Stigma, Opioids, and Public Health Messaging: The Need to Disentangle Behavior From Identity

Choice of smoking cessation products among people with substance use problems in the US: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study Wave 6

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare past 12-month use of cigarette smoking cessation aids (e.g., Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cessation products or e-cigarettes for smoking cessation) among people with substance use problems (PWSUPs) who currently smoke to people without substance use problems (SUPs) who currently smoke cigarettes in a nationally representative US sample.

METHODS

We used the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Wave 6 Study [n = 30,516]. Our sample comprised adult (18+) established cigarette smokers (100+ lifetime-sticks with daily/non-daily use) [n = 5,895]. The independent variable was SUP status (no, moderate, and high). The dependent variables were past-year use of: nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), cessation medications [i.e., varenicline or bupropion], or e-cigarettes [for cigarette cessation and reduction]. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models for each dependent variable examined the associations between SUP status and each cessation aid, adjusting for cigarette dependence, daily cigarette smoking, and demographic factors.

RESULTS

Among people who smoke, a higher proportion of respondents with high SUP severity used NRTs, cessation medications, and e-cigarettes for cigarette cessation, respectively (12.3%, 8.4%, 15.7%), compared to those with no/low SUP severity (9.8%, 6.0%, 8.9%). In the multivariable models, respondents with high SUPs had 63% (95% CI:1.16-2.29) higher odds of using e-cigarettes for cessation than those without SUPs. No significant differences were seen between high (vs. no/low SUPs) in the past-year use of NRTs and cessation medications.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that cigarette smokers with high SUPs had higher odds of using e-cigarettes for cessation and reduction compared to smokers without SUPs.

Misuse, Abuse and Medication Errors' Adverse Events Associated with Opioids-A Systematic Review

Opioids are the strongest analgesics available and are crucial in the treatment of acute and chronic pain. The line between these critical medications and how they are used beyond standard therapeutics in cases such as abuse, misuse, and medication errors needs to be understood, as it affects their safety, efficacy, and manner of use. The aim of this systematic review was to identify what is known about the adverse events resulting from the abuse, misuse, and medication errors associated with opioid use. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed®, Scopus® and, EBSCO® databases to retrieve studies from the inception to December 2023 reporting abuse, misuse, and medication errors associated with medicinal opioid use. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts and full text according to eligibility using Covidence® software. Full articles were examined by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed by the JBI's critical appraisal tools. A total of 934 articles were screened by their title and abstract. Then, 151 articles were selected for full text screening. Of these, 34 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. The included studies varied significantly in their population sizes, ranging from 9 individuals to 298,433 patients, and encompassed a diverse demographic, including all ages and both sexes. The studies consistently reported a range of adverse events associated with opioid use. Fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and hydrocodone were frequently implicated. The data heterogeneity in this field resulted in challenges in drawing conclusions. The review highlights that some opioids, particularly fentanyl, morphine, and oxycodone, are frequently associated with preventable adverse drug reactions, abuse, and medication errors, underscoring the need for robust preventative measures and ongoing research to mitigate opioid-related harm.

Examining Inclusive Language in Clinical Narratives in Medical Biochemistry Textbooks to Model Equitable Patient-Centered Care in Preclinical Undergraduate Medical Education

Purpose

When healthcare professionals use biased or stigmatizing language to describe people or conditions, it can impact the quality of care or erode the patient-physician relationship. It is not clear where healthcare professionals acquire biased and stigmatizing language in practice. This study focuses on examining language in educational materials used in training of medical students. Specifically, medical biochemistry textbooks were examined as they are often a first exposure to clinical narratives and communication standards. The aim of this project is to investigate whether medical biochemistry textbooks, widely recommended in preclinical UME, model inclusive language communication in clinical narratives.

Methods

To determine if educational materials follow inclusive writing guidelines, we conducted a modified document analysis on a sample of medical biochemistry textbooks when clinical scenarios were described. Three independent researchers separately reviewed the textbooks, coded the language using NVivo, and generated themes.

Results

Our results show that medical biochemistry textbooks contain language which is not in alignment with the best practices for inclusive language. Our analysis mapped codes to two primary themes of language misalignment. The first theme, "clinical language" (n = 92), included the following codes: difficult patient, general negative descriptive language, patient as failure, and questioning patient credibility. The second primary theme, "identity-first labeling" (n = 251), included 21 codes.

Conclusion

This study provides early evidence that the language used in medical biochemistry textbooks to describe people and conditions is not in alignment with inclusive language recommendations. This can reinforce the way future healthcare professionals speak to and about their patients.

Stigma Communication Surrounding Nonmedical Opioid Use Among Affected Family Members

A growing body of research demonstrates the role of language in stigma toward nonmedical opioid use (NMOU). Terms like "substance abuser" perpetuate stereotypes and evoke punitive judgments. This study examines how affected family members (AFMs) communicate stigma when discussing their loved one's NMOU. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 adults with a close family member with a history of NMOU. An iterative approach was used to analyze instances when stigmatizing terms or messages were used. AFMs described people engaged in NMOU as underweight, "dirty," or "nodding off," and often labeled these individuals "addicts" or opioid "abusers." Responsibility for the NMOU was attributed to both internal (e.g. choice) and external (e.g. brain disease) factors. People engaged in NMOU were linked to physical danger, resource threats, and threats to the family members' reputation and relationships. While most stigma messages related to the person engaged in NMOU, stigmatizing messages directed toward AFMs also emerged; family members labeled "enablers" were judged, blamed, and described as a threat to the person engaged in NMOU. Although AFMs expressed care and desire to support their loved ones, they often conveyed stigma in their language choices. This language among AFMs may reflect internalized stigma. Increased efforts are needed to help AFMs cope with the challenges of a loved one's NMOU and identify effective ways to support their loved one. One way AFMs can support their loved one is by using more inclusive, person-first language.

Facilitators and barriers for implementing screening brief intervention and referral for health promotion in a rural hospital in Alberta: using consolidated framework for implementation research

BACKGROUND

Screening, brief intervention, and referral (SBIR) is an evidence-based, comprehensive health promotion approach commonly implemented to reduce alcohol and substance use. Implementation research on SBIR demonstrate that patients find it acceptable, reduces hospital costs, and it is effective. However, SBIR implementation in hospital settings for multiple risk factors (fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, alcohol and tobacco use) is still emergent. More evidence is needed to guide SBIR implementation for multiple risk factors in hospital settings.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the facilitators and barriers of SBIR implementation in a rural hospital using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive qualitative investigation consisting of both inductive and deductive analyses. We conducted virtual, semi-structured interviews, guided by the CFIR framework. All interviews were audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. NVivo 12 Pro was used to organize and code the raw data.

RESULTS

A total of six key informant semi-structured interviews, ranging from 45 to 60 min, were carried out with members of the implementation support team and clinical implementers. Implementation support members reported that collaborating with health departments facilitated SBIR implementation by helping (a) align health promotion risk factors with existing guidelines; (b) develop training and educational resources for clinicians and patients; and (c) foster leadership buy-in. Conversely, clinical implementers reported several barriers to SBIR implementation including, increased and disrupted workflow due to SBIR-related documentation, a lack of knowledge on patients' readiness and motivation to change, as well as perceived patient stigma in relation to SBIR risk factors.

CONCLUSION

The CFIR provided a comprehensive framework to gauge facilitators and barriers relating to SBIR implementation. Our pilot investigation revealed that future SBIR implementation must address organizational, clinical implementer, and patient readiness to implement SBIR at all phases of the implementation process in a hospital.

Stigma as a local process: Stigma associated with opioid dependency in a rural-mixed Indiana county

BACKGROUND

Because the nature and magnitude of stigmatizing views associated with opioid dependency vary by social, cultural, and structural factors, strategies to reduce public stigma towards opioid dependency should vary by context. We leverage a unique dataset with evidence of multiple stigmatizing views to understand how to target interventions to reduce stigma in a state disproportionately impacted by the opioid epidemic, with a specific focus on a rural-mixed county.

METHODS

Data come from the representative Person-to-Person Health Study (2018-2020) of 2,050 Indiana residents, 224 from the rural-mixed Fayette County. Bivariate statistics and multivariate regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between Fayette County and measures of stigma (e.g., desire for social distance, prejudice, causal attributions) relative to the rest of Indiana.

RESULTS

Fayette County statistically differed from the rest of Indiana on most demographic characteristics and measures of stigmatizing views. Multivariate regressions revealed that compared to the rest of Indiana, residence in Fayette County was associated with a higher desire for social distance, perceptions of unpredictability, and attributing opioid dependency to genetics and the way the person was raised.

CONCLUSION

Our results contribute to growing evidence supporting the need for local approaches to address stigma. Stigma in Fayette County primarily reflects concerns about how people manage their opioid dependency. Strategies focusing on treatment and recovery potential, accompanied by extending the influence of supportive stakeholders and policies, will become important to address this stigma.

O-Know Opioid Knowledge Test: Development and Psychometric Testing in a Community Setting

Given the various sources and consequences of opioid use disorder (OUD) stigma, the mechanisms by which stigma occurs becomes more important. Educational deficits regarding OUD as a disease and treatment influence OUD stigma. The purpose of the study was to develop, pilot test and psychometrically evaluate the Opioid-Knowledge (O-Know) test in a community setting. A social media strategy was used to recruit 294 participants, in 2019, from a midwestern region experiencing an HIV epidemic, stemming from opioid and injection drug use. The Factor analysis used a tetrachoric correlation matrix, with principal axis factor extraction and Promax rotation. Horn's parallel analysis supported the factorial validity of a two-factor model representing OUD as a Disease (Cronbach's alpha = .57) and OUD Treatment and Recovery (Cronbach's alpha = .62). The reliability estimates were deemed adequate given the intended group-level uses for the instrument. Convergent construct validity was partially supported via the OUD Treatment and Recovery factor's negative correlation with personal opioid stigmatization (B = -.29, p =.001). OUD research must produce measures that convert observations to empirical generalizations. The psychometric analysis of the O-Know scale demonstrated progress in reducing measurement error to facilitate that conversion.

A randomized controlled trial of an intervention to reduce stigma toward people with opioid use disorder among primary care clinicians

BACKGROUND

Many primary care clinicians (PCCs) hold stigma toward people with opioid use disorder (OUD), which may be a barrier to care. Few interventions exist to address PCC stigma toward people with OUD. This study examined whether an online training incorporating patient narratives reduced PCCs' stigma toward people with OUD (primary) and increased intentions to treat people with OUD compared to an attention-control training (secondary).

METHODS

PCCs from 15 primary care clinics were invited to complete a 30 min online training for an electronic health record-embedded clinical decision support (CDS) tool that alerts PCCs to screen, diagnose, and treat people with OUD. PCCs were randomized to receive a stigma-reduction version of the training with patient narrative videos or a control training without patient narratives and were blinded to group assignment. Immediately after the training, PCCs completed surveys of stigma towards people with OUD and intentions and willingness to treat OUD. CDS tool use was monitored for 6 months. Analyses included independent samples t-tests, Pearson correlations, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 162 PCCs were randomized; 88 PCCs (58% female; 68% white) completed the training (Stigma = 48; Control = 40) and were included in analyses. There was no significant difference between intervention and control groups for stigma (t = - 0.48, p = .64, Cohen's d = - 0.11), intention to get waivered (t = 1.11, p = .27, d = 0.26), or intention to prescribe buprenorphine if a waiver were no longer required (t = 0.90, p = 0.37, d = 0.21). PCCs who reported greater stigma reported lower intentions both to get waivered (r = - 0.25, p = 0.03) and to prescribe buprenorphine with no waiver (r = - 0.25, p = 0.03). Intervention group and self-reported stigma were not significantly related to CDS tool use.

CONCLUSIONS

Stigma toward people with OUD may require more robust intervention than this brief training was able to accomplish. However, stigma was related to lower intentions to treat people with OUD, suggesting stigma acts as a barrier to care. Future work should identify effective interventions to reduce stigma among PCCs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04867382. Registered 30 April 2021-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04867382.

The Opioid Epidemic and the State of Stigma: A Pennsylvania Statewide Survey

Background: The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis. Among initiatives surrounding treatment and prevention, opioid use disorder (OUD) stigma has emerged as a subject for intervention. Objectives: This study examines overall results and demographic differences of three subscales of a public stigma survey instrument: general attitudes, social distance, and treatment availability and effectiveness. Methods: A statewide sample of Pennsylvanian adults (N = 1033) completed an online survey about the opioid epidemic. Weighted percentage level of agreement was reported for each item. To determine significant differences in responding across demographic groups (gender, race, and urban/rural status), multiple one-way ANOVAs were analyzed. Significant differences in the level of agreement and disagreement (p < .05) were reported. Results: The majority of respondents agreed that the opioid epidemic is a problem and that anyone can become addicted to opioids; however, many Pennsylvanians still disagree that OUD is a medical disorder and continue to endorse social distance beliefs of people with OUD. Most participants agreed that there are effective treatments available, and that recovery was possible; however, a large portion of participants were unsure whether specific treatments are effective. Subscale mean differences were significant for gender and age. Conclusions/Importance: Findings highlight that stigmatized attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs about individuals who use opioids are still prevalent and that uncertainty remains about the effectiveness of OUD treatment. OUD interventions should use targeted messaging in order to impact the ongoing opioid crisis.

Educating Young Adults about Opioid Misuse: Evidence from a Mass Media Intervention

The US opioid epidemic is a serious public health problem. Rates of opioid misuse and dependence are highest for young adults ages 18-25. Prevention strategies that reduce prescription opioid misuse while decreasing stigma around dependence and treatment are critical components of addressing the epidemic. The Truth About Opioids, a mass media public education campaign, was designed to prevent opioid misuse and dependence among young adults. This study examined the intervention's effectiveness to shift opioid-related knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs within targeted designated market areas (DMAs) over time. A sample of young adults (N = 1434) in DMAs with varying levels of media exposure was surveyed at baseline (June-September 2019) and post-intervention (July-August 2020). Logistic regression assessed associations between campaign awareness and campaign-targeted knowledge and attitudes, controlling for baseline variables. Those with any awareness had significantly higher odds of campaign-targeted opioid-related knowledge (versus no awareness) (low awareness OR = 1.52 (95% CI: 1.04, 2.24); high awareness OR = 2.47 (95% CI: 1.58, 3.87)). Those with campaign awareness were also more likely to report lower levels of opioid-related stigma and higher intentions to share information and talk to a friend about the epidemic. Mass media public education campaigns can help influence young adults' opioid-related knowledge and attitudes.

Words Matter: What Do Patients Find Judgmental or Offensive in Outpatient Notes?

BACKGROUND

Sharing outpatient notes with patients may bring clinically important benefits, but notes may sometimes cause patients to feel judged or offended, and thereby reduce trust.

OBJECTIVE

As part of a larger survey examining the effects of open notes, we sought to understand how many patients feel judged or offended due to something they read in outpatient notes, and why.

DESIGN

We analyzed responses from a large Internet survey of adult patients who used secure patient portals and had at least 1 visit note available in a 12-month period at 2 large academic medical systems in Boston and Seattle, and in a rural integrated health system in Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult ambulatory patients with portal accounts in health systems that offered open notes for up to 7 years.

APPROACH

(1) Quantitative analysis of 2 dichotomous questions, and (2) qualitative thematic analysis of free-text responses on what patients found judgmental or offensive.

KEY RESULTS

Among 22,959 patient respondents who had read at least one note and answered the 2 questions, 2,411 (10.5%) reported feeling judged and/or offended by something they read in their note(s). Patients who reported poor health, unemployment, or inability to work were more likely to feel judged or offended. Among the 2,411 patients who felt judged and/or offended, 2,137 (84.5%) wrote about what prompted their feelings. Three thematic domains emerged: (1) errors and surprises, (2) labeling, and (3) disrespect.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 10 respondents reported feeling judged/offended by something they read in an outpatient note due to the perception that it contained errors, surprises, labeling, or evidence of disrespect. The content and tone may be particularly important to patients in poor health. Enhanced clinician awareness of the patient perspective may promote an improved medical lexicon, reduce the transmission of bias to other clinicians, and reinforce healing relationships.