Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Rural residents face unique challenges that contribute to poor diet quality and health. The objective of this study was to assess diet quality using the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (aHEI) among residents of a rural New York county with poor health outcomes, and identify geographic and individual-level factors associated with lower diet quality. DESIGN/METHODS:We performed a cross-sectional study using survey data and multivariable linear regression analyses, supplemented by geographic distribution assessment of aHEI scores. SETTING/METHODS:Sullivan County, New York, a rural county with poor health outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Households in Sullivan County who responded to a dietary and sociodemographic health survey in 2021-2022. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The primary outcome was the aHEI score and its dietary subscores. Secondary measures included sociodemographic characteristics, receipt of income assistance, financial hardship, food and housing insecurity, primary food store type, distance to food store and frequency of canned or plastic-wrapped food consumption. RESULTS:The overall survey response rate was 42.5%. The mean aHEI score was 56.5 (SD: 11.9), normally distributed across respondents. Lower aHEI scores were associated with not completing high school (10.0 points lower vs college graduates, p<0.01), reporting a disability (3.5 points lower, p<0.01), experiencing food insecurity (3.0 points lower, p<0.01) and frequent consumption of canned foods (6.2 points lower compared with those who never consumed canned foods, p<0.01). Geographic analysis revealed clustering of predictors but no substantial geographic clustering of aHEI scores. CONCLUSIONS:Poor diet quality in rural areas is associated with education level, disability, food insecurity and canned food consumption. These findings highlight potentially modifiable risk factors and support the need for targeted interventions to improve diet quality and reduce health disparities in rural populations.

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruptions in substance use and harm reduction services for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) as well as opportunities to innovate. Pandemic-era innovations may offer insights on more effective approaches to the intertwined issues of homelessness and substance use beyond the pandemic. We present findings from a scoping literature review of articles describing interventions related to substance use and homelessness that emerged during the pandemic. METHODS:We conducted a scoping literature review to identify articles on pandemic-era innovations related to substance use and homelessness. We completed a comprehensive search for articles in nine academic and grey literature databases in November 2022, and a second database search in September 2023. We screened titles, abstracts, and full text using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted data on study design, location, participants, and outcomes. RESULTS:Database searches yielded 812 unique articles; 68 met inclusion criteria. Most articles discussed interventions addressing opioid use (n = 60). Commonly described interventions included telemedicine-based prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), homeless services site-based MOUD provision, managed alcohol programs, supervised consumption services, and safer supply prescribing. Articles reported few intervention-related adverse effects, though study designs (e.g., non-experimental, observational studies lacking comparison groups) presented limitations to effectiveness outcome assessment. Surmountable challenges associated with interventions included inequitable access to technology for PEH. CONCLUSIONS:Innovations in programs that provide substance use treatment and harm reduction services to PEH were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further evidence is needed to determine which COVID-19 pandemic-related innovations were most impactful and how they should be prioritized and continued post-pandemic.

BACKGROUND:Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is the gold standard intervention for chronic homelessness, but PSH tenants face high risk for overdose due to a combination of individual and environmental risk factors. Little research has examined overdose prevention in PSH. METHODS:We conducted baseline surveys with staff from 20 New York PSH buildings participating in an overdose prevention technical assistance intervention study. PSH staff from participating buildings were invited via email to complete a brief online survey about their knowledge of overdose and perspectives on implementing overdose prevention practices in PSH. RESULTS:Surveys were completed by 178 staff of 286 invitations sent (response rate 62.2%). Average score on the Brief Opioid Overdose Knowledge (BOOK) questionnaire was 8.62 (SD 2.64) out of 12 points. Staff felt very positively (91.6-97.2% agreed or completely agreed) regarding the appropriateness and acceptability of implementing overdose prevention practices in PSH, but less certain about the feasibility of implementing these practices (62.4-65.5% agreed or completely agreed). Most (77.3%) felt it was mostly or definitely true that overdose prevention was a top priority in their building. Most PSH staff (median = 85.0%) but fewer tenants (median = 22.5%) had received a naloxone kit and training in overdose response. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Staff feel positively about the acceptability and appropriateness of implementing overdose response practices in PSH, but somewhat more uncertain about the feasibility of implementing these practices. This study's results help hone targets for interventions to help PSH buildings take steps to reduce tenant overdose risk.

BACKGROUND:Emergency departments (EDs) are critical touchpoints for overdose prevention efforts. In New York City (NYC), the Health Department's Relay initiative dispatches trained peer "Wellness Advocates" (WAs) to engage with patients in EDs after an overdose and for up to 90 days subsequently. Interest in peer-delivered interventions for patients at risk for overdose has grown nationally, but few studies have explored challenges and opportunities related to implementing such interventions in EDs. METHODS:We conducted in-depth interviews with Relay WAs, ED patients, and ED providers across 4 diverse NYC EDs. Sampling was purposeful and continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide based on key domains from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were conducted by telephone or web conferencing; audio recordings were professionally transcribed. The study utilized rapid qualitative analysis using template summaries and summary matrices followed by line-by-line coding conducted independently by 3 researchers, then discussed and harmonized at group coding meetings. Coding was both inductive (using an a priori code list based on CFIR domains and study goals) and deductive (new codes allowed to emerge from transcripts). Dedoose software was used for data organization. RESULTS:We conducted 32 in-depth interviews (10 WAs, 12 patients, 10 ED providers). Four overarching themes emerged: 1) EDs are characterized by multiple competing demands (e.g., related to provider time and physical space), underscoring the utility of Relay and leading to some practical challenges for its delivery; 2) There is a strong role distinction of WAs as peers with lived experience; 3) ED providers value Relay, even though they have a limited understanding of its full scope and outcomes; 4) While the role of structural factors (e.g., homelessness and unstable housing) is recognized, responsibility is often placed on patients for controlling their own success. CONCLUSIONS:We identified four themes that shed new light on the implementation of peer-based overdose prevention programs in EDs. Our findings highlight unique ED inner and outer setting factors that may impact program implementation and effectiveness. The findings provide actionable information to inform implementation of similar programs nationally.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The overdose crisis in the U.S. disproportionately impacts people experiencing homelessness. Permanent supportive housing (PSH) - permanent, affordable housing with voluntary support services - is an effective, evidence-based intervention to address homelessness. However, overdose risk remains high even after entering PSH for individual and structural reasons. In this study, we aimed to refine a set of evidence-based overdose prevention practices (EBPs) and an associated implementation support package for PSH settings using focus groups with PSH tenants, frontline staff, and leaders. METHODS:Our community-academic team identified an initial set of overdose EBPs applicable for PSH through research, public health guidance, and a needs assessment. We adapted these practices based on feedback from focus groups with PSH leaders, staff, and tenants. Focus groups followed semi-structured interview guides developed using the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) framework constructs of inner context, outer context, and bridging factors related to overdose prevention and response. RESULTS:We conducted 16 focus groups with 40 unique participants (14 PSH tenants, 15 PSH staff, 11 PSH leaders); focus groups were held in two iterative rounds and individuals could participate in one or both rounds. Participants were diverse in gender, race, and ethnicity. Focus group participants were enthusiastic about the proposed EBPs and implementation strategies, while contributing unique insights and concrete suggestions to improve upon them. The implementation support package contains an iteratively refined PSH Overdose Prevention (POP) Toolkit with 20 EBPs surrounding overdose prevention and response, harm reduction, and support for substance use treatment and additional core implementation strategies including practice facilitation, tenant-staff champion teams, and learning collaboratives. CONCLUSIONS:This manuscript describes how robust community-academic partnerships and input from people with lived experience as tenants and staff in PSH informed adaptation of evidence-based overdose prevention approaches and implementation strategies to improve their fit for PSH settings. This effort can inform similar efforts nationally in other settings serving highly marginalized populations. We are currently conducting a randomized trial of the refined overdose prevention implementation support package in PSH.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To perform a geospatial analysis of food insecurity in a rural county known to have poor health outcomes and assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:In 2020, we mailed a comprehensive cross-sectional survey to all households in Sullivan County, a rural county with the second-worst health outcomes among all counties in New York State. Surveys of households included validated food insecurity screening questions. Questions were asked in reference to 2019, prior to the pandemic, and for 2020, in the first year of the pandemic. Respondents also responded to demographic questions. Raking adjustments were performed using age, sex, race/ethnicity, and health insurance strata to mitigate non-response bias. To identify significant hotspots of food insecurity within the county, we also performed geospatial analysis. FINDINGS/UNASSIGNED:From the 28,284 households surveyed, 20% of households responded. Of 4725 survey respondents, 26% of households reported experiencing food insecurity in 2019, and in 2020, this proportion increased to 35%. In 2020, 58% of Black and Hispanic households reported experiencing food insecurity. Food insecurity in 2020 was also present in 58% of unmarried households with children and in 64% of households insured by Medicaid. The geospatial analyses revealed that hotspots of food insecurity were primarily located in or near more urban areas of the rural county. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Our countywide health survey in a high-risk rural county identified significant increases of food insecurity in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite national statistics reporting a stable rate. Responses to future crises should include targeted interventions to bolster food security among vulnerable rural populations.

On a single night in 2023, more than 653,000 people experienced homelessness in the United States. In this overview, we highlight structural and individual risk factors that can lead to homelessness, explore evidence on the relationship between homelessness and health, discuss programmatic and policy innovations, and provide policy recommendations. Health system efforts to address homelessness and improve the health of homeless populations have included interventions such as screening for social needs and medical respite programs. Initiatives using the Housing First approach to permanent supportive housing have a strong track record of success. Health care financing innovations using Medicaid Section 1115 waivers offer promising new approaches to improving health and housing for people experiencing homelessness. To substantially reduce homelessness and its many adverse health impacts, changes are needed to increase the supply of affordable housing for households with very low incomes. Health care providers and systems should leverage their political power to advocate for policies that scale durable, evidence-based solutions to reduce homelessness, including increased funding to expand housing choice vouchers and greater investment in the creation and preservation of affordable housing.