Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To describe the screening processes for opioid use disorder by jails in localities with high concentrations of opioid involved overdose deaths. METHODS:A secondary data analysis of structured interviews on opioid use disorder practices from 185 jails in the United States was conducted. Descriptive statistics detailed jail screening characteristics, and bivariate statistics examined the association between screening characteristics and annual jail population. RESULTS:The majority of jails in high-overdose-burden localities had screening protocols in place for opioid use disorder (95.1%). The protocols varied, with most jails reporting the use of substance use (85.4%) or opioid use (77.0%) specific screeners. Yet few jails used validated screening tools (23.3%) and instead relied on agency or state-specific tools (89.0%). Significant differences by annual jail population were found related to who conducted screenings, such that the use of medical staff for screening (P<0.01) and clinical assessments (P<0.05) was more likely among larger jails. CONCLUSIONS:Screening and assessment of opioid use disorder is essential for individuals in jails, given the disproportionate burden of the disorder. Jails tended to rely on agency-created tools over the use of validated screeners, and more efforts may be needed to close the research-practice divide.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Youth overdose deaths have remained elevated in recent years as the illicit drug supply has become increasingly contaminated with fentanyl and other synthetics. There is a need to better understand fatal drug combinations and how trends have changed over time and across sociodemographic groups in this age group. METHODS:We used the National Vital Statistics System's multiple cause of death datasets to examine trends in overdose deaths involving combinations of synthetic opioids with benzodiazepine, cocaine, heroin, prescription opioids, and other stimulants among US youth aged 15 to 24 years from 2018 to 2022 across age, sex, race and ethnicity, and region. RESULTS:Overdose death counts rose from 4652 to 6723 (10.85 to 15.16 per 100 000) between 2018 and 2022, with a slight decrease between 2021 and 2022. The largest increases were deaths involving synthetic opioids only (1.8 to 4.8 deaths per 100 000). Since 2020, fatal synthetic opioid-only overdose rates were higher than polydrug overdose rates involving synthetic opioids, regardless of race, ethnicity, or sex. In 2022, rates of synthetic-only overdose deaths were 2.49-times higher among male youths compared with female youths and 2.15-times higher among those aged 20 to 24 years compared with those aged 15 to 19 years. CONCLUSIONS:Polydrug combinations involving synthetic opioids continue to contribute to fatal youth overdoses, yet deaths attributed to synthetic opioids alone are increasingly predominant. These findings highlight the changing risks of the drug supply and the need for better access to harm-reduction services to prevent deaths among youth.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess county-level and specialty-level age differences between urban and rural physicians. METHODS:We linked the 2008-2021 Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty (MD-PPAS) dataset with the 2024 Doctors and Clinicians national downloadable file. We assessed specialty-level differences in the age of rural versus urban physicians using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) with four groups: urban (RUCC 1-3), large rural (RUCC 4-5), small rural (RUCC 6-7), and isolated rural (RUCC 8-9). We analyzed the relationship between rurality and physician age using choropleth graphs, spatial clustering, and univariable regression. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Our final cohort comprised 571,886 physicians. The mean ages of physicians were higher in rural counties (large rural: 53.1 years; small rural: 53.3 years; isolated rural: 53.5 years) than urban counties (52.5 years; p value <0.001). Some specialties including medical oncology, palliative care, and thoracic surgery showed particularly large age differences with older physicians in more rural areas. There were clusters of older physicians in the South and clusters of younger physicians in the Mountain West and Midwest. Rurality was strongly associated with clusters of older physicians (odds ratio [OR]: 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-5.5), and the percentage of households with broadband internet subscription was strongly associated with clusters of younger physicians (OR: 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.0). CONCLUSIONS:Rural physicians were older than urban physicians with certain specialties and regions demonstrating large age disparities. The aging of rural physicians could worsen existing urban-rural health care disparities. Initiatives focusing on recruiting and retaining rural physicians should target specific regions and specialties to ameliorate these inequities.

BACKGROUND:Despite increasing backlash against harm reduction efforts and the need to understand the risk environments encountered by people who inject drugs (PWID), a quantitative systematic review on public injecting and associated health and drug-related outcomes is lacking. We aimed to summarize the global evidence on the prevalence and harms associated with injecting in public spaces. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Global Health, and Web of Science from inception to March 21, 2024. We pooled data from included studies using random-effects meta-analyses to quantify the associations between recent (i.e., current or within the last year) public injecting and associated outcomes. Public injecting was defined as injecting in public or semi-public spaces, including streets, parks, and abandoned buildings. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool. RESULTS:Of the 6144 initial records, 84 studies were eligible for inclusion. The pooled prevalence of recent public injecting was 48.85 % (95 % confidence intervals [CI] 43.87, 53.85). Public injecting was associated with increased odds of recent non-fatal overdose (odds ratio [OR] 2.51, 95 % CI 2.01, 3.13), HCV infection (OR 1.55, 95 % CI 1.18, 2.02), recent needle/syringe sharing (OR 2.41, 95 % CI 1.97, 2.94), recent sex work (OR 1.75, 95 % CI 1.03, 2.97), recent incarceration (OR 2.10, 95 % CI 1.78, 2.47), and recent unstable housing/homelessness (OR 4.23, 95 % CI 3.17, 5.65). Public injecting showed a statistically non-significant association with HIV infection (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.80, 2.46). Public injecting was also associated with a higher willingness to use supervised injection facilities (OR 2.66, 95 % CI 1.86, 3.80). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Public injecting is prevalent among PWID and associated with various adverse drug- and health-related outcomes, highlighting the need for increased access to safe injection spaces. Findings support developing interventions to reduce harms from public injecting, such as addressing structural risks from law enforcement, expanding naloxone programs, and establishing overdose prevention centers. Housing interventions, in particular, could serve as an effective upstream strategy to reduce public injecting and related harms.

As the opioid crisis continues, now driven by use of fentanyl, naloxone is an increasingly important intervention to reverse overdoses. More research is needed on the willingness of populations at risk for unintentional fentanyl exposure (through adulterated drugs) to accept naloxone to reverse potential overdoses. Adults (n = 991) entering randomly selected nightclubs in New York City (NYC) were surveyed at the point-of-recruitment in 2024 and were asked about their willingness to accept a free naloxone kit. We examined the prevalence of reported willingness to accept naloxone and reasons for refusal, and we examined prevalence and correlates of participants accepting naloxone. During the survey, 65.2% of participants reported being familiar with naloxone, 62.1% agreed to accept naloxone, and 49.6% were recorded as accepting a kit. Those residing in NYC, compared to visitors, had a higher prevalence of recorded acceptance (aPR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.11-1.79), as did those reporting familiarity with naloxone (aPR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.02-1.58), and those with an average higher readiness to intervene in an opioid overdose (aPR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.04-1.33). The majority who refused (56.1%) reported not being interested; 10.1% reported that they were not worried about overdoses, and 8.2% reported that they already had naloxone. Although 83.4% agreed that naloxone is used to reverse opioid overdoses, 35.4% reportedly thought that naloxone is used to reverse the effects of cocaine or any drug. While at least half of attendees were willing to accept a naloxone kit, lack of interest and lack of knowledge about naloxone were potential barriers to carrying naloxone.

There is an urgent need to ensure the opioid overdose reversal agent naloxone is available to protect youth given the increasing rates of overdose among this population. Through a public-academic partnership, overdose education and naloxone distribution training were provided to nonmedical public school staff in New York City. School staff were invited to a 90-minute in-person training. Consented participants took a pre- and post-survey to assess their overdose knowledge, confidence, and substance use stigma. A majority of respondents had never received training on how to identify an opioid overdose (70.7%) or how to administer naloxone (73.5%). Participants' overdose knowledge, including recognition of the signs of an overdose, response actions, and confidence to respond, significantly increased pre- to post-training. Participants' stigmatization of drug use significantly decreased following the training. Naloxone access and opioid overdose response training for nonmedical school staff is an acceptable and effective solution to expand overdose response. The significant reduction in participants' stigmatization of drug use suggests overdose education and naloxone training that address stigma may help prevent unnecessary mortality among youth.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The opioid crisis continues to exert a tremendous toll in North America, with existing interventions often falling short of addressing ongoing needs. Psychedelics are emerging as a possible alternative therapy for mental health and substance use disorders. This study aimed to gather insights on how people use or are considering using psychedelics to manage opioid use disorder (OUD), how these experiences are perceived to impact opioid use and what these lessons imply for future research and practice. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study using the Reddit online community platform. We extracted posts that contained key psychedelic terms from the two most subscribed-to subreddits dedicated to discussions of OUD treatment (r/OpiatesRecovery and r/Methadone) from 2018 to 2021. We thematically analyzed content from 151 relevant posts and their respective comments. RESULTS:Two prominent themes identified in discussions were perspectives on the effectiveness of psychedelics in treating OUD, and mechanisms through which psychedelics were thought to impact use and desire to use opioids. For many, psychedelics were deemed to have a strong impact on opioid use via multiple mechanisms, including alleviating physical symptoms of dependence, shifting motivations around desire to use opioids and addressing underlying mental health problems and reasons for use. Others saw the potential promise around psychedelics as exaggerated, acknowledging many people eventually return to use, or even considered psychedelics dangerous. CONCLUSIONS:There appear to be diverse perspectives on the effects of using psychedelics to treat opioid use disorder and an urgent need for controlled studies to better understand the impact of different psychedelics on opioid use, how they may be used in the context of existing treatments and what strategies they must be combined with to ensure safety and effectiveness. Integrating the experiences of people who use drugs will help guide psychedelics research toward effective person-centered interventions to enhance health and wellness.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:) is an effective, but underutilized, evidence-based treatment for people with opioid use disorder (POUD) who are incarcerated. Networks of family, friends, and clinicians serve as social influencers of health behaviors, including XR-NTX initiation, and are especially salient in Appalachia. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:Using a triangulation of perspectives, this study examined concordance between the social network themes that emerged from qualitative interviews with clinicians and POUD social network findings. METHODS/UNASSIGNED: = 52). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Three themes related to POUDs' social network barriers of XR-NTX emerged from the clinician interviews: (1) networks with limited knowledge of XR-NTX, (2) homophily in networks, and (3) limited support networks. From the perspective of the POUD, knowledge of XR-NTX was nonexistent within their networks, aligning with the clinician theme. Homophily was prevalent in some attributes (e.g., employment), but only 31.8% of POUD networks had used drugs, providing mixed support for this theme. In concordance with clinicians, POUDs received high levels of emotional support, but lacked instrumental, financial, and treatment support from networks. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The network characteristics of Appalachian POUDs recently released from prison create challenges associated with recovery, which may be addressed through network and educational interventions.

BACKGROUND:In response to the heavy burden of untreated substance use disorders (SUD) in hospital patients, many health systems are implementing addiction consult services staffed by interprofessional teams that diagnose SUD, make recommendations for SUD care in the hospital, and link patients to post-discharge treatment. In 2018, the New York City public hospital system began rolling out the Consult for Addiction Treatment and Care in Hospitals (CATCH) program in six hospitals. CATCH teams are comprised of an addiction-trained medical provider, social worker or addiction counselor, and peer counselor. METHODS:The study conducted qualitative interviews with CATCH staff at all six participating hospitals as part of a pragmatic trial studying the effectiveness and implementation of CATCH. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework guided interviews conducted from 2018 to 2021 with 26 staff at the start of implementation and with 33 staff 9-12 months post-implementation. The study team created a codebook a priori and further refined it through additional coding of initial interviews. Codes were systematically analyzed using the CFIR. RESULTS:Barriers and facilitators spanned four CFIR domains: inner setting, outer setting, process, and individual characteristics. Barriers identified were primarily related to the outer and inner settings, including patient characteristics and limited resources (e.g. medical comorbidities, homelessness), insurance, CATCH team role confusion, and infrastructure deficits (e.g., availability of physical space). Additional barriers related to process (workload burden), and characteristics of individuals (stigma and lack of comfort treating SUD among medical teams). Facilitators were mostly related to the characteristics of individuals on the CATCH team (advantages and expertise of the CATCH peer counselor, CATCH team communication and cohesiveness) and inner setting (CATCH team relationships with hospital staff, hospital leadership buy-in and support, and infrastructure). Community networks (outer setting) and CATCH training resources (process) were also facilitators of program implementation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Addiction consult services have great potential for improving care for hospital patients with SUD, but as new programs in busy hospital settings they face barriers to implementation that could impact their effectiveness. Barriers may be particularly impactful for programs operating in safety-net hospitals, given limited resources within the health system and the multiple and complex needs of their patients. Understanding the strengths of these programs as well as the barriers to their implementation is critical to utilizing addiction consult services effectively.

BACKGROUND:The purpose of the Treatment for Harnessing Resiliency, Improving emotional regulation, and empowering indiViduals for a brighter future (THRIVE) study is to adapt an evidence-based posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment for use among a polysubstance population receiving methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) at an opioid treatment program. Polysubstance use of high-risk combinations, such as illicit opioids and stimulants, is a critical public health issue. Individuals who engage in these high-risk combinations are more likely to have histories of childhood trauma, multiple traumas, PTSD, and greater PTSD severity as compared to mono-substance using individuals. Trauma, co-morbid mental health disorders such as PTSD, and polysubstance use complicate treatment outcomes. This study will use eight study phases to adapt an existing evidence-based PTSD intervention, Skills Training in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation with Narrative Therapy (STAIR-NT), via a massed treatment model (i.e., condensed treatment schedule) for patients in MMT who are engaged in sustained opioid-stimulant polysubstance use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS/METHODS:The intervention is an adapted version of the STAIR-NT protocol. The massed version created includes four 60-min sessions of skill building and two weeks of four 60-min sessions of narrative therapy. A preliminary randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 80 participants, randomized 1:1, will be conducted to assess the intervention's implementation and impact on primary short-term outcomes of polysubstance use and PTSD symptoms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION/BACKGROUND:The results of this study will inform a fully-powered effectiveness trial for individuals with PTSD and polysubstance use receiving MMT. The findings are expected to provide valuable insights into improving both PTSD and substance use outcomes, and real-world implementation insights to integrating trauma-informed care in treatment settings for vulnerable populations. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov as NCT06307340. Registration date 03/2024.