RESUMO
Since its inception 30â¯years ago, Photovoice has gained increasing popularity as a research method and more recently has been incorporated within randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs. Photovoice is a participatory action research method that pairs photography with focus group discussions to record community strengths and concerns, build critical consciousness, and reach policymakers. Adherence of Photovoice implementation to these original tenets of Photovoice varies. This article provides the Photovoice protocol developed by the authors to improve the methodological rigor of Photovoice integration into RCTs and help contextualize the landscape for the HEALing Communities Study (HCS: NCT04111939), a greater than $350 million investment by the National Institute on Drug Abuse along with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to reduce opioid overdose deaths in 67 of the hardest-hit communities in four states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio). The product of a cross-state collaboration, this HCS Photovoice protocol provides ethical and methodological tools for incorporating Photovoice into RCT designs to enhance community engagement, communication campaigns, and data-driven decision-making about evidence-based practice selection and implementation.
RESUMO
Background: Community stigma against people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and intervention stigma (e.g., toward naloxone) exacerbate the opioid overdose crisis. We examined the effects of the Communities that HEAL (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma by stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). Methods: We collected three surveys from community coalition members in 66 communities across four states participating in HCS. Communities were randomized into Intervention (Wave 1) or Wait-list Control (Wave 2) arms. We conducted multilevel linear mixed models to compare changes in primary outcomes of community stigma toward people treated for OUD, naloxone, and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) by arm from time 1 (before the start of the intervention) to time 3 (end of the intervention period in the Intervention arm). Findings: Intervention stakeholders reported a larger decrease in perceived community stigma toward people treated for OUD (adjusted mean change (AMC) -3.20 [95% C.I. -4.43, -1.98]) and toward MOUD (AMC -0.33 [95% C.I. -0.56, -0.09]) than stakeholders in Wait-list Control communities (AMC -0.18 [95% C.I. -1.38, 1.02], p = 0.0007 and AMC 0.11 [95% C.I. -0.09, 0.31], p = 0.0066). The relationship between intervention status and change in stigma toward MOUD was moderated by rural-urban status (urban AMC -0.59 [95% CI, -0.87, -0.32], rural AMC not sig.) and state. The difference in stigma toward naloxone between Intervention and Wait-list Control stakeholders was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Interpretation: The CTH intervention decreased stakeholder perceptions of community stigma toward people treated for OUD and stigma toward MOUD. Implementing the CTH intervention in other communities could decrease OUD stigma across diverse settings nationally. Funding: US National Institute on Drug Abuse.