Inpatient adoption of medications for alcohol use disorder: A mixed-methods formative evaluation involving key stakeholders

Physician Reluctance to Intervene in Addiction: A Systematic Review

Importance

The overdose epidemic continues in the US, with 107 941 overdose deaths in 2022 and countless lives affected by the addiction crisis. Although widespread efforts to train and support physicians to implement medications and other evidence-based substance use disorder interventions have been ongoing, adoption of these evidence-based practices (EBPs) by physicians remains low.

Objective

To describe physician-reported reasons for reluctance to address substance use and addiction in their clinical practices using screening, treatment, harm reduction, or recovery support interventions.

Data Sources

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv, and SSRN Medical Research Network was conducted and returned articles published from January 1, 1960, through October 5, 2021.

Study Selection

Publications that included physicians, discussed substance use interventions, and presented data on reasons for reluctance to intervene in addiction were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers (L.N., M.C., L.F., J.P., C.S., and S.W.) independently reviewed each publication; a third reviewer resolved discordant votes (M.C. and W.C.). This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and the theoretical domains framework was used to systematically extract reluctance reasons.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was reasons for physician reluctance to address substance use disorder. The association of reasons for reluctance with practice setting and drug type was also measured. Reasons and other variables were determined according to predefined criteria.

Results

A total of 183 of 9308 returned studies reporting data collected from 66 732 physicians were included. Most studies reported survey data. Alcohol, nicotine, and opioids were the most often studied substances; screening and treatment were the most often studied interventions. The most common reluctance reasons were lack of institutional support (173 of 213 articles [81.2%]), knowledge (174 of 242 articles [71.9%]), skill (170 of 230 articles [73.9%]), and cognitive capacity (136 of 185 articles [73.5%]). Reimbursement concerns were also noted. Bivariate analysis revealed associations between these reasons and physician specialty, intervention type, and drug.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review of reasons for physician reluctance to intervene in addiction, the most common reasons were lack of institutional support, knowledge, skill, and cognitive capacity. Targeting these reasons with education and training, policy development, and program implementation may improve adoption by physicians of EBPs for substance use and addiction care. Future studies of physician-reported reasons for reluctance to adopt EBPs may be improved through use of a theoretical framework and improved adherence to and reporting of survey development best practices; development of a validated survey instrument may further improve study results.

Outcomes After Initiation of Medications for Alcohol Use Disorder at Hospital Discharge

Importance

US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) are significantly underused. Hospitalizations may provide an unmet opportunity to initiate MAUD, but few studies have examined clinical outcomes of patients who initiate these medications at hospital discharge.

Objective

To investigate the association between discharge MAUD initiation and 30-day posthospitalization outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted among patients with Medicare Part D who had alcohol-related hospitalizations in 2016. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to December 2023.

Exposures

Discharge MAUD initiation was defined as oral naltrexone, acamprosate, or disulfiram pharmacy fills within 2 days of discharge.

Main outcomes

The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality or return to hospital (emergency department visits and hospital readmissions) within 30 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included these components separately, return to hospital for alcohol-related diagnoses, and primary care or mental health follow-up within 30 days of discharge. Propensity score 3:1 matching and modified Poisson regressions were used to compare outcomes between patients who received and did not receive discharge MAUD.

Results

There were 6794 unique individuals representing 9834 alcohol-related hospitalizations (median [IQR] age, 54 [46-62] years; 3205 hospitalizations among females [32.6%]; 1754 hospitalizations among Black [17.8%], 712 hospitalizations among Hispanic [7.2%], and 7060 hospitalizations among White [71.8%] patients). Of these, 192 hospitalizations (2.0%) involved discharge MAUD initiation. After propensity matching, discharge MAUD initiation was associated with a 42% decreased incidence of the primary outcome (incident rate ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.76]; absolute risk difference, -0.18 [95% CI, -0.26 to -0.11]). These findings were consistent among secondary outcomes (eg, incident rate ratio for all-cause return to hospital, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73]) except for mortality, which was rare in both groups (incident rate ratio, 3.00 [95% CI, 0.42 to 21.22]). Discharge MAUD initiation was associated with a 51% decreased incidence of alcohol-related return to hospital (incident rate ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.71]; absolute risk difference, -0.15 [95% CI, -0.22 to -0.09]).

Conclusion and relevance

In this cohort study, discharge initiation of MAUD after alcohol-related hospitalization was associated with a large absolute reduction in return to hospital within 30 days. These findings support efforts to increase uptake of MAUD initiation at hospital discharge.

Promoting alcohol treatment engagement post-hospitalization with brief intervention, medications and CBT4CBT: protocol for a randomized clinical trial in a diverse patient population

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) commonly causes hospitalization, particularly for individuals disproportionately impacted by structural racism and other forms of marginalization. The optimal approach for engaging hospitalized patients with AUD in treatment post-hospital discharge is unknown. We describe the rationale, aims, and protocol for Project ENHANCE (ENhancing Hospital-initiated Alcohol TreatmeNt to InCrease Engagement), a clinical trial testing increasingly intensive approaches using a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation approach.

METHODS

We are randomizing English and/or Spanish-speaking individuals with untreated AUD (n = 450) from a large, urban, academic hospital in New Haven, CT to: (1) Brief Negotiation Interview (with referral and telephone booster) alone (BNI), (2) BNI plus facilitated initiation of medications for alcohol use disorder (BNI + MAUD), or (3) BNI + MAUD + initiation of computer-based training for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT4CBT, BNI + MAUD + CBT4CBT). Interventions are delivered by Health Promotion Advocates. The primary outcome is AUD treatment engagement 34 days post-hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes include AUD treatment engagement 90 days post-discharge and changes in self-reported alcohol use and phosphatidylethanol. Exploratory outcomes include health care utilization. We will explore whether the effectiveness of the interventions on AUD treatment engagement and alcohol use outcomes differ across and within racialized and ethnic groups, consistent with disproportionate impacts of AUD. Lastly, we will conduct an implementation-focused process evaluation, including individual-level collection and statistical comparisons between the three conditions of costs to providers and to patients, cost-effectiveness indices (effectiveness/cost ratios), and cost-benefit indices (benefit/cost ratios, net benefit [benefits minus costs). Graphs of individual- and group-level effectiveness x cost, and benefits x costs, will portray relationships between costs and effectiveness and between costs and benefits for the three conditions, in a manner that community representatives also should be able to understand and use.

CONCLUSIONS

Project ENHANCE is expected to generate novel findings to inform future hospital-based efforts to promote AUD treatment engagement among diverse patient populations, including those most impacted by AUD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05338151.

Perspectives on contingency management for alcohol use and alcohol-associated conditions among people in care with HIV

BACKGROUND

Contingency management (CM) is an evidence-based approach for reducing alcohol use; however, its implementation into routine HIV primary care-based settings has been limited. We evaluated perspectives on implementing CM to address unhealthy alcohol use and associated conditions for people with HIV in primary care settings.

METHODS

From May 2021 to August 2021, we conducted two focus groups with staff involved in delivering the intervention (n = 5 Social Workers and n = 4 Research Coordinators) and individual interviews (n = 13) with a subset of participants involved in the multi-site Financial Incentives, Randomization, and Stepped Treatment (FIRST) trial. Qualitative data collection and analyses were informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Service (PARIHS) implementation science framework, including evidence (perception of CM), context (HIV primary care clinic and CM procedures), and facilitation (feasibility outside the research setting).

RESULTS

Several major themes were identified. Regarding the evidence, participants lacked prior experience with CM, but the intervention was well received and, by some, perceived to lead to lasting behavior change. Regarding the clinical context for the reward schedule, the use of biochemical testing, specifically fingerstick phosphatidylethanol testing, and the reward process were perceived to be engaging and gratifying for both staff and patients. Participants indicated that the intervention was enhanced by its co-location within the HIV clinic. Regarding facilitation, participants suggested addressing the intervention's feasibility for non-research use, simplifying the reward structure, and rewarding non-abstinence in alcohol use.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients and staff involved in a clinical trial, CM was viewed as a helpful, positive, and feasible approach to addressing unhealthy alcohol use and related conditions. To enhance implementation, future efforts may consider simplified approaches to the reward structure and expanding rewards to non-abstinent reductions in alcohol consumption.

A scoping review of outer context constructs in dissemination and implementation science theories, models, and frameworks

Many studies have explored organizational factors that facilitate implementation. However, there is still a limited understanding of determinants external to the implementing organization and their effects on evidence-based intervention (EBI) adoption, implementation, and outcomes. The purpose of this scoping review was to assess definitions of context and identify salient determinants of outer context found in dissemination and implementation theories, models, and frameworks. We employed a compilation of dissemination and implementation frameworks from two reviews as the data source. We abstracted the following information: type of article, outcomes of the framework, presence of a context definition, presence of any outer setting definition and the definition, number and domains of outer setting mentioned, definitions of outer context constructs, and any quantitative measures of outer setting. We identified 19 definitions of outer context. Forty-seven (49%) frameworks reported one or more specific constructs of the outer setting. While the outer context domains described in the frameworks varied, the most common domains were policy (n = 24), community (n = 20), partnerships (n = 13), and communications (n = 12). Based on our review of the frameworks, more conceptualization and measurement development for outer context domains are needed. Few measures were found and definitions of domains varied across frameworks. Expanding outer context construct definitions would advance measure development for important factors external to the organizations related to EBI implementation.

A scoping review of implementation of health-focused interventions in vulnerable populations

Vulnerable populations face significant challenges in getting the healthcare they need. A growing body of implementation science literature has examined factors, including facilitators and barriers, relevant to accessing healthcare in these populations. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify themes relevant for improving implementation of healthcare practices and programs for vulnerable populations. This scoping review relied on the methodological framework set forth by Arksey and O’Malley, and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to evaluate and structure our findings. A framework analytic approach was used to code studies. Of the five CFIR Domains, the Inner Setting and Outer Setting were the most frequently examined in the 81 studies included. Themes that were pertinent to each domain are as follows—Inner Setting: organizational culture, leadership engagement, and integration of the intervention; Outer Setting: networks, external policies, and patients’ needs and resources; Characteristics of the Individual: knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, self-efficacy, as well as stigma (i.e., other attributes); Intervention Characteristics: complexities with staffing, cost, and adaptations; and Process: staff and patient engagement, planning, and ongoing reflection and evaluation. Key themes, including barriers and facilitators, are highlighted here as relevant to implementation of practices for vulnerable populations. These findings can inform tailoring of implementation strategies and health policies for vulnerable populations, thereby supporting more equitable healthcare.

Readiness to Provide Medications for Addiction Treatment in HIV Clinics: A Multisite Mixed-Methods Formative Evaluation

BACKGROUND

We sought to characterize readiness, barriers to, and facilitators of providing medications for addiction treatment (MAT) in HIV clinics.

SETTING

Four HIV clinics in the northeastern United States.

METHODS

Mixed-methods formative evaluation conducted June 2017-February 2019. Surveys assessed readiness [visual analog scale, less ready (0-<7) vs. more ready (≥7-10)]; evidence and context ratings for MAT provision; and preferred addiction treatment model. A subset (n = 37) participated in focus groups.

RESULTS

Among 71 survey respondents (48% prescribers), the proportion more ready to provide addiction treatment medications varied across substances [tobacco (76%), opioid (61%), and alcohol (49%) treatment medications (P values < 0.05)]. Evidence subscale scores were higher for those more ready to provide tobacco [median (interquartile range) = 4.0 (4.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0, 4.0), P = 0.008] treatment medications, but not significantly different for opioid [5.0 (4.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0 (4.0, 5.0), P = 0.11] and alcohol [4.0 (3.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0, 4.0), P = 0.42] treatment medications. Median context subscale scores ranged from 3.3 to 4.0 and generally did not vary by readiness status (P values > 0.05). Most favored integrating MAT into HIV care but preferred models differed across substances. Barriers to MAT included identification of treatment-eligible patients, variable experiences with MAT and perceived medication complexity, perceived need for robust behavioral services, and inconsistent availability of on-site specialists. Facilitators included knowledge of adverse health consequences of opioid and tobacco use, local champions, focus on quality improvement, and multidisciplinary teamwork.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to implement MAT in HIV clinics should address both gaps in perspectives regarding the evidence for MAT and contextual factors and may require substance-specific models.

Law enforcement assisted diversion: Qualitative evaluation of barriers and facilitators of program implementation

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread interest in adoption, there has been limited systematic examination of Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) implementation, a model for police-led arrest diversion for those with substance use disorders (SUD). In the fall of 2017, the City of New Haven started a LEAD program. During the first 9 months of the pilot, only 2 clients were successfully diverted from arrest. Therefore, we examined the and barriers and facilitators of LEAD implementation.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews and field observations of LEAD police officers and health care providers between August 2018 and June 2019. Interviews and field observations were analyzed using directed content analysis and guided by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework.

RESULTS

Lead professionals participated in 19 semi-structured interviews and three field observations. Barriers to arrest diversion implementation included procedural complexity of arrest diversion, concerns about reduced penalties for substance use among officers, stigma of SUDs, and a belief in a punitive role for policing. Facilitators included a positive longitudinal relationship with potential clients and an understanding of SUD as a chronic disease.

CONCLUSION

We identified several barriers to LEAD implementation. Our results suggest promotion of SUD as a chronic disease, ongoing training of officers, and positive incentives for entering substance use treatment should be utilized to facilitate implementation.