Opioid harm reduction: A scoping review of physician and system-level gaps in knowledge, education, and practice

Analysis and mapping of harm reduction research in the context of injectable drug use: identifying research hotspots, gaps and future directions

BACKGROUND

Harm reduction is a crucial approach in addressing the multifaceted challenges of injectable drug use. This paper presents an analysis and mapping of the existing literature on harm reduction research in the context of injectable drug use. By reviewing a comprehensive set of scholarly articles, this study identifies research hotspots, knowledge gaps, and future directions in the field. The findings provide valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to guide future research efforts and inform evidence-based harm reduction interventions.

METHODS

Data for the study was obtained from the Scopus database, using keywords and phrases related to harm reduction and injectable drug use. Validation methods were employed to verify the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the search strategy. Data analysis involved identifying growth patterns, key contributors, mapping frequent terms, identifying research hotspots, and identifying emerging research directions.

RESULTS

A total of 971 articles were found, with a notable increase from 2015 to 2022. The International Journal of Drug Policy (n = 172, 17.7%) and the Harm Reduction Journal (n = 104, 10.7%) were the most prolific journals, and the United States (n = 558, 57.5%) had the highest number of publications. The Johns Hopkins University (n = 80, 8.5%) was the most prolific institution. Mapping of frequent author keywords revealed the main keywords, including harm reduction, HIV, hepatitis C, and opioid overdose. The highly cited articles cover a broad time span and focus on topics like naloxone distribution, HIV and hepatitis C transmission, while recent articles concentrate on emerging issues such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, fentanyl-related concerns, stigma reduction, and needle and syringe programs. Both sets of articles share a common focus on harm reduction strategies, but recent publications highlight current challenges and developments in the field.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insights into research landscape on harm reduction in injectable drug use. Research is concentrated in high-income countries, emphasizing the need for more research in low- and middle-income countries. Recent publications focus on emerging challenges like COVID-19 and fentanyl. Research gaps highlight the need for studies in diverse populations, social determinants, program evaluation, and implementation strategies to enhance harm reduction interventions.

Impact of Perceived Access and Treatment Knowledge on Medication Preferences for Opioid Use Disorder

BACKGROUND

Medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) are effective, but most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive treatment. Prior research has explored patients' structural barriers to access and perceptions of MOUD. Little research has considered treatment knowledge and perceptions outside of the patient population. Members of the public without OUD themselves (eg, family, friends) can significantly influence treatment decisions of persons with OUD. Considering these gaps, we conducted an original survey with a diverse sample of US adults to explore knowledge and preferences toward OUD treatments.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey with 1505 White, Black, and Latino/a Americans including a small percentage (8.5%) with self-reported lifetime OUD. The survey used vignettes to describe hypothetical patients with OUD, provide basic treatment information (ie, methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, nonmedication treatment), and then assessed treatment preferences. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between covariates of interest (eg, perceived access, knowledge, demographics) and preference for MOUD versus nonmedication treatment.

RESULTS

There were 523 White, 502 Black, and 480 Latino/a respondents. Across racial/ethnic subsamples, respondents had the greatest knowledge of nonmedication treatments, with Black (72.7%) and Latino/a (70.2%) respondents having significantly greater knowledge compared to White respondents (61.8%). However, after viewing the vignette, a greater proportion of respondents chose methadone (35.8%) or buprenorphine (34.8%) as their first-choice treatment for hypothetical patients. Multivariable logistic regression suggested that among Black respondents, those with knowledge of nonmedication treatment were more likely to choose MOUD than those without knowledge (odds ratio = 2.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.34-4.34). Perceived treatment access did not affect treatment choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Across racial groups, knowledge and perceived access to nonmedication treatment was greater than for MOUD, but many still selected MOUD as a first-choice treatment. Significant findings emphasized the importance of treatment knowledge around decision-making, highlighting opportunities for tailored education efforts to improve uptake of evidence-based treatment.

A qualitative exploration of health care workers' approaches to relational harm reduction in HIV primary care settings

BACKGROUND

Structural harm reduction is an approach to care for people who use drugs (PWUD) that incorporates services and resources (e.g., naloxone, sterile syringes). As conceptualized in our previous research, harm reduction is also "relational," encompassing a patient-provider relationship that is non-judgmental and respectful of patients' autonomy. Little is known about health care workers' (HCW) knowledge or attitudes towards harm reduction beyond structural strategies, whose availability and legality vary across geographical settings. To operationalize how relational harm reduction is both characterized and employed in HIV care settings, where nearly half of patients have a diagnosed substance use disorder, we qualitatively explored HCWs' knowledge of and use of harm reduction via individual in-depth interviews.

METHODS

Our study sample included three HIV clinics, one in Birmingham, Alabama (AL) and two in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (PA). We conducted individual interviews with n = 23 health care workers via Zoom, using a semi-structured interview guide to probe for questions around health care workers' attitudes towards and experiences with providing care to PWH who use drugs and their knowledge of and attitudes towards relational and structural harm reduction. Data was analyzed in Dedoose using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Qualitative analyses revealed two primary themes, Continuum of Relational Harm Reduction in Practice and Limited Harm Reduction Training. Nearly all HCWs (n = 19, 83%) described a patient interaction or expressed a sentiment that corresponded with the principles of relational harm reduction. Yet, over half of participants (n = 14, 61%) used language to describe PWH who use drugs that was stigmatizing or described an interaction that was antithetical to the principles of relational harm reduction. Five HCWs, all from Birmingham, were unaware of the term 'harm reduction.' Few HCWs had any harm reduction training, with most learning about harm reduction from webinars/conferences or on the job.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that relational harm reduction in HIV care settings is practiced along a continuum, and that a range of behaviors exist even within individual HCWs (e.g., used stigmatizing terms such as "addict" but also described patient interactions that reflected patients' autonomy). Given that harm reduction is typically described as a structural approach, a broader definition of harm reduction that is not dependent on policy-dependent resources is needed.

Evaluation of Two Videos that Apply Evidence-Based Strategies to Increase Self-Efficacy and Reduce Opioid-Related Stigma Among Medical Students

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the video-based application of evidence-based stigma reduction strategies to increase medical students' screening-diagnostic self-efficacy for opioid use disorder (OUD) and reduce stigma toward opioid use.

METHODS

Formative qualitative research informed development of two videos for medical students. One uses an education strategy by including education regarding non-stigmatizing language use and OUD screening and diagnosis (Video A); the other uses an interpersonal contact strategy by presenting narratives regarding opioid use from three people who have a history of opioid use and three physicians (Video B). Both videos were administered to all respondents, with video order randomized. Effects on outcomes were evaluated using a pre-/post-test design with a 1-month follow-up. Participants also provided feedback on video content and design.

RESULTS

Medical students (N = 103) watched the videos and completed the pre-/post-test, with 99% (N = 102) completing follow-up 1 month after viewing both videos. Self-efficacy increased directly following viewing Video A, and this increase was sustained at 1-month follow-up. Stigma toward opioid use decreased directly following viewing Video B, and this decrease was sustained at 1-month follow-up for participants who watched Video B first. Statistically significant improvements were observed in most secondary outcomes (e.g., harm reduction acceptability) directly following watching each video and most were sustained at 1-month follow-up. Feedback about the videos suggested the delivery of evidence-based strategies in each video was appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Video-based applications of these evidence-based strategies were found acceptable by medical students and have potential to elicit sustained improvement in their screening-diagnostic self-efficacy and opioid-related stigma.

Knowledge, practice and attitudes regarding substance use disorder treatment and harm reduction strategies among pharmacists: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacists provide a spectrum of services and comprehensive medication management for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) with many providing timely and increased access to care for patients. Prior studies have evaluated other healthcare professionals' attitudes, knowledge and practice in regard to SUD treatment and harm reduction services. However, no reviews to date summarise the available literature on the attitudes, knowledge and practice in regard to SUD treatment and harm reduction services from the pharmacist perspective. This scoping review aims to systematically map the extent, range and nature of available evidence and identify and describe gaps in knowledge, practice and attitudes towards SUD treatment among pharmacists with the goal of providing information for meaningful integration of pharmacists into SUD care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) updated with recommendations by Levac et al (2010) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (2020). The protocol is registered via Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/92dek). We will search for peer-reviewed literature containing empirical evidence investigating SUD treatment or harm reduction with outcomes pertaining to the knowledge, practice or attitudes of pharmacists. Findings will be guided and assessed by research objectives and summarised using descriptive statistics and thematically for quantitative and qualitative findings, respectively. This review will be conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our findings will provide crucial information and support for future interventions and programmes which aim to meaningfully integrate pharmacists into SUD care. We will disseminate findings at conferences and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, we will integrate feedback on search strategy, data extraction and our dissemination approach from multidisciplinary collaborators including those within our team's institution and outside experts with clinical or administrative knowledge in SUD care.

Centering persons who use drugs: addressing social determinants of health among patients hospitalized with substance use disorders

Social workers have emerged as leaders within Addiction Consult Services (ACS) due to their ability to provide a wide range of services, from crisis work and brief therapeutic interventions to connecting patients to community resources. Many hospitals have implemented ACS to address the overdose crisis and the sharp rise in drug use-related infections, including skin and soft tissue infections, osteomyelitis, and endocarditis; a result of unaddressed systemic social determinants of health (SDOH). Yet, despite social workers being at the forefront of inpatient substance use work, little guidance exists regarding social work's role in leading person-centered addiction care and addressing SDOH in the hospital setting. The authors of this paper are licensed clinical social workers who have worked across five different health systems, engaging persons who use drugs (PWUD) in the context of an ACS. This paper examines five practice interventions of social work practice within hospitals that represent key points for innovation. Drawing on social work's unique commitments to social justice, strengths, and person-in-environment, these interventions operate within eco-social approaches to help us grapple more effectively with ways that health - and disease - are socially and economically produced by multiple interacting factors. We provide a clinical roadmap of interventions for social workers in hospital settings with PWUD to demonstrate how social work leadership within inpatient care models can help us better address the impacts of various intersecting SDOH on the care of PWUD.

Physicians' perception about predictors of opioid abuse in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: a Delphi study

Background

Opioids are being prescribed widely, and increasingly, for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). However, several side effects are associated with mid- and long-term opioid use and, for certain patients, with the risk of problematic opioid use. The aim of this study is to know the perception of the physicians about which variables could be associated with increased risk of patients with CNCP developing a problem of abuse or misuse of the prescribed opioid medication.

Methods

Twenty-nine physicians with experience in CNCP pain management and opioids prescription participated in a two-round Delphi study focused on the risk factors for opioid misuse and abuse.

Results

The variables that reached consensus regarding their relationship with the increased risk of suffering a problem of opioid abuse or misuse were: (1) Experiencing pain on a daily basis, (2) previous use of high-dose opioids, (3) generalized anxiety, (4) hopelessness, (5) benzodiazepine intake, (6) use of opioids for reasons other than pain, (7) family problems, family instability or family breakdown, and (8) having access to several opioid prescribers. The only variable that reached consensus regarding it not being associated to a possible risk of abuse or misuse was having mild pain intensity (0-4 on a NRS-11).

Conclusions

This study provides useful information that could help make decisions about the use of opioids for CNCP treatment and prevent future difficulties. Prospective studies testing the relationship of the variables that reached consensus with the risk of opioid misuse and abuse are warranted.

Significance

This study shows the variables of CNCP that the professional must take into account in order to avoid possible problems when prescribing opioids.

Labeled as "drug-seeking": nurses use harm reduction philosophy to reflect on mending mutual distrust between healthcare workers and people who use drugs

Introduction

Over 50 years of approaching drug use from the "War on Drugs" has led to ignoring the systemic structural and social determinants of health, enforced drug use stigma, and damaging stereotypes of people who use drugs or are labeled as "drug-seeking," and sorely failed to support those needing assistance.

On philosophy of harm reduction and power

People who use drugs are often disenfranchised and pathologized by being labeled as "a drug addict," which then serves as a rationalization for mistreatment by healthcare providers. This is in opposition to a harm-reduction approach. Harm reduction philosophy is an epistemic valuation necessary for drug use stigma and our moral obligation to reduce harm from interlocking systems of power that perpetuate harm.

On drug-seeking mistrust and human rights

We have encountered many clients who use drugs that report harmful interactions with healthcare providers. Harm reduction is an issue of health equity, social justice, and fundamental human rights. This paper presents three vignettes, the author's experiences of being labeled as-and advocating for family members labeled as "drug-seeking."

Discussion

To better serve as healthcare providers, workers must be equipped to work with people who use drugs and reinforce the social justice commitment against medical stigma, neglect, racism, and inadequate pain coverage and withdrawal treatment. Nurses and our epistemic lens can meet the challenge of complex intersectional issues affecting our use of power to develop more just and equitable health systems and advance our rebuilding of a trusting relationship with the people we serve.

Stigma and level of familiarity with opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) among specialist physicians in Israel

CONTEXT

Opioid use disorder (OUD) poses significant public health problems that have increased dramatically, resulting in high rates of morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To minimize the risk of an opioid epidemic in Israel and be prepared, we evaluated physicians' objective knowledge, level of stigma, and approach to prescribing opioids, risk factors, and identification of patients with substance use disorder (SUD), as well as their knowledge about opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) for OUD.

METHODS

Anonymous computerized questionnaires were distributed nationally to physicians by the Israel Medical Association. Knowledge, stigma, and approach were scored.

RESULTS

Of only 249 responders, 58.6% prescribe opioids, 32.1% prescribe cannabis, and 18.5% daily encounter patients with SUD. Logistic regression found the high knowledge group had daily encounters with SUD (Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.5, 95% CI 1.7-7.1) and were familiar with OMT (OR = 10.1, 95% CI 3.5-29.0). The high stigma group was characterized by physicians who prescribe opioids (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.9), but who self-reported having limited knowledge regarding OMT (OR = 2, 95% CI 1.1-3.7). The high approach group was characterized by those who prescribe opioids (OR = 11.7, 95% CI 4.9-28), prescribe cannabis (OR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.0-4.3), self-report having limited knowledge regarding OMT (OR = 11.2, 95% CI 1.4-89) and self-report identifying SUD (OR = 32.5, 95% CI 4.1-260).

CONCLUSION

High stigma was most evident among physicians who prescribe opioids but, importantly, who had limited knowledge specifically regarding OMT. Gaps in knowledge and approach were observed. An educational intervention is highly recommended to reduce stigma and increase referrals of patients for OMT, the most effective treatment for opioid use disorder.

Implementation and Evaluation of Primary Care Team Participation in Opioid Use Disorder Learning Sessions

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies show that some primary care clinicians do not feel equipped to treat patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). This study addressed the gaps in confidence and knowledge of primary care physicians and other participants (i.e., participants who were not physicians) in diagnosing, treating, prescribing, and educating patients with OUD through interactive learning sessions.

METHODS

The American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network held monthly OUD learning sessions from September 2021 to March 2022 with physicians and other participants (n = 31) from 7 practices. Participants took baseline (n = 31), post-session (n = 11-20), and post-intervention (n = 21) surveys. Questions focused on confidence, knowledge, among others. We used non-parametric tests to compare individual responses pre-versus-post participation as well as to compare responses between groups.

RESULTS

All participants experienced significant changes in confidence and knowledge for most topics covered in the series. When comparing physicians to other participants, physicians had greater increases in confidence in dosing and monitoring for diversion (P = .047), but other participants had greater increases in confidence in the majority of topic areas. Physicians also had greater increases in knowledge than other participants in dosing and monitoring for safety (P = .033) and dosing and monitoring for diversion (P = .024), whereas other participants had greater increases in knowledge in most remaining topics. Participants agreed that sessions provided practical knowledge, except for relevancy of the case study portion of the session to current practice (P = .023) and the session improved participant ability to care for patients (P = .044).

CONCLUSION

Through participating in interactive OUD learning sessions, knowledge and confidence increased among physicians and other participants. These changes may impact participants' decisions to diagnose, treat, prescribe, and educate patients with OUD.

History of the discovery, development, and FDA-approval of buprenorphine medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder

Buprenorphine-based medications were first approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2002 for the treatment of opioid dependence, or opioid use disorder (OUD) as the condition is presently known. This regulatory milestone was the outcome of 36 years of research and development, which also led to the development and approval of several other new buprenorphine-based medications. In this short review, we first describe the discovery and early development stages of buprenorphine. Second, we review key steps that led to the development of buprenorphine as a drug product. Third, we explain the regulatory approval of several buprenorphine-based medications for the treatment of OUD. We also discuss these developments in the context of the evolution of regulations and policies that have progressively improved OUD treatment availability and efficacy, although challenges remain in removing system-level, provider-level, and local-level barriers to quality treatment, to integrating OUD treatment into routine care and other settings, to reducing disparities in access to treatment, and to optimizing person-centered outcomes.

Distinguishing clinical factors associated with unintentional overdose, suicidal ideation, and attempted suicide among opioid use disorder in-patients

Opioid and other drug-related overdoses and suicides are leading causes of injury death and represent a significant public health threat in the United States (U.S.). This study examined clinical factors of three patient groups from two inpatient addiction treatment facilities in Appalachian West Virginia (n = 66). Patients were classified as having: 1) unintentional overdose(s) (OD), 2) suicidal ideation or suicide attempt(s) (SI/SA), and 3) suicidal ideation or suicide attempt, and unintentional overdose (SI/SA/OD). Multinomial logistic regression models were used to determine whether adverse childhood experiences, self-injurious behaviors, substance use history, overdose history, and past year stressful life events were differentially associated with history of SI/SA/OD. Participants in the OD group were more likely to have used heroin in the 24-h preceding their most recent overdose compared to either the SI/SA or SI/SA/OD groups. The multivariable model found participants with history of SI/SA had higher adverse childhood experience scores and more participants with history of SI/SA endorsed childhood physical abuse and teen dating violence. Overall, there are characteristics that distinguish unintentional overdose from suicidal ideation and attempt. Patients with SI/SA/OD appear to have greater clinical severity. More thorough evaluation of drugs involved in overdose and history of self-injury may help distinguish future risk and inform treatment planning.