Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:This community-led research study protocol emphasises placing black youth impacted by the legal system, their families and their communities at the forefront of substance use treatment development research and decision-making. The study, the Cultural Adaptation of a Substance Use Treatment (CAST) Project, challenges traditional top-down approaches to treatment creation, advocating for a grassroots model that centres community knowledge, values and active participation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS/METHODS:The CAST project is a US-based mixed-methods study with an exploratory design that examines the impact of racial discrimination on substance use in black youth impacted by the legal system. The study participants are black youth impacted by the legal system (N=15), parents of black youth impacted by the legal system (N=10) and community members who serve black youth (N=10) (total N=35 study participants). Study participants from each group (youth, parents and community members) will participate in three separate focus groups, respectively, to provide feedback on the culturally responsive content needed to best support black youth impacted by the legal system around substance use and mental health. The eight-step Assess, Decision, Adaptation, Production, Topical Expert, Integration, Training, Testing framework will be used as a guide to inform adaptations to the Motivational Enhancement Therapy and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (MET/CBT12) for black youth impacted by the legal system. Once the cultural adaptation process has been completed, the study will conclude with an open feasibility and accessibility trial of the culturally adapted MET/CBT12 manual. The primary outcomes of this study are the feasibility and acceptability of the culturally adapted manual, measured by treatment attendance and participant feedback. Secondary outcomes include reductions in substance use and discrimination distress, and improvements in mental health symptoms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION/BACKGROUND:This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of California, San Francisco (IRB Protocol Number: 23-40126). All study procedures will be conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined by the institutional review board. The results from this study will be shared through peer-reviewed publications, academic conferences, community forums and policy briefs to support broader implementation of culturally adapted adolescent substance use interventions that address discrimination-related stress and substance use among black individuals impacted by the legal system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/BACKGROUND:NCT06003725.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:This community-led research study protocol emphasises placing black youth impacted by the legal system, their families and their communities at the forefront of substance use treatment development research and decision-making. The study, the Cultural Adaptation of a Substance Use Treatment (CAST) Project, challenges traditional top-down approaches to treatment creation, advocating for a grassroots model that centres community knowledge, values and active participation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS/METHODS:The CAST project is a US-based mixed-methods study with an exploratory design that examines the impact of racial discrimination on substance use in black youth impacted by the legal system. The study participants are black youth impacted by the legal system (N=15), parents of black youth impacted by the legal system (N=10) and community members who serve black youth (N=10) (total N=35 study participants). Study participants from each group (youth, parents and community members) will participate in three separate focus groups, respectively, to provide feedback on the culturally responsive content needed to best support black youth impacted by the legal system around substance use and mental health. The eight-step Assess, Decision, Adaptation, Production, Topical Expert, Integration, Training, Testing framework will be used as a guide to inform adaptations to the Motivational Enhancement Therapy and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (MET/CBT12) for black youth impacted by the legal system. Once the cultural adaptation process has been completed, the study will conclude with an open feasibility and accessibility trial of the culturally adapted MET/CBT12 manual. The primary outcomes of this study are the feasibility and acceptability of the culturally adapted manual, measured by treatment attendance and participant feedback. Secondary outcomes include reductions in substance use and discrimination distress, and improvements in mental health symptoms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION/BACKGROUND:This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of California, San Francisco (IRB Protocol Number: 23-40126). All study procedures will be conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined by the institutional review board. The results from this study will be shared through peer-reviewed publications, academic conferences, community forums and policy briefs to support broader implementation of culturally adapted adolescent substance use interventions that address discrimination-related stress and substance use among black individuals impacted by the legal system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/BACKGROUND:NCT06003725.

A Position Paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry in 2020 suggested an agenda for research about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, following which an interdisciplinary Lancet Psychiatry standing commission was established in 2022 to examine the emerging evidence and refine recommendations for more research. In this first Series paper from the standing commission, we focus on changes in the delivery of clinical mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The second paper in the Series focuses on public mental health and policy perspectives, and the third will address neuropsychiatric consequences of infection by SARS-CoV-2. Evidence from high-quality longitudinal studies with pre-pandemic baseline data, controlled intervention trials, or systematic reviews took time to accrue. During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, symptoms of anxiety and depression became more prevalent, and many mental health services were compromised by pandemic-related factors; however, whether the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated pre-existing long-term trends of increasing incidence of mental health disorders, especially in children and adolescents, is unclear. Little research has been done in low-income and middle-income countries, or regarding post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID), which emerged as a multisystem condition with mental health implications. Vulnerable populations, including socioeconomically disadvantaged and minoritised groups, faced disproportionate mental health impacts and limited access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting systemic, pre-pandemic inequalities. Bold implementation of existing evidence-based mental health support for vulnerable communities, ambitious trials of novel interventions, and systematic pooling of rapidly accumulating evidence about best healh care should be priorities in future pandemics.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed essential weaknesses in mental health systems and intensified existing inequities, highlighting the need for a comprehensive assessment of policy responses and strategies for future resilience. Guided by four questions relating to system adaptations, approaches to inequities, financing strategies, and evidence gaps, we synthesised evidence from a structured literature search (2020-24), expert consultation, and lived experience. We found that public health systems embedded infodemic management, expanded digital services, and mobilised community workforces, but responses varied in equity and effectiveness. Although gender, age, socioeconomic, and racial disparities worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, social protection, gender-sensitive policies, school-based services, and culturally adapted interventions showed promise. High-income countries buffered shocks with welfare measures while low-income and middle-income countries faced sharp fiscal constraints. Few studies evaluated cost-effectiveness or equity impacts of psychosocial interventions. Building resilient, equitable mental health systems requires integrated policies spanning communication, digital and community care, gender-responsive and youth-responsive strategies, and sustainable financing, alongside investment in longitudinal and cross-national research.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Approximately 27% of adults in the US and Canada report having ever used cannabis for medical purposes. An estimated 10.5% of the US population reports using cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical compound extracted from cannabis that does not have psychoactive effects, for therapeutic purposes. OBSERVATIONS/UNASSIGNED:Conditions for which cannabinoids have approval from the US Food and Drug Administration include HIV/AIDS-related anorexia, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and certain pediatric seizure disorders. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials reported a small but significant reduction in nausea and vomiting from various causes (eg, chemotherapy, cancer) when comparing prescribed cannabinoids (eg, dronabinol, nabilone) with placebo or active comparators (eg, alizapride, chlorpromazine; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.29 [95% CI, -0.39 to -0.18]). A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials among patients with HIV/AIDS reported that cannabinoids had a moderate effect on increasing body weight compared with placebo (SMD, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.92]). Evidence-based guidelines do not recommend the use of inhaled or high-potency cannabis (≥10% or 10 mg Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol [Δ9-THC]) for medical purposes. High-potency cannabis compared with low-potency cannabis use is associated with increased risk of psychotic symptoms (12.4% vs 7.1%) and generalized anxiety disorder (19.1% vs 11.6%). A meta-analysis of observational studies reported that 29% of individuals who used cannabis for medical purposes met criteria for cannabis use disorder. Daily inhaled cannabis use compared with nondaily use was associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (2.0% vs 0.9%), myocardial infarction (1.7% vs 1.3%), and stroke (2.6% vs 1.0%). Evidence from randomized clinical trials does not support the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for most conditions for which it is promoted, such as acute pain and insomnia. Before considering cannabis or cannabinoids for medical use, clinicians should consult applicable institutional, state, and national regulations; evaluate for drug-drug interactions; and assess for contraindications (eg, pregnancy) or conditions in which risks likely outweigh benefits (eg, schizophrenia or ischemic heart disease). For patients using cannabis or cannabinoids for treatment of medical conditions, clinicians should discuss harm reduction strategies, including avoiding concurrent use with alcohol or other central nervous system depressants such as benzodiazepines, using the lowest effective dose, and avoiding use when driving or operating machinery. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:Evidence is insufficient for the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for most medical indications. Clear guidance from clinicians is essential to support safe, evidence-based decision-making. Clinicians should weigh benefits against risks when engaging patients in informed discussions about cannabis or cannabinoid use.

BACKGROUND:A collective identity is a set of shared values and value propositions that an investigator network projects as they deliver data and knowledge generated through their studies to community partners, policymakers, research participants, public health authorities, and prospective end users. The strategic process of identifying common values and establishing procedures to ensure the consistent communication of a collective identity across a diverse network of research teams is often not considered in research networks' dissemination of results. This paper describes how the HEAL Research on Interventions for Stability and Engagement (RISE) network co-created communication pillars that embody a set of common values and shared research imperatives to frame dissemination activities. METHODS:Early in the development of RISE, project teams participated in an in-person workshop to identify attributes and core values that they believed to be representative of their individual research programs. Dissemination coordinators analyzed and synthesized themes from workshop material, including presentations and posterboard illustrations, and used Mural whiteboarding software to distill these themes into core values and value propositions to collectively share across the research sites. RESULTS:The four communication pillars, which encompass our collective identity and are the foundation of our dissemination program, are (1) Doing Research with Communities, (2) Centering on the Lives and Experiences of People Who Use Drugs, (3) Emphasizing Scientific Rigor and Integrity; and (4) Focusing on Social Determinants. We present examples of how project teams are demonstrating the pillars throughout the research process and outline how the communication pillars inform the planning and dissemination of RISE-produced evidence to end users. CONCLUSIONS:Applying concepts from strategic communication and social marketing, we demonstrate how a research network of independent investigators can create a collective identity, formulate a cogent narrative communicating their contributions to a field of practice, and establish a foundation for a successful research dissemination program.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Racial discrimination is associated with health disparities among Black Americans, a group that has experienced an increase in rates of fatal drug overdose. Prior research has found that racial discrimination in the medical setting may be a barrier to addiction treatment. Nevertheless, it is unknown how experiences of racial discrimination might impact engagement with emergency medical services for accidental drug overdose. This study will psychometrically assess a new measure of hesitancy in seeking emergency medical services for accidental drug overdose and examine prior experiences of racial discrimination and group-based medical mistrust as potential corollaries of this hesitancy. METHOD/UNASSIGNED:Cross-sectional survey of 200 Black adults seeking treatment for substance-use-related medical problems (i.e. substance use disorder, overdose, infectious complications of substance use, etc.). Participants will complete a survey including sociodemographic information, the Discrimination in Medical Settings Scale, Everyday Discrimination Scale, Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale, and an original questionnaire measuring perceptions of and prior engagement with emergency services for accidental drug overdose. Analyses will include exploratory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, and non-parametric partial correlations controlling for age, gender, income, and education. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:This article describes a planned cross-sectional survey of Black patients seeking treatment for substance use related health problems. Currently, there is no validated instrument to measure hesitancy in seeking emergency medical services for accidental drug overdose or how experiences of racial discrimination might relate to such hesitancy. Results of this study may provide actionable insight into medical discrimination and the rising death toll of accidental drug overdose among Black Americans.

Methadone treatment (MT) for opioid use disorder saves lives, but the US MT system has long been dominated by punitive policies and practices that make MT inaccessible, burdensome, and traumatic for patients. After generations without changes to methadone regulations, a confluence of circumstance-including the COVID-19 pandemic and an overdose crisis that has taken over a million lives-has begun to shift the MT advocacy and political landscape. This commentary describes the building of the "Liberate Methadone" movement; a grassroots effort led by people with lived and living experience with methadone, addiction clinicians, researchers, community leaders, and people with many of these identities. The Liberate Methadone movement is dedicated to building a more accessible, equitable MT system that prioritizes patient health, promotes dignity, and is grounded in evidence. We describe the experience of planning and hosting a national conference and generating proceedings with recommendations for needed incremental and structural reforms within the US MT system. The lessons learned from this movement can motivate others across clinical, research, and policy roles to partner with and learn from patient and community-led groups, guiding needed reforms within systems of care. It is through these joint efforts and listening to those directly impacted groups who have been left out of the conversation for far too long, that we can successfully reduce overdose and suffering, toward better health, dignity, and thriving in our communities.

With the overdose crisis continuing to pose significant challenges in North America, harm reduction strategies are critical for public health systems to reduce mortality and morbidity. Despite the considerable strides in harm reduction research, high-quality evidence for decision-making is limited. This is compounded by a variation in reported outcomes, drug supply, administration changes, and policy and social impacts, which further challenge researchers and practitioners in their efforts to implement effective, nimble harm reduction interventions. Adoption of common data elements (CDEs) and common outcome measures (COMs) helps researchers standardize and enhance data collection and outcome reporting, ultimately improving the comparability and generalizability of research findings. To accelerate the pace and use of CDEs, members of the NIDA HEAL Research on Interventions for Stability and Engagement (RISE) engaged in prospective semantic harmonization and consensus on CDEs and COMs using a rigorous pragmatic Delphi community informed approach. This process resulted in a set of CDEs and COMs that standardized data collection and reporting across 10 harm reduction research projects. This paper describes this process and presents the derived CDEs and COMs, along with key considerations, challenges encountered, and lessons learned.