Faculty Bibliography

Nuisance property ordinances are municipal laws that penalize property owners or renters for alleged criminal activity or repeated disturbances, including emergency calls. As these laws have expanded, concerns have grown that they may disproportionately impact marginalized populations, including people who use drugs, by targeting drug-related activities and exacerbating chronic housing instability. This study examines the demographic and municipal-level characteristics associated with the presence of drug-related nuisance property ordinances (DNPOs) across major U.S. municipalities. Municipal codes were systemically analyzed for DNPOs across 482 municipalities in the U.S. DNPOs were classified as ordinances that list specific activities related to drugs, drug paraphernalia, or illegal activity as a nuisance. A chi-square test was used to compare proportions of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics between municipalities with and without DNPOs. 202 of 482 municipalities had DNPOs (41.9%). 73 of 202 municipalities, 36.1% of DNPOs, authorized eviction as a legal method of abatement. DNPOs were more likely to be found in municipalities with higher proportion of Black, non-Hispanic populations, lower median household income, higher poverty rates, higher unemployment rates, higher population density, higher proportions of renters, and moderate to higher rates of overdose (p < 0.05). DNPOs are prevalent across U.S. municipalities and frequently include eviction as a permitted or required abatement strategy. Our findings show that DNPOs are more likely to be present in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. These findings underscore the need to further evaluate the health and equity consequences of nuisance property ordinances for people who use drugs.

The United States continues to grapple with the shifting substance use landscape among the emerging concurrent use of opioids and stimulants. Polysubstance use (PSU) of opioids and stimulants, whether intentionally or unintentionally, has increased substance use related morbidity and mortality. Changes at the policy level are needed to effectively curb overdose and other adverse outcomes. This article outlines 3 policy changes that are particularly relevant to opioid-stimulant PSU: (1) reforms in opioid agonist treatment policy, (2) reforms in payment for evidence-based treatment, and (3) reforms of drug paraphernalia laws. The current overdose crisis requires a multidimensional paradigm shift toward patient-centered and harm reduction focused policies that will expand access to comprehensive evidence-based treatments and services for individuals engaged in opioid and stimulant PSU.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Opioid overdose survivors are vulnerable to fatal overdose, particularly in the weeks following overdose, a period when health service use is often low. This study explores post-overdose health/medical services engagement among a diverse sample of survivors. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 recent opioid overdose survivors across seven states. We asked about service utilization and drug use history, contextual factors related to the overdose, service use immediately after and in the months following, and the impact on wellbeing. RESULTS:Over half of participants described calls to 911 (n = 13), and one-third went to the hospital (n = 8). Six key themes guided by Levesque's patient-centered access to care framework emerged. Several themes explored why participants did not seek medical services following an overdose, including 1) the belief they could manage at home, 2) a lack of trust in responders, often based on prior negative experiences, 3) concern about unintended consequences such as legal issues, and 4) the financial, social, and opportunity costs associated with calling 911 or going to the hospital. Of those who did receive emergency services, some declined transport to the hospital for similar reasons, including potential repercussions from their treatment program if they were notified. A fifth theme focused on interactions with providers in the hospital, where individuals were rarely offered medications for opioid use disorder or connected to treatment. Interactions with providers were largely negative, though participants reported more positive experiences with social workers and peer support specialists. A few had early discharges, often due to feelings of vulnerability, unmanaged withdrawal symptoms, or poor interactions with providers. Last, the sixth theme focused on substance use treatment engagement. Treatment engagement was often delayed but was facilitated by factors like a social worker following up, longer hospital stays, or the participant seeking treatment on their own. CONCLUSIONS:Most of the sample did not engage with hospital or substance use treatment services after a nonfatal overdose. Negative prior experiences and fear of negative consequences were major barriers in this sample.

OBJECTIVE:To examine the prevalence of categorical self-reported opioid misuse and compare it to a post hoc corrected indicator in the general Mexican population. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We used data from the 2025 Encuesta Nacional de Consumo de Drogas, Alcohol y Tabaco. We constructed indicators from self-reported categorical heroin/fentanyl use, prescription opioids misuse and opioid misuse and post hoc corrected versions based on the review of open-ended follow up questions by two experts. We estimated the prevalence from categorical self-report responses and compared it with the post hoc corrected indicators. RESULTS:The prevalence of self-reported prescription opioid misuse was 1 948.3 per 100 000 people, which decreased to 1 242.4 after correction. Self-reported heroin or fentanyl use was 370.7 per 100 000 people, with a corrected prevalence of 326.2. Self-reported opioid misuse had a prevalence of 2 229.6 per 100 000 people, which decreased to 1 482.3 after correction. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Misclassification was more frequent for prescription opioid misuse than for illicit opioid use. Simple categorical questions performed well for measuring illicit opioid use, but they moderately overestimated prescription and overall opioid misuse.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of a multicomponent intervention to address the burden of drug use-related infectious diseases and overdose in rural settings. DESIGN/METHODS:Single-arm hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. SETTING/METHODS:Rural area comprising the Illinois counties of the Delta Regional Authority. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:People who use opioids and/or stimulants nonmedically. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Expansion of community-based harm reduction services, capacity-building for opioid use disorder and hepatitis C treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Harm reduction service expansion intervention Reach, Effectiveness (injection equipment sharing), Adoption and Cost (per participant and budget impact analysis). RESULTS:Three hundred six people who use drugs were enrolled. Of the 207 of who were not previously engaged in harm reduction services, 121 (59%) accepted referral and were retained in services at 6 months past study enrollment (intervention reach). In regards to intervention efficacy, among these individuals, 41 (35%) completed follow-up surveys; compared with their baseline self-report, there was a significant increase in obtaining sterile equipment from the harm reduction organization (43.9% vs. 68.3%, P = 0.03) and decrease in sharing injection equipment (46.3%-19.5%, P = .02). The harm reduction organization experienced an increase of approximately 100-550 program participants and an increase in service delivery area coverage from 1258 to 5509 square miles after intervention implementation (adoption). Cost per participant served by the harm reduction organization was $1486 per year, with annual budget impact to the program of $817 295. In regards to treatment capacity building, a total of 80 providers in the study area completed training in opioid use and/or hepatitis C management. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The pragmatic evaluation of harm reduction service expansion supported by a suite of implementation strategies serves to inform the practical considerations and decision-making by community-based organizations seeking to increase services in rural areas heavily affected by substance use, overdose, and related infectious diseases.

BACKGROUND:Methadone is a highly effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Yet its impact is constrained by low rates of treatment initiation and retention, driven in part by geographic inequalities in the availability of methadone-providing opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and restrictions on the types of clinical settings where methadone can be dispensed. In response, in July 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration released a new rule allowing OTPs to dispense medications for OUD-including methadone-through mobile medication units (MMU) without the need for additional treatment waivers. METHODS:We conducted interviews with 11 participants living in a residential substance use treatment facility in NYC and receiving methadone treatment (MT) from an MMU. Interview data were coded using Dedoose software based on a combination of inductive and deductive coding strategies, and guided by a thematic approach to explore patient's treatment experiences and perceptions. RESULTS:Participants described MMU as substantially reducing the logistical burden of treatment while also allowing patients to avoid problems associated with brick-and-mortar OTPs. Some raised minor complaints (i.e., additional waiting time on medication delivery days), yet participants framed these concerns within the context of their overall preference for MMU. Participants also expressed uncertainty about how methadone treatment would continue after leaving residential care, highlighting potential challenges in transitioning from mobile services to traditional clinic settings. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings provide qualitative evidence from patients' perspectives on how mobile methadone delivery can potentially reshape the logistical demands, treatment environments, and continuity-of-care challenges associated with methadone treatment in residential settings.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:State regulations governing opioid treatment programs (OTPs) vary widely in their restrictiveness, yet how state policies relate to the availability of services offered within OTPs remains understudied. In this study, we compare the availability of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) options, psychosocial services, and housing supports across OTPs operating in states with different levels of OTP policy restrictions. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional study of 1501 opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in the United States. Exposures included 11 state-level OTP policies that impose legal or administrative barriers to opening or operating OTPs or to patients' receipt of care (e.g., pharmacy licensure requirements, zoning restrictions, government identification requirements, and administrative discharge for positive drug screenings). Data on OTP service offerings-including buprenorphine, naltrexone, all three medications for opioid use disorder, mental health services, contingency management, trauma-informed counseling, and housing services-and organizational characteristics were obtained from the 2023 Mental Health and Addiction Treatment Tracking Repository, a national longitudinal database of licensed substance use disorder treatment facilities. These data were linked to a previously developed state policy typology using latent class analysis, which categorized states as having low or high OTP restrictiveness. Regression models adjusted for state- and organizational-level characteristics and accounted for clustering within states. RESULTS:In descriptive analyses, OTPs in highly restrictive states were significantly less likely (p < 0.05) to offer all three MOUDs and behavioral health services, including mental health services, trauma-informed counseling, and contingency management, compared with OTPs in low-restrictiveness states. In adjusted Poisson regression models, facilities in highly restrictive states were significantly less likely to offer naltrexone (ARR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.54-0.97) and all three MOUDs (ARR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53-0.92). CONCLUSIONS:Given that OTPs are the only facilities in which methadone can be legally dispensed, these facilities are a critical point of access for individuals in need of evidence-based OUD treatment. However, our findings suggest that states that place additional restrictions on OTPs also offer less services within their OTPs.

The Networks and Causal Inference for Public Health Research (NCIPHER) Lab at the University of Rhode Island (URI) was established in 2018, with an initial pilot project supported by Advance Rhode Island Clinical Translational Research (RI-CTR), to develop methodological and computational approaches for evaluating interventions in real-world settings where individuals are connected in ways that impact their health. Leveraging bioinformatics and high-performance computing resources through Advance RI-CTR, we integrate empirical and simulation methods to estimate causal intervention effects (i.e., change in an outcome caused by a specific intervention) beyond treated individuals, including spillover through social and healthcare networks and clusters. Our work demonstrates that accounting for spillover improves understanding of the effectiveness of HIV and opioid use disorder (OUD) interventions. In the Transmission Reduction Intervention Project Athens, Greece, participants not exposed themselves to community alerts about HIV risk, with 50% of their immediate contacts exposed, reported three fewer unsafe injection behaviors (per 100 participants), compared to those who had 20% of their contacts exposed (95% CI: -7, 0). We also found 26 fewer reports (per 100 persons) at six months under individual treatment with medication for opioid use disorder with 60% of other individuals in the network treated, compared to no treatment with 20% of others treated (95% CI: -38, -13). Understanding effects in networks can improve translation from intervention delivery to population-level impact, supporting evidence-based policy.

BACKGROUND:Methadone is the gold standard treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). In the U.S., methadone is usually only available through licensed opioid treatment programs (OTPs), but a 2021 federal rule provided an opportunity for OTPs to provide methadone on mobile medication units (MMUs). MMUs operate under the license of an OTP and are subject to complex regulatory requirements. New York State provided grant funding to support OTPs to adopt MMUs, aligned with the broader goal to improve methadone access statewide. This study explored barriers and facilitators to MMU implementation across New York State from the perspectives of treatment staff and administrators. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews between June 2024 and June 2025 with 16 staff from four OTPs that adopted MMUs and one residential treatment program served by an MMU. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis approach to identify implementation barriers and facilitators. RESULTS:Staff described a variety of potential models for using MMUs to expand access. In New York City, MMUs were used to serve a residential substance use program. In upstate NY, MMUs were deployed to reduce travel distance in counties with few OTP options. Key facilitators of MMU implementation included leadership persistence in the face of community pushback, creativity and workarounds in the face of logistical hurdles, and support from the state agency. Key barriers included community resistance to MMUs, unclear or inconsistent guidance from the Drug Enforcement Administration, and a variety of operational challenges, such as vehicle maintenance and workforce shortages. Staff generally were positive about the opportunity to use MMUs to address access challenges. CONCLUSIONS:MMUs provide a novel approach to expand methadone access, particularly to populations not currently served by brick-and-mortar OTPs. Early implementers can provide important lessons about how to manage start-up challenges, which can guide later adopters.

Cannabis policies vary from strict prohibition to commercialised legalisation and are rapidly evolving worldwide. Here, we reviewed evidence for associations between international cannabis policy changes from 2000-25 and cannabis use, cannabis use disorder, and other psychiatric disorders. Commercialised legal markets for non-medical use in Canada and the USA were associated with increased prevalence of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder in adults and increases in cannabis potency since legalisation. There was no consistent evidence for associations between policy change and the prevalence or incidence of psychotic disorders. Commercialised legalisation was associated with an increase in hospital admissions for psychosis, and for psychotic disorders comorbid with cannabis use disorder. Poorly regulated legal access to medical cannabis, in the absence of efficacy and safety data, could increase risk of harm. Policies that limit commercialisation, such as strictly regulated legalisation of medical or non-medical supply, were not as strongly associated with cannabis use or psychiatric disorders, but long-term evaluation is needed. There was little evidence that decriminalisation of non-medical cannabis in Europe, Africa, Oceania, and Asia was associated with cannabis use or psychiatric disorders.