Implementing Effective Substance Abuse Treatments in General Medical Settings: Mapping the Research Terrain

Creating a robust coordinated data and policy framework for addressing substance use issues in the United States

The ongoing opioid epidemic has been met with the inadequate use of data-informed approaches to respond to the crisis. Although data relevant to opioid and substance use do exist and have been utilized for research in the literature and practice, they have not been prepared for cross-sector coordination and for providing practical intelligence to inform policy planning directly. In this article, we share our views on how data can better serve the purposes of informing policy and planning to maximize population health and safety benefits. Based on our experience in advising state policymakers on developing settlement allocation strategies based on empirical data, we discuss several issues in the data, including coverage, specificity in drug types, time relevance, geographic units, and access, which may hinder data-informed policymaking. Following these discussions, we envision a coordinated data and policy framework as an ideal case to ensure access to meaningful and timely data and harness the full potential of the data to inform policy to combat the continuing epidemic.

Exemplar Hospital initiation trial to Enhance Treatment Engagement (EXHIT ENTRE): protocol for CTN-0098B a randomized implementation study to support hospitals in caring for patients with opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Hospitalizations involving opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce mortality and acute care utilization. Hospitalization is a reachable moment for initiating MOUD and arranging for ongoing MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. Despite existing quality metrics for MOUD initiation and engagement, few hospitals provide hospital based opioid treatment (HBOT). This protocol describes a cluster-randomized hybrid type-2 implementation study comparing low-intensity and high-intensity implementation support strategies to help community hospitals implement HBOT.

METHODS

Four state implementation hubs with expertise in initiating HBOT programs will provide implementation support to 24 community hospitals (6 hospitals/hub) interested in starting HBOT. Community hospitals will be randomized to 24-months of either a low-intensity intervention (distribution of an HBOT best-practice manual, a lecture series based on the manual, referral to publicly available resources, and on-demand technical assistance) or a high-intensity intervention (the low-intensity intervention plus funding for a hospital HBOT champion and regular practice facilitation sessions with an expert hub). The primary efficacy outcome, adapted from the National Committee on Quality Assurance, is the proportion of patients engaged in MOUD 34-days following hospital discharge. Secondary and exploratory outcomes include acute care utilization, non-fatal overdose, death, MOUD engagement at various time points, hospital length of stay, and discharges against medical advice. Primary, secondary, and exploratory outcomes will be derived from state Medicaid data. Implementation outcomes, barriers, and facilitators are assessed via longitudinal surveys, qualitative interviews, practice facilitation contact logs, and HBOT sustainability metrics. We hypothesize that the proportion of patients receiving care at hospitals randomized to the high-intensity arm will have greater MOUD engagement following hospital discharge.

DISCUSSION

Initiation of MOUD during hospitalization improves MOUD engagement post hospitalization. Few studies, however, have tested different implementation strategies on HBOT uptake, outcome, and sustainability and only one to date has tested implementation of a specific type of HBOT (addiction consultation services). This cluster-randomized study comparing different intensities of HBOT implementation support will inform hospitals and policymakers in identifying effective strategies for promoting HBOT dissemination and adoption in community hospitals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04921787.

Perspectives of researchers with lived experience in implementation science research: Opportunities to close the research-to-practice gap in substance use systems of care

Background

The field of implementation science acknowledges the importance of diversity within research teams including members from diverse disciplines and with lived expertise in practical implementation (e.g., administrators, front-line workers, patients/clients). Gaps remain in the successful implementation of proven substance use treatment interventions.

Methods

This paper will outline the rationale for the purposeful inclusion of researchers with lived experience (RLE) related to substance use disorder (SUD) within implementation science research studies focused on improving SUD services.

Results

We posit that researchers with such experience can help address research-to-practice gaps by (1) building strong community partnerships, (2) engaging in conversations around effective interventions through knowledge translation, (3) providing community-congruent approaches to evaluation, and (4) aiding in dissemination and sustainability efforts.

Conclusions

We end by offering recommendations for researchers without lived experience as they intentionally collaborate with RLE.

From there to here: A journey through substance use disorder, prison, and recovery

This narrative describes my experience with substance use disorder. It includes a trip through the criminal legal system, recovery, higher education, and a career in research. I convey key points from a history of using substances and committing crimes and how these created barriers to collegiate and professional aspirations, despite long-term recovery. The substance use services research field has come to value lived experience such as mine, lowering barriers for people with substance use and criminal histories. I hope that my work, built upon this experience, not only helps improve services, but also clears the way for more people in recovery to pursue a career in research.

A Review of Digital Interventions to Decrease Cannabis Use Among Patients With Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders

OBJECTIVE

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is associated with an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders and symptoms, contributing to poor health outcomes and increased medical costs. Unfortunately, interventions that simultaneously address cannabis use and co-occurring psychiatric disorders are limited in availability. Targeted digital interventions to reduce cannabis use could be beneficial for patients with psychiatric disorders. Digital interventions could be easily disseminated and used in numerous clinical locations, including outpatient, inpatient, residential, and community psychiatric treatment settings.

METHODS

Literature on digital cannabis reduction interventions for persons with psychiatric disorders was examined between April 2021 and June 2021. Articles were obtained from PubMed and PsycINFO databases. English language randomized controlled trials (RCT), feasibility and acceptability studies, pilot studies, and published protocols were included.

RESULTS

There is significant evidence that digital interventions can effectively reduce cannabis use in general, non-clinical populations. However, there is less literature examining interventions for persons living with co-occurring psychiatric illness-most of which is tailored to patients living with chronic psychosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is great need for accessible and tailored digital interventions for co-occurring CUD and psychiatric disorders.

Expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder through locally-initiated implementation

BACKGROUND

Despite demonstrated efficacy, medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) remain inaccessible to many patients, with barriers identified at the individual, clinic and system level. A wide array of implementation strategies have guided efforts to expand access to MOUD, with most centered around externally-facilitated approaches to practice change. While effective, such approaches may be inaccessible to those clinics and systems that lack the resources necessary to partner with an external team, suggesting a need to identify and describe change-processes that are internally developed and promoted.

METHODS

Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we utilized qualitative interviews and ethnographic observation to investigate the planning, design and implementation of a locally-initiated process to expand access to MOUD within one health care system. All study documents were coded by a primary coder and secondary reviewer using a codebook designed for use with the CFIR. To analyze data, we reviewed text tagged by key codes, compared these textual excerpts both across and within documents, and organized findings into themes. Processes identified were mapped to established implementation science constructs and strategies.

RESULTS

Interviews with clinicians and administrators (n = 9) and ethnographic observation of planning meetings (n = 3) revealed how a self-appointed local team developed, established broad support for, and successfully implemented a Primary Care-based Buprenorphine Clinic and E-Consult Service to expand access to MOUD to patients across the health care system. First, national and local policy changes-including altered clinical practice guidelines, performance pay incentives regarding opioid prescribing, and a directive from VA Central Office increased individual staff and administrators' perception of the need for change and willingness to invest time and resources. Then, a self-appointed interdisciplinary team utilized cross-clinic meetings and information gathering to identify appropriate, and widely supported, models of care delivery and care consultation. Finally, the team increased staff investment in these change efforts by bringing them into the planning process and encouraging collaborative problem solving.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals how a local team developed and built widespread support for new processes of care that were tailored to local needs and well-positioned for sustainability over time.

Validation and threshold identification of a prescription drug monitoring program clinical opioid risk metric with the WHO alcohol, smoking, and substance involvement screening test

BACKGROUND

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are critical for pharmacists to identify risky opioid medication use. We performed an independent evaluation of the PDMP-based Narcotic Score (NS) metric.

METHODS

This study was a one-time, cross-sectional health assessment within 19 pharmacies from a national chain among adults picking-up opioid medications. The NS metric is a 3-digit composite indicator. The WHO Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) was the gold-standard to which the NS metric was compared. Machine learning determined optimal risk thresholds; Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and Spearman (P) and Kappa (K) coefficients analyzed concurrent validity. Regression analyses evaluated participant characteristics associated with misclassification.

RESULTS

The NS metric showed fair concurrent validity (area under the curve≥0.70; K=0.35; P = 0.37, p < 0.001). The ASSIST and NS metric categorized 37% of participants as low-risk (i.e., not needing screening/intervention) and 32.3% as moderate/high-risk (i.e., needing screening/intervention). Further, 17.2% were categorized as low ASSIST risk but moderate/high NS metric risk, termed false positives. These reported disability (OR=3.12), poor general health (OR=0.66), and/or greater pain severity/interference (OR=1.12/1.09; all p < 0.05; i.e., needing unmanaged-pain screening/intervention). A total of 13.4% were categorized as moderate/high ASSIST risk but low NS metric risk, termed false negatives. These reported greater overdose history (OR=1.24) and/or substance use (OR=1.81-12.66; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The NS metric could serve as a useful initial universal prescription opioid-risk screener given its: 1) low-burden (i.e., no direct assessment); 2) high accuracy (86.5%) of actionable data identifying low-risk patients and those needing opioid use/unmanaged pain screening/intervention; and 3) broad availability.

Brief alcohol interventions in U.S. medical settings: A systematic review of the implementation literature

This systematic review provides a synthesis of the literature on brief alcohol intervention (BAI) implementation in medical settings. We utilized the Proctor et al. (2011) taxonomy of eight implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability) to organize and describe the qualitative and quantitative literature regarding BAI implementation. An electronic search of the PubMed database identified 25 articles that met inclusion criteria. The study team independently assessed all articles for methodological quality, with the majority of studies rated as weak to moderate. Descriptive and narrative review of the included articles identified penetration and acceptability as the two most commonly reported implementation outcomes. Studies rarely reported other outcomes (e.g., fidelity, cost, sustainability, adoption). On average, studies utilized approximately six implementation strategies to facilitate implementation, with education (96%), quality management (64%), and planning (56%) strategies the most frequently reported. Promising evidence exists that patients and providers are accepting of BAI implementation efforts and implementation efforts are helpful in expanding the reach of BAIs. A theory-informed approach to selecting implementation strategies may enhance implementation success in future work. When reporting on implementation, all studies should provide detailed BAI descriptions and strategies to enhance replication efforts. We suggest study designs that balance practical outcomes with methodological rigor to maximize the quality of future studies and better inform implementation efforts.

A systematic review of evidence-based practice implementation in drug and alcohol settings: applying the consolidated framework for implementation research framework

Background

There is a paucity of translational research programmes to improve implementation of evidence-based care in drug and alcohol settings. This systematic review aimed to provide a synthesis and evaluation of the effectiveness of implementation programmes of treatment for patients with drug and alcohol problems using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Methods

A comprehensive systematic review was conducted using five online databases (from inception onwards). Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies evaluating strategies used to implement evidence-based psychosocial treatments for alcohol and substance use disorders. Extracted data were qualitatively synthesised for common themes according to the CFIR. Primary outcomes included the implementation, service system or clinical practice. Risk of bias of individual studies was appraised using appropriate tools. A protocol was registered with (PROSPERO) (CRD42019123812) and published previously (Louie et al. Systematic 9:2020).

Results

Of the 2965 references identified, twenty studies were included in this review. Implementation research has employed a wide range of strategies to train clinicians in a few key evidence-based approaches to treatment. Implementation strategies were informed by a range of theories, with only two studies using an implementation framework (Baer et al. J Substance Abuse Treatment 37:191-202, 2009) used Context-Tailored Training and Helseth et al. J Substance Abuse Treatment 95:26-34, 2018) used the CFIR). Thirty of the 36 subdomains of the CFIR were evaluated by included studies, but the majority were concerned with the Characteristics of Individuals domain (75%), with less than half measuring Intervention Characteristics (45%) and Inner Setting constructs (25%), and only one study measuring the Outer Setting and Process domains. The most common primary outcome was the effectiveness of implementation strategies on treatment fidelity. Although several studies found clinician characteristics influenced the implementation outcome (40%) and many obtained clinical outcomes (40%), only five studies measured service system outcomes and only four studies evaluated the implementation.

Conclusions

While research has begun to accumulate in domains such as Characteristics of Individuals and Intervention Characteristics (e.g. education, beliefs and attitudes and organisational openness to new techniques), this review has identified significant gaps in the remaining CFIR domains including organisational factors, external forces and factors related to the process of the implementation itself. Findings of the review highlight important areas for future research and the utility of applying comprehensive implementation frameworks.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01090-7.

Comorbid Substance Use Disorder Profiles and Receipt of Substance Use Disorder Treatment Services: A National Study

OBJECTIVE

Those with comorbid substance use disorders (SUDs) are a particularly vulnerable group. Information regarding the nature of these comorbidities and how they relate to receipt of substance use treatment could reduce the treatment gap that exists among those with comorbid SUDs.

METHOD

Public-use data from the 2015-2017 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health was used to analyze past-year SUD comorbidity combinations among 12 substances and the relationship between these combinations with past-year treatment in adults (N = 128,740).

RESULTS

In all, 7.9% of adults had at least one SUD in the past year (6.7% had one SUD, 0.9% had two SUDs, and 0.3% had three or more). Conditioning on specific SUDs, the prevalence of having additional SUDs ranged from 14.9% (alcohol) to 85.1% (hallucinogens). The four most common SUD combinations all included alcohol use disorder. Alcohol and marijuana use disorder was the most common comorbidity combination and had the lowest receipt of treatment. Compared to those with one SUD, adjusted odds of receiving treatment were almost two times greater for those with two SUDs, and more than four times greater for those with three or more SUDs. Treatment prevalence was lower for those who had higher family income and education, were not employed full time, were married, were younger than age 26 years or older than age 50 years, and were Asian.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though the treatment gap is reduced among those with multiple SUDs, it remains large. The most common and undertreated comorbid SUD combinations, in conjunction with the most underserved groups, could be targeted to facilitate treatment uptake.

Early implementation of screening for substance use in rural primary care: A rapid analytic qualitative study

Background: Few primary care patients are screened for substance use. As part of a phased feasibility study examining the implementation of electronic health record-integrated screening with the Tobacco, Alcohol, and Prescription Medication Screening (TAPS) Tool and clinical decision support (CDS) in rural primary care clinics, focus groups were conducted to identify early indicators of success and challenges to screening implementation. Method: Focus groups (n = 6) were conducted with medical assistants (MAs: n = 3: 19 participants) and primary care providers (PCPs: n = 3: 13 participants) approximately one month following screening implementation in three Federally Qualified Health Centers in Maine. Rapid analysis and matrix analysis using Proctor's Taxonomy of Implementation Outcomes were used to explore implementation outcomes. Results: There was consensus that screening is being used, but use of the CDS was lower, in part due to limited positive screens. Fidelity was high among MAs, though discomfort with the CDS surfaced among PCPs, impacting adoption and fidelity. The TAPS Tool's content, credibility and ease of workflow integration were favorably assessed. Challenges include screening solely at annual visits and self-administered screening for certain patients. Conclusions: Results reveal indicators of implementation success and strategies to address challenges to screening for substance use in primary care.

Prevalence of documented alcohol and opioid use disorder diagnoses and treatments in a regional primary care practice-based research network

BACKGROUND

Most people with alcohol or opioid use disorders (AUD or OUD) are not diagnosed or treated for these conditions in primary care. This study takes a critical step toward quantifying service gaps and directing improvement efforts for AUD and OUD by using electronic health record (EHR) data from diverse primary care organizations to quantify the extent to which AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care practices.

METHODS

We extracted and integrated diagnosis, medication, and behavioral health visit data from the EHRs of 21 primary care clinics within four independent healthcare organizations representing community health centers and rural hospital-associated clinics in the Pacific Northwest United States. Rates of documented AUD and OUD diagnoses, pharmacological treatments, and behavioral health visits were evaluated over a two-year period (2015-2016).

RESULTS

Out of 47,502 adult primary care patients, 1476 (3.1%) had documented AUD; of these, 115 (7.8%) had orders for AUD medications and 271 (18.4%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Only 402 (0.8%) patients had documented OUD, and of these, 107 (26.6%) received OUD medications and 119 (29.6%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Rates of AUD diagnosis and AUD and OUD medications were higher in clinics that had co-located non-physician behavioral health specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated within a sample of independent primary care organizations serving mostly rural patients. Primary care organizations likely need service models, technologies, and workforces, including non-physician behavioral health specialists, to improve capacities to diagnose and treat AUD and OUD.

Implementation of evidence-based practice for alcohol and substance use disorders: protocol for systematic review

BACKGROUND

Whilst effective treatments exist for substance use and alcohol use disorders, they are not commonly practised. Studies have shown that only a small percentage of services provide evidence-based treatments such as addiction medications or psychosocial therapies. Although there is a growing body of literature on evidence-based treatment, no synthesis of research on the implementation of evidence-based addiction treatment exists. This proposed systematic review will synthesise and evaluate the effectiveness of implementation programmes in the treatment of patients with drug and alcohol problems using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework.

METHODS

We will search (from inception onwards) PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL. Eligible studies will be clinical trials (e.g. randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials) and observational studies (e.g. before-and-after studies, interrupted time series) evaluating strategies used to implement evidence-based psychosocial treatments for alcohol and substance use disorders. The primary outcomes will be related to the implementation, service system, or clinical practice (e.g. acceptability, implementation costs, feasibility). Two researchers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. Risk of bias of individual studies will be appraised using appropriate tools. A narrative synthesis will be provided.

DISCUSSION

This project aims to provide evidence to help guide the design of translational research programmes to improve implementation of evidence-based care in drug and alcohol settings. Findings from the study will specify effective strategies for domains of influence including (1) intervention characteristics (e.g. evidence strength and quality, adaptability), (2) outer setting (e.g. patient needs and resources, external policies and incentives), (3) inner setting (e.g. implementation climate, readiness for implementation), (4) individuals involved (e.g. self-efficacy, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention) and (5) the implementation process (e.g. engaging members of the organisation, executing the innovation). Identified gaps in knowledge will guide further study.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019123812.

Substance use screening and brief intervention: Evaluation of patient and implementation differences between primary care and emergency department settings

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

There are well-documented barriers that have limited widespread, sustained adoption of screening and brief intervention for risky substance use in health care settings. In order to better inform implementation efforts, this study evaluates whether patient characteristics, screening results, and implementation success indicators differed between two clinical setting types: primary care and emergency.

METHODS

Patients presenting to an emergency or primary care setting were screened for risky substance use (n = 41 567). Patients with a positive screen were further assessed for psychosocial, health, and substance use problems (n = 1604). Differences in patient characteristics between primary care and emergency settings were examined using chi-square and t tests. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine whether setting type predicted screening results. Site-level indicators of implementation success were calculated (percentage prescreens completed, percentage full screens completed, and percentage refused services) for all patient visits (n = 78 656).

RESULTS

As compared with primary care patients, emergency patients had more severe substance use patterns and screening scores, were more likely to use a variety of illicit drugs, and reported more psychosocial issues. In logistic regression models, setting type did not predict whether patients screened positive; however, it did predict screening into a higher vs lower risk category such that emergency patients were more likely to be in a higher risk category. Emergency settings had lower indicators of implementation success (eg, 14% lower prescreen completion rate) as compared with primary care settings on some implementation measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation found important differences in patient characteristics and screening and implementation results between primary care and emergency settings. Health care organizations and administrators implementing screening and brief intervention should attend to setting differences that could affect implementation and clinical care.

Study protocol for the targeting effective analgesia in clinics for HIV (TEACH) study - a cluster randomized controlled trial and parallel cohort to increase guideline concordant care for long-term opioid therapy among people living with HIV

Background: People living with HIV (PLWH) frequently experience chronic pain and receive long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Adherence to opioid prescribing guidelines among their providers is suboptimal. Objective: This paper describes the protocol of a cluster randomized trial, targeting effective analgesia in clinics for HIV (TEACH), which tested a collaborative care intervention to increase guideline-concordant care for LTOT among PLWH. Methods: HIV physicians and advanced practice providers (n = 41) were recruited from September 2015 to December 2016 from two HIV clinics in Boston and Atlanta. Patients receiving LTOT from participating providers were enrolled through a waiver of informed consent (n = 187). After baseline assessment, providers were randomized to the control group or the year-long TEACH intervention involving: (1) a nurse care manager and electronic registry to assist with patient management; (2) opioid education and academic detailing; and (3) facilitated access to addiction specialists. Randomization was stratified by site and LTOT patient volume. Primary outcomes (≥2 urine drug tests, early refills, provider satisfaction) were collected at 12 months. In parallel, PLWH receiving LTOT (n = 170) were recruited into a longitudinal cohort at both clinics and underwent baseline and 12-month assessments. Secondary outcomes were obtained through patient self-report among participants enrolled in both the cohort and the RCT (n = 117). Conclusions: TEACH will report the effects of an intervention on opioid prescribing for chronic pain on both provider and patient-level outcomes. The results may inform delivery of care for PLWH on LTOT for chronic pain at a time when opioid practices are being questioned in the US.

Evolving Models of Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mental and physical disorders commonly co-occur leading to higher morbidity and mortality in people with mental and substance use disorders (collectively called behavioral health disorders). Models to integrate primary and behavioral health care for this population have not yet been implemented widely across health systems, leading to efforts to adapt models for specific subpopulations and mechanisms to facilitate more widespread adoption.

RECENT FINDINGS

Using examples from the UK and USA, we describe recent advances to integrate behavioral and primary care for new target populations including people with serious mental illness, people at the extremes of life, and for people with substance use disorders. We summarize mechanisms to incentivize integration efforts and to stimulate new integration between health and social services in primary care. We then present an outline of recent enablers for integration, concentrating on changes to funding mechanisms, developments in quality outcome measurements to promote collaborative working, and pragmatic guidance aimed at primary care providers wishing to enhance provision of behavioral care. Integrating care between primary care and behavioral health services is a complex process. Established models of integrated care are now being tailored to target specific patient populations and policy initiatives developed to encourage adoption in particular settings. Wholly novel approaches to integrate care are significantly less common. Future efforts to integrate care should allow for flexibility and innovation around implementation, payment models that support delivery of high value care, and the development of outcome measures that incentivize collaborative working practices.

Prevalence, patterns, and correlates of multiple substance use disorders among adult primary care patients

BACKGROUND

Addressing multiple substance use disorders (SUDs) in primary care-based screening and intervention may improve SUD treatment access, engagement, and outcomes. To inform such efforts, research is needed on the prevalence and patterns of multiple SUDs among primary care patients.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from a sample of 2000 adult (aged ≥ 18) primary care patients recruited for a multisite National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study (CTN-0059). Past-year DSM-5 SUDs (tobacco, alcohol, and drug) were assessed by the modified Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Prevalence and correlates of multiple versus single SUDs were examined. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to explore patterns of multiple SUDs.

RESULTS

Multiple SUDs were found among the majority of participants with SUD for alcohol, cannabis, prescription opioids, cocaine, and heroin. Participants who were male, ages 26-34, less educated, and unemployed had increased odds of multiple SUDs compared to one SUD. Having multiple SUDs was associated with greater severity of tobacco or alcohol use disorder. LCA of the sample identified three classes: class 1 (83.7%) exhibited low prevalence of all SUDs; class 2 (12.0%) had high-moderate prevalence of SUDs for tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis; class 3 (4.3%) showed high prevalence of SUD for tobacco, opioids, and cocaine. LCA-defined classes were distinguished by sex, age, race, education, and employment status.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that primary care physicians should be aware of multiple SUDs when planning treatment, especially among adults who are male, younger, less educated, or unemployed. Interventions that target multiple SUDs warrant future investigation.

Linking Individuals with Substance Use Disorders (SUDs) in Primary Care to SUD Treatment: the Recovery Management Checkups-Primary Care (RMC-PC) Pilot Study

Linking individuals in primary care settings with substance use disorders (SUDs) to SUD treatment has proven to be challenging, despite the widespread use of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). This paper reports findings from a pilot study that examined the efficacy of the Recovery Management Checkups intervention adapted for primary care settings (RMC-PC), for assertively linking and engaging patients from Federally Qualified Health Centers into SUD treatment. Findings showed that patients in the RMC-PC (n=92) had significantly higher rates of SUD treatment entry and received more days of SUD treatment compared with those who receive the usual SBIRT referral (n=50). Receipt of RMC-PC had both direct and indirect effects, partially mediated through days of SUD treatment, on reducing days of drug use at 6 months post intake. RMC-PC is a promising intervention to address the need for more assertive methods for linking patients in primary care to SUD treatment.

Comparative Therapeutic Effects of Plant-Extract Synthesized and Traditionally Synthesized Gold Nanoparticles on Alcohol-Induced Inflammatory Activity in SH-SY5Y Cells In Vitro

The present study describes potential beneficial and adverse effects of plant-extract synthesized gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) on ethanol toxicity in SH-SY5Y cells. Although kudzu root extract (K), edible-gum extract (G), alone or in combination (KG), reduced Au³⁺ into AuNPs, the extract’s composition and the reaction temperature determined their size (AuNP_KG(90<50<37) << AuNP_K(90,50<37) < AuNP_G(90<50); the subscript KG, K, or G is extract identification and numerical vales are reaction temperature in Celsius) and biological properties (AuNP_KG(90,50>37) << AuNP_K(90,50>37) < AuNP_G(90,50)). The surface of each AuNP contained the extract’s active ingredients, that were analyzed and confirmed using laser desorption ionization (LDI)) and low-matrix laser desorption-ionization (_LMALDI). AuNP_KG-50 was (i) least toxic to SH-SY5Y cells, but most effective in suppressing the adverse effects of ethanol on SH-SY5Y cells, and (ii) more effective than a combination of free kudzu and gum extracts. The beneficial and adverse effects of AuNPs may have been modified by the formation of proteins corona. This study provides a proof of concept for possible application of plant-extract synthesized AuNPs in mitigating ethanol toxicity.

DSM-5 substance use disorders among adult primary care patients: Results from a multisite study

BACKGROUND

There are limited data about the extent of DSM-5 substance use disorders (SUDs) among primary care patients.

METHODS

This study analyzed data from a multisite validation study of a substance use screening instrument conducted in a diverse sample of 2000 adults aged ≥18 years recruited from five primary care practices in four states. Prevalence and correlates of 12-month DSM-5 SUDs were examined.

RESULTS

Overall, 75.5% of the sample used any substance, including alcohol (62.0%), tobacco (44.1%), or illicit drugs/nonmedical medications (27.9%) in the past 12 months (marijuana 20.8%, cocaine 7.3%, opioids 4.8%, sedatives 4.1%, heroin 3.9%). The prevalence of any 12-month SUD was 36.0% (mild disorder 14.2%, moderate/severe disorder 21.8%): tobacco 25.3% (mild 11.5%, moderate/severe 13.8%); alcohol 13.9% (mild 6.9%, moderate/severe 7.0%); and any illicit/nonmedical drug 14.0% (mild 4.0%, moderate/severe 10.0%). Among past 12-month users, a high proportion of tobacco or drug users met criteria for a disorder: tobacco use disorder 57.4% (26.1% mild, 31.3% moderate/severe) and any drug use disorder 50.2% (14.3% mild, 35.8% moderate/severe); a lower proportion of alcohol users (22.4%) met criteria for alcohol use disorder (11.1% mild, 11.3% moderate/severe). Over 80% of adults with opioid/heroin use disorder met criteria for a moderate/severe disorder. Younger ages, male sex, and low education were associated with increased odds of having SUD.

CONCLUSION

These findings reveal the high prevalence of SUDs in primary care and underscore the need to identify and address them.

Effects of a multifaceted implementation intervention to increase utilization of pharmacological treatments for alcohol use disorders in the US Veterans Health Administration

Over 16 million Americans meet diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD), but only 7.8% of them receive formal treatment each year. Safe and effective pharmacological treatments for AUD exist; however, they are rarely prescribed. Therefore, we developed and pilot tested a multifaceted implementation intervention to improve consideration and receipt of effective pharmacologic treatments for AUD, focusing on primary care settings where patients have the most frequent contact with healthcare systems. The intervention included training of local providers to serve as champions and a website for primary care providers that included educational materials, a case-finding dashboard, and contact information for local and national clinical experts. We also mailed patients educational material about treatment options. The intervention was implemented at three large facilities of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). An interrupted time series design, analyzed with segmented logistic regression, was used to evaluate the intervention's effects. The odds of a patient with AUD receiving one of the AUD medications was increasing throughout the pre-implementation period, and the rate of change (slope) increased significantly in the implementation period. Translating these numbers into percentages, at baseline 2.9% of patients filled a prescription for an AUD medication within 30days of a primary care visit. This increased to 3.8% by the end of the pre-implementation period (increasing 0.037% per month), and increased to 5.2% by the end of the implementation period (increasing 0.142% per month). However, the intervention effect was not significant when control sites were added, suggesting that improvement may have been driven by secular trends rather than solely by this intervention. Although the intervention was feasible, it was not effective. Continued analysis of process and implementation data including qualitative interviews with key stakeholders, may elucidate the reasons this intervention was not successful and ways to strengthen its effects.

Promoting Adoption of Medication for Opioid and Alcohol Use Disorders Through System Change

OBJECTIVE

The Medication Research Partnership (MRP), a collaboration between a national commercial health plan and nine addiction treatment centers, implemented organizational and system changes to promote use of federally approved medications for treatment of alcohol and opioid use disorders.

METHOD

A difference-in-differences analysis examined change over time in the percentage of patients receiving a prescription medication for alcohol or opioid use disorders treated in MRP (n = 9) and comparison (n = 15) sites.

RESULTS

MRP clinics experienced a 2.4-fold increase in patients receiving an alcohol or opioid prescription (13.2% at baseline to 31.7% at 3 years after MRP initiation); comparison clinics experienced significantly less change (17.6% to 23.5%) with an adjusted difference-in-differences of 12.5% (95% CI [5.4, 19.6], p = .001). MRP sites increased the patients with prescriptions to treat opioid use disorder from 17.0% (baseline) to 36.8% (3 years after initiation), with smaller changes observed in comparison sites (23.2% to 24.0%) and a 3-year post-initiation adjusted difference-in-differences of 19% (95% CI [8.5, 29.5], p = .000). Medications for alcohol use disorders increased in both MRP (9.0% to 26.5%) and comparison sites (11.4% to 23.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Promoting the use of medications to support recovery required complex interventions. The Advancing Recovery System Change Model, initially developed in publicly funded systems of care, was successfully adapted for commercial sector use. The model provides a framework for providers and commercial health plans to collaborate and increase patient access to medications.

Pilot investigation of a phosphatidylethanol-based contingency management intervention targeting alcohol use

Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) can be detected in blood from 14 to as many as 28 days after alcohol consumption, depending on the amount and frequency of alcohol consumed. PEth may have utility for verifying abstinence in a contingency management (CM) intervention for alcohol use, particularly in settings where frequent verification of abstinence is impossible or impractical. Five nontreatment-seeking heavy drinkers (40% men) participated in an 11-week, ABA-phased within-subject experiment for which they submitted blood spots for PEth measurement, urine samples for ethyl glucuronide (EtG) testing, and self-report drinking data weekly. Participants received reinforcers for submitting samples throughout the A phases. During the B phase (CM phase), they received additional reinforcers when their PEth level was reduced from the previous week and was verified by a negative EtG (<150 ng/ml) urine test and self-report. PEth, EtG, and self-report outcomes were compared between A phases (Weeks 1-3, 8-11) and B phases (Weeks 4-7). During the A phases, 23% of PEth results indicated alcohol abstinence, whereas 53% of PEth samples submitted during the CM (B phase) indicated alcohol abstinence. Participants were more likely to submit EtG-negative urine samples and report lower levels of drinking and heavy drinking during the B phase, relative to the A phases. We also explored the ability of PEth to detect self-reported drinking. The combined PEth homologs (16:0/18:1 and 16:0/18:2) predicted self-reported drinking with area under the curve from 0.81 (1 week) to 0.80 (3 weeks). Results support the initial feasibility of a Peth-based CM intervention. (PsycINFO Database Record

Buprenorphine physician supply: Relationship with state-level prescription opioid mortality

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder but the supply of buprenorphine physicians is currently inadequate to address the nation's prescription opioid crisis. Perception of need due to rising opioid overdose rates is one possible reason for physicians to adopt buprenorphine. This study examined associations between rates of growth in buprenorphine physicians and prescription opioid overdose mortality rates in US states.

METHODS

The total buprenorphine physician supply and number of physicians approved to treat 100 patients (per 100,000 population) were measured from June 2013 to January 2016. States were divided into two groups: those with rates of prescription opioid overdose mortality in 2013 at or above the median (>5.5 deaths per 100,000 population) and those with rates below the median. State-level growth curves were estimated using mixed-effects regression to compare rates of growth between high and low overdose states.

RESULTS

The total supply and the supply of 100-patient buprenorphine physicians grew significantly (total supply from 7.7 to 9.9 per 100,000 population, p<0.001; 100-patient supply from 2.2 to 3.4 per 100,000 population, p<0.001). Rates of growth were significantly greater in high overdose states when compared to low overdose states (total supply b=0.033, p<0.01; 100-patient b=0.022, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of the US prescription opioid crisis, as measured by the rate of prescription opioid overdose mortality, is associated with growth in the number of buprenorphine physicians. Because this observational design cannot establish causality, further research is needed to elucidate the factors influencing physicians' decisions to begin prescribing buprenorphine.

Prevalence of substance misuse among US veterans in the general population

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Epidemiologic data on substance misuse prevalence among US Veterans are crucial to plan for Veterans' future healthcare needs. We estimated US Veterans' age-specific, overall, and age-adjusted prevalence of substance misuse, assessed whether prevalence differed between Veterans and civilians, and examined temporal trends in prevalence.

METHODS

Substance-related measures were obtained from the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health, 2002-2012 (N = 24,210 Veterans; 338,556 civilians).

RESULTS

Among women and men Veterans overall, past-month heavy episodic drinking and daily cigarette smoking were the most prevalent types of substance misuse. For Veteran women and men ages 18-25, the prevalence of past-year illicit drug use was 29% and 38%, which was comparable to the prevalence of past-month daily cigarette smoking, and the prevalence of past-year prescription drug misuse was 14% and 18%. For men ages 18-25, heavy episodic drinking, daily cigarette smoking, alcohol use disorder (AUD), and substance use disorder were more prevalent among Veterans than civilians. For women, the age-specific, overall, and age-adjusted prevalence of daily cigarette smoking was generally greater among Veterans than civilians. There was a decreasing temporal trend in overall AUD prevalence among Veteran men, reflecting a decreasing trend in age-specific prevalence among Veteran men ages 35-49.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Young Veterans' high prevalence of substance misuse, and the generally high prevalence of daily smoking among Veterans, underscore the need for evidence-based assessments and treatment options that are accessible and effective for Veterans.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides foundational information on the epidemiology of substance misuse among Veterans. (Am J Addict 2017;26:357-365).

Military and veteran health behavior research and practice: challenges and opportunities

There are 2.1 million current military servicemembers and 21 million living veterans in the United States. Although they were healthier upon entering military service compared to the general U.S. population, in the longer term veterans tend to be of equivalent or worse health than civilians. One primary explanation for the veterans' health disparity is poorer health behaviors during or after military service, especially areas of physical activity, nutrition, tobacco, and alcohol. In response, the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs continue to develop, evaluate, and improve health promotion programs and healthcare services for military and veteran health behavior in an integrated approach. Future research and practice is needed to better understand and promote positive health behavior during key transition periods in the military and veteran life course. Also paramount is implementation and evaluation of existing interventions, programs, and policies across the population using an integrated and person centered approach.

Substance use among persons with homeless experience in primary care

BACKGROUND

Community survey data suggest high prevalence of substance use disorders among currently homeless individuals. There are less data regarding illicit drug and alcohol use problems of homeless-experienced persons engaged in primary care. They may have less severe use and require different care responses from primary care teams.

METHODS

The authors surveyed currently and formerly homeless, i.e., homeless-experienced, persons engaged in primary care at five federally funded programs in the United States, administering the World Health Organization (WHO) Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). The ASSIST definitions of lower, moderate, and high risk were used to assess a spectrum of lifetime and recent substance use, from any use to likely dependence, and to identify sociodemographic and health status characteristics associated with severity of use.

RESULTS

Almost one half of the sample (N = 601) had recently (within the past three months) used alcohol, and one third had recently used an illicit drug. The most commonly used illicit drugs in the past three months were cannabis (19%), cocaine (16%), and opioids (7.5%). Over one half (59%) of respondents had ASSIST-defined moderate- or high-risk substance use. A significant proportion (31%) of those identified as at moderate risk had no recent substance use, but did report past problematic use. Ten percent of the lower-risk group had past problematic use of alcohol. Severity of use was associated with worse health status, but not with housing status or type of homelessness experienced.

CONCLUSIONS

Less severe (moderate-risk) use and past problematic use, potentially indicative of remitted substance use disorders, were more common than high-risk use in this primary care, homeless-experienced sample. These findings highlight the urgency of identifying effective ways to reduce risky substance use and prevent relapse in homeless-experienced persons.

Multifaceted academic detailing program to increase pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder: interrupted time series evaluation of effectiveness

Background

Active consideration of effective medications to treat alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a consensus standard of care, yet knowledge and use of these medications are very low across diverse settings. This study evaluated the overall effectiveness a multifaceted academic detailing program to address this persistent quality problem in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA), as well as the context and process factors that explained variation in effectiveness across sites.

Methods

An interrupted time series design, analyzed with mixed-effects segmented logistic regression, was used to evaluate changes in level and rate of change in the monthly percent of patients with a clinically documented AUD who received naltrexone, acamprosate, disulfiram, or topiramate. Using data from a 20 month post-implementation period, intervention sites (n = 37) were compared to their own 16 month pre-implementation performance and separately to the rest of VHA.

Results

From immediately pre-intervention to the end of the observation period, the percent of patients in the intervention sites with AUD who received medication increased over 3.4 % in absolute terms and 68 % in relative terms (i.e., 4.9–8.3 %). This change was significant compared to the pre-implementation period in the intervention sites and secular trends in control sites. Sites with lower pre-implementation adoption, more person hours of detailing, but fewer people detailed, had larger immediate increases in medication receipt after implementation. The average number of detailing encounters per person was associated with steeper increases in slope over time.

Conclusions

This study found empirical support for a multifaceted quality improvement strategy aimed at increasing access to and utilization of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Future studies should focus on determining how to enhance the programs effects, especially in non-responsive locations.

Staff Perceptions of Substance Use Disorder Treatment in VA Primary Care-Mental Health Integrated Clinics

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend that substance use disorder (SUD) treatment be available in primary care-mental health integrated clinics, which offer mental and behavioral health assessment and treatment in the primary care setting. Despite this recommendation it is unclear what barriers and facilitators exist to SUD treatment being provided in that setting. This work sought to understand current SUD services in such integrated clinics, explore other services may that be appropriate, and identify barriers to such services.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with 23 staff members from integrated clinics at 6 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We transcribed interviews and performed thematic analysis to identify emergent themes.

RESULTS

We identified seven themes affecting staff experience and ability to provide SUD services in the integrated clinic: clinical effectiveness, clinical requirements, regulatory requirements, program goals, proximity of the integrated clinic and SUD services, training on substance use disorder, and role specialization.

CONCLUSIONS

VA primary care-mental health integrated clinic staff members do not currently view SUD treatment as the focus of their work, but are open to offering SUD treatment including brief psychological interventions or medication. Several barriers to providing SUD treatment were identified, including the need for additional staff training around appropriate interventions for the integrated clinic setting, additional staffing and space, and a structured implementation strategy to promote the use of SUD treatments.

Harm Reduction as "Continuum Care" in Alcohol Abuse Disorder

Alcohol abuse is one of the most important risk factors for health and is a major cause of death and morbidity. Despite this, only about one-tenth of individuals with alcohol abuse disorders receive therapeutic intervention and specific rehabilitation. Among the various dichotomies that limit an effective approach to the problem of alcohol use disorder treatment, one of the most prominent is integrated treatment versus harm reduction. For years, these two divergent strategies have been considered to be opposite poles of different philosophies of intervention. One is bound to the search for methods that aim to lead the subject to complete abstinence; the other prioritizes a progressive decline in substance use, with maximum reduction in the damage that is correlated with curtailing that use. Reduction of alcohol intake does not require any particular setting, but does require close collaboration between the general practitioner, specialized services for addiction, alcohology services and psychiatry. In patients who reach that target, significant savings in terms of health and social costs can be achieved. Harm reduction is a desirable target, even from an economic point of view. At the present state of neuroscientific knowledge, it is possible to go one step further in the logic that led to the integration of psychosocial and pharmacological approaches, by attempting to remove the shadows of social judgment that, at present, are aiming for a course of treatment that is directed towards absolute abstention.

Introduction to the Special Issue on the Studies on the Implementation of Integrated Models of Alcohol, Tobacco, and/or Drug Use Interventions and Medical Care

National efforts are underway to integrate medical care and behavioral health treatment. This special issue of the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment presents 13 papers that examine the integration of substance use interventions and medical care. In this introduction, the guest editors first describe the need to examine the integration of substance use treatment into medical care settings. Next, an overview of the emerging field of implementation science and its applicability to substance use intervention integration is presented. Preview summaries of each of the articles included in this special issue are given. Articles include empirical studies of various integration models, study protocol papers that describe currently funded implementation research, and one review/commentary piece that discusses federal research priorities, integration support activities and remaining research gaps. These articles provide important information about how to guide future health system integration efforts to treat the millions of medical patients with substance use problems.