, p ≤ .05, respectively). Evangelicals in ideologically diverse associations were also more likely to support social distancing compared to those in ideologically homogenous associations (0.089, p ≤ .05). Participation in civic associations with ideologically heterogeneous members was associated with greater support for public health measures among skeptical subgroups. Encouraging exposure to diverse ideologies may bolster support for public health measures to mitigate COVID-19.

Public opinion on laws regulating public gun carrying.

This study sought to examine public support for gun carrying-related policies from 2019 to 2021, a period encompassing the COVID-19 pandemic and increasing calls for racial and social justice. We conducted the National Survey of Gun Policy in January 2019 and 2021. The surveys were fielded using the NORC AmeriSpeak panel. Respondents indicated support for six policies regulating civilian gun carrying. Analyses, conducted in 2021, incorporated survey weights for nationally representative estimates. There were significant declines in support from 2019 to 2021 for two policies that would expand where civilians can lawfully carry guns: allowing concealed carry when on K-12 school grounds (23% in 2021 vs 31% in 2019) and college/university campuses (27% vs 36%). Support was also significantly lower for requiring concealed carry applicants to pass a test demonstrating safe and lawful use (74% in 2021 vs 81% in 2019). For the two new policies in the 2021 survey, more than half of respondents overall supported prohibiting open carry at demonstrations/rallies (54%) and prohibiting the carry of guns into government buildings (69%). There was lower support among gun owners (39% and 57%, respectively). Since 2019, there has been a decline in support for expanding locations for civilian gun carrying. Support remains high among U.S. adults, including the two-thirds of gun owners, for requiring concealed carry applicants to demonstrate competence in safe and lawful gun use. Our findings in support of a more regulated approach to concealed carry are in direct contrast to state-level shifts eliminating concealed gun carrying regulations.

Public support for U.S. social safety net policies throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 has stretched the U.S. social safety net and prompted federal legislation designed to ameliorate the pandemic's health and economic impacts. We surveyed a nationally representative cohort of 1222 U.S. adults in April 2020 and November 2020 to evaluate changes in public opinion about 11 social safety net policies and the role of government over the course of the pandemic. A majority of U.S. adults supported six policies at both time points, including policies guaranteeing two weeks of paid sick leave; enacting universal health insurance; increasing the federal minimum wage; and increasing government spending on construction projects, business tax credits, and employment education and training. From April to November 2020, public support was stable for nine of the 11 policies but declined nearly 10 percentage points for policies guaranteeing two weeks paid sick leave (from 76% support in April 2020 to 67% support in November 2020) and extending unemployment insurance benefits (51% to 42%). Declines in support for these two policies were concentrated among those with higher incomes, more education, in better health status, the employed, and those with health insurance. The share of respondents believing in a strong role of government also declined from 33% in April to 26% in November 2020 (p > 0.05). Despite these shifts, we observed consistent majority support for several policies enacted during the pandemic, including guaranteeing paid sick leave and business tax credits, as well as employment-related policies.

Reimagining public safety: Public opinion on police reform and gun violence prevention by race and gun ownership in the United States.

Inequitable experiences of community gun violence and victimization by police use of force led to nationwide calls to "reimagine public safety" in 2020. In January 2021, we examined public support among U.S. adults for 7 policy approaches to reforming policing and investing in community gun violence prevention. Using a nationally representative sample (N = 2778), with oversampling for Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and gun owners, we assessed support overall and by racial, ethnic, and gun owner subgroups. Overall, we found majority support for funding and implementing police and mental health co-responder models (66% and 76%, respectively), diversion from incarceration for people with symptoms of mental illness (72%), stronger laws to assure police accountability (72%), and funding for community-based and hospital-based gun violence prevention programs (69% and 60%, respectively). Support for redirecting funding from the police to social services was more variable (44% overall; White: 35%, Black: 60%, Hispanic: 43%). For all survey items, support was strongest among Black Americans. Gun owners overall reported lower support for public safety reforms and investments than respondents who did not own guns, but this distinction was found to be driven by White gun owners. The views of Black gun owners were indistinguishable from Black non-owners and were similar to White non-owners on most issues. These findings suggest that broad public support exists for innovative violence reduction strategies and public safety reforms.

National support for gun policies among U.S. adults in 2019 and 2021.

Gun-related deaths and gun purchases were at record highs in 2020. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, public protests against police violence, and a tense political environment, which may influence policy preferences, we aimed to understand the current state of support for gun policies in the U.S. We fielded a national public opinion survey in January 2019 and January 2021 using an online panel to measure support for 34 gun policies among U.S. adults. We compared support over time, by gun ownership status, and by political party affiliation. Most respondents supported 33 of the 34 gun regulations studied. Support for seven restrictive policies declined from 2019 to 2021, driven by reduced support among non-gun owners. Support declined for three permissive policies: allowing legal gun carriers to bring guns onto college campuses or K-12 schools and stand your ground laws. Public support for gun-related policies decreased from 2019 to 2021, driven by decreased support among Republicans and non-gun owners.

National support for gun policies among U.S. adults in 2019 and 2021.

Gun-related deaths and gun purchases were at record highs in 2020. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, public protests against police violence, and a tense political environment, which may influence policy preferences, we aimed to understand the current state of support for gun policies in the U.S. We fielded a national public opinion survey in January 2019 and January 2021 using an online panel to measure support for 34 gun policies among U.S. adults. We compared support over time, by gun ownership status, and by political party affiliation. Most respondents supported 33 of the 34 gun regulations studied. Support for seven restrictive policies declined from 2019 to 2021, driven by reduced support among non-gun owners. Support declined for three permissive policies: allowing legal gun carriers to bring guns onto college campuses or K-12 schools and stand your ground laws. Public support for gun-related policies decreased from 2019 to 2021, driven by decreased support among Republicans and non-gun owners.

Civic engagement and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To examine the relationship between civic association participation and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly whether different forms of engagement mitigate the increased rates of psychological distress throughout 2020. METHODS: Panel survey data collected from a nationally representative cohort of 1222 U.S. adults. Data was collected in three waves in April, July, and November 2020. Psychological distress was measured using the validated Kessler-6 instrument in November 2020. RESULTS: Respondents belonging to political associations were more likely to experience psychological distress (difference in predicted level of psychological distress on a 0-1 scale: 0.098, p ≤ .05) relative to those in unknown associations. However, individuals in political associations who more frequently interacted with others had lower levels of psychological distress (-.065, p ≤ .05) compared to those in political associations with less frequent interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Civic engagement that facilitates interpersonal interactions may protect against psychological distress.

Scaling Interventions to Manage Chronic Disease: Innovative Methods at the Intersection of Health Policy Research and Implementation Science.

Policy implementation is a key component of scaling effective chronic disease prevention and management interventions. Policy can support scale-up by mandating or incentivizing intervention adoption, but enacting a policy is only the first step. Fully implementing a policy designed to facilitate implementation of health interventions often requires a range of accompanying implementation structures, like health IT systems, and implementation strategies, like training. Decision makers need to know what policies can support intervention adoption and how to implement those policies, but to date research on policy implementation is limited and innovative methodological approaches are needed. In December 2021, the Johns Hopkins ALACRITY Center for Health and Longevity in Mental Illness and the Johns Hopkins Center for Mental Health and Addiction Policy convened a forum of research experts to discuss approaches for studying policy implementation. In this report, we summarize the ideas that came out of the forum. First, we describe a motivating example focused on an Affordable Care Act Medicaid health home waiver policy used by some US states to support scale-up of an evidence-based integrated care model shown in clinical trials to improve cardiovascular care for people with serious mental illness. Second, we define key policy implementation components including structures, strategies, and outcomes. Third, we provide an overview of descriptive, predictive and associational, and causal approaches that can be used to study policy implementation. We conclude with discussion of priorities for methodological innovations in policy implementation research, with three key areas identified by forum experts: effect modification methods for making causal inferences about how policies' effects on outcomes vary based on implementation structures/strategies; causal mediation approaches for studying policy implementation mechanisms; and characterizing uncertainty in systems science models. We conclude with discussion of overarching methods considerations for studying policy implementation, including measurement of policy implementation, strategies for studying the role of context in policy implementation, and the importance of considering when establishing causality is the goal of policy implementation research.

Cancer Screening Among Adults With and Without Serious Mental Illness: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Persons with serious mental illness (SMI) die 10-20 years earlier than the general population; cancer is the second leading cause of death. Differences in cancer screening between SMI and the general population are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To describe receipt of cancer screening among individuals with versus without SMI and to explore clinicians' perceptions around cancer screening for people with SMI. METHODS: Mixed-methods study using 2010-2017 MarketScan commercial insurance administrative claims data and semi-structured clinician interviews. In the quantitative analyses, we used multivariate logistic regression analyses to calculate the likelihood of receiving cervical, breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening among people with versus without SMI, defined as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 primary care physicians and 15 psychiatrists. Interview transcripts were coded using a hybrid deductive/inductive approach. RESULTS: Relative to those without SMI, individuals with SMI were less likely to receive screening for cervical cancer [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80-0.81], breast cancer (aOR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.78-0.80), colorectal cancer (aOR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.89-0.91), and prostate cancer (aOR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.84-0.87). Clinicians identified 5 themes that may help explain the lower rates of cancer screening in persons with SMI: access to care, available support, prioritization of other issues, communication, and patient concerns. CONCLUSIONS: People with SMI were less likely to receive 4 common types of cancer screening. Improving cancer screening rates in the SMI population will likely require a multidisciplinary approach to overcome barriers to screening.

A Model for Advancing Scale-Up of Complex Interventions for Vulnerable Populations: the ALACRITY Center for Health and Longevity in Mental Illness.

Many of the most pressing health issues in the USA and worldwide require complex, multi-faceted solutions. Delivery of such solutions is often complicated by the need to reach and engage vulnerable populations facing multiple barriers to care. While the fields of quality improvement and implementation science have made valuable gains in the development and spread of individual strategies to improve evidence-based practice delivery, models for coordinated deployment of numerous strategies to simultaneously implement multiple evidence-based interventions in vulnerable populations are lacking. In this Perspective, we describe a model for this type of comprehensive research-practice translation effort: the Johns Hopkins ALACRITY Center for Health and Longevity in Mental Illness, which is focused on reducing premature mortality in the population with serious mental illness. We describe the Center's conceptual framework, which is built upon an integrated set of quality improvement and implementation science frameworks, provide an overview of the Center's organizational structure and core research-practice translation activities, and discuss our vision for how the Center may evolve over time. Lessons learned from this Center's efforts could inform models to address other critical health issues in vulnerable populations that require multi-component solutions at the policy, system, provider, and patient levels.

Change Over Time in Public Support for Social Distancing, Mask Wearing, and Contact Tracing to Combat the COVID-19 Pandemic Among US Adults, April to November 2020.

Objectives. To examine how sociodemographic, political, religious, and civic characteristics; trust in science; and fixed versus fluid worldview were associated with evolving public support for social distancing, indoor mask wearing, and contact tracing to control the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods. Surveys were conducted with a nationally representative cohort of US adults in April, July, and November 2020.Results. Support for social distancing among US adults dropped from 89% in April to 79% in July, but then remained stable in November 2020 at 78%. In July and November, more than three quarters of respondents supported mask wearing and nearly as many supported contact tracing. In regression-adjusted models, support differences for social distancing, mask wearing, and contact tracing were most pronounced by age, partisanship, and trust in science. Having a more fluid worldview independently predicted higher support for contact tracing.Conclusions. Ongoing resistance to nonpharmaceutical public health responses among key subgroups challenge transmission control.Public Health Implications. Developing persuasive communication efforts targeting young adults, political conservatives, and those distrusting science should be a critical priority.