BackgroundThis study examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on work satisfaction, work-related stress, and perceived work quality among substance use treatment providers to better understand challenges faced among this group during the pandemic.MethodsParticipants of this study were 91 addiction treatment providers (e.g., therapists, physicians, community support specialists, administrative staff) recruited from various treatment facilities (e.g., inpatient and outpatient settings). Mixed method analyses were conducted to assess self-reported burnout, sources of work-related stress, and perceived work quality during the pandemic. Responses from providers reporting COVID-19 related decreases in work quality were compared to responses from providers who reported their quality of work had increased or remained the same.ResultsResults demonstrated half of providers (51%) reported their quality of work had decreased. This perceived decrease in quality of work was associated with higher levels of emotional exhaustion (M = 17.41 vs. M = 12.48, p = 0.002), workplace stress (M = 42.80 vs. M = 30.84, p = 0.001), as well as decreased enjoyment of work (83% vs. 51%, p = 0.001) and decreased personal accomplishment (M = 20.64 vs. M = 23.05 p = 0.001). Qualitative investigations further illustrated that increased hours, changes in work schedules, work-life balance challenges, difficulties with client communication, and increased client needs were contributing factors increasing stress/burnout and decreasing perceived work quality.ConclusionsAddiction treatment providers experience high levels of burnout and workplace stress. Additionally, many individuals perceived a decrease in their quality of work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Addiction treatment facility administration should address these challenges to support the well-being of clinical staff and the clients they serve both during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

BackgroundHospital-based clinicians infrequently initiate medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) for hospitalized patients. Our objective was to understand hospital-based clinicians’ knowledge, comfort, attitudes, and motivations regarding MOUD initiation to target quality improvement initiatives.MethodsGeneral medicine attending physicians and physician assistants at an academic medical center completed questionnaires eliciting barriers to MOUD initiation, including knowledge, comfort, attitudes and motivations regarding MOUD. We explored whether clinicians who had initiated MOUD in the prior 12 months differed in knowledge, comfort, attitudes, and motivations from those who had not.ResultsOne-hundred forty-three clinicians completed the survey with 55% reporting having initiated MOUD for a hospitalized patient during the prior 12 months. Common barriers to MOUD initiation were: (1) Not enough experience (86%); (2) Not enough training (82%); (3) Need for more addiction specialist support (76%). Overall, knowledge of and comfort with MOUD was low, but motivation to address OUD was high. Compared to MOUD non-initiators, a greater proportion of MOUD initiators answered knowledge questions correctly, agreed or strongly agreed that they wanted to treat OUD (86% vs. 68%, p = 0.009), and agreed or strongly agreed that treatment of OUD with medication was more effective than without medication (90% vs. 75%, p = 0.022).ConclusionsHospital-based clinicians had favorable attitudes toward MOUD and are motivated to initiate MOUD, but they lacked knowledge of and comfort with MOUD initiation. To increase MOUD initiation for hospitalized patients, clinicians will need additional training and specialist support.

BackgroundFederal and state regulations require frequent direct observation of methadone ingestion at an Opioid Treatment Program (OTP)—a requirement that creates barriers to patient access. Video observed therapy (VOT) may help to address public health and safety concerns of providing take-home medications while simultaneously reducing barriers to treatment access and long-term retention. Evaluating user experiences with VOT is important for understanding the acceptability of this strategy.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation of a clinical pilot program of VOT via smartphone that was rapidly implemented between April and August 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic within three opioid treatment programs. In the program, selected patients submitted video recordings of themselves ingesting methadone take-home doses, which were asynchronously reviewed by their counselor. We recruited participating patients and counselors for semi-structured, individual interviews to explore their VOT experiences after program completion. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key factors influencing acceptability and the effect of VOT on the treatment experience.ResultsWe interviewed 12 of the 60 patients who participated in the clinical pilot and 3 of the 5 counselors. Overall, patients were enthusiastic about VOT, noting multiple benefits over traditional treatment experiences, including avoiding frequent travel to the clinic. Some noted how this allowed them to better meet recovery goals by avoiding a potentially triggering environment. Most appreciated having increased time to devote to other life priorities, including maintaining consistent employment. Participants described how VOT increased their autonomy, allowed them to keep treatment private, and normalized treatment to align with other medications that do not require in-person dosing. Participants did not describe major usability issues or privacy concerns with submitting videos. Some participants reported feeling disconnected from counselors while others felt more connected. Counselors felt some discomfort in their new role confirming medication ingestion but saw VOT as a useful tool for select patients.ConclusionsVOT may be an acceptable tool to achieve equipoise between lowering barriers to treatment with methadone and protecting the health and safety of patients and their communities.

BackgroundSmoking and resulting health problems disproportionately impact low socioeconomic status (SES) individuals. Building resilience presents an approach to ‘closing the gap’. Mindfulness-based interventions and setting realistic goals are preferred in low socioeconomic communities. We aim to test if these interventions, delivered online and consolidated with peer support offered via ex-smokers, are successful in promoting smoking cessation and resilience. Our conceptualisation of resilience encompasses the inner capacity/skills and external resources (e.g., social support) which smokers utilise to bounce back from adversity. We include a process evaluation of barriers/facilitators to interventions and cost-effectiveness analysis (from health system perspective).MethodsWe plan a four-arm parallel 12-month RCT with a 6-month follow-up to test the efficacy of three group-based interventions each followed by peer support. Arm 1: mindfulness-integrated cognitive behavioural therapy; Arm 2: mindfulness training; Arm 3: setting realistic goals; Arm 4: active control group directed to quit services. All interventions will be administered online. Participants are adult smokers in Australia (N = 812) who have an average weekly household income less than $457AUD or receive welfare benefits. Group-based interventions will occur over 6 months, followed by 6 months of forum-based peer support. Primary outcome: self-reported 14-day period prevalence of smoking abstinence at 6 months, with remote biochemical verification of saliva cotinine (< 30 ng/mL). Secondary outcomes include: internal resilience (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-25); external resilience (ENRICHD social support tool); quality adjusted life years (EQ-5D-5L); self-efficacy for smoking abstinence (Smoking-Abstinence Self-Efficacy Questionnaire); motivation to quit smoking (Biener and Abrams Contemplation Ladder); nicotine dependence (Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependency); equanimity (Equanimity Scale-16); stress (Perceived Stress Scale-10); goal assessment/attainment (Problems and Goals Assessment Scale).DiscussionThis study is the first to compare resilience interventions for low SES smokers which have been identified by them as acceptable. Our various repeated measures and process evaluation will facilitate exploration of mechanisms of impact. We intervene within the novel framework of the Psychosocial Model of Resilience, applying a promising paradigm to address a critical and inequitable public health problem.Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12621000445875, registered 19 April 2021 (https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=381007&isReview=true). The Universal Trial Number is U1111-1261–8951

BackgroundWomen who use drugs face sexism and intersectional stigma that influence their drug use experiences and treatment needs. There is a need to build the capacity of addiction medicine specialists who can deliver gender-responsive services and advance research and policy in women-focused addiction care. We describe the development of a Women’s Health track within an addiction medicine fellowship program and reflect on successes, challenges, and future directions.Main bodyThe Women’s Health track was developed in collaboration between program leaders in Addiction Medicine and Obstetrics/Gynecology. Implementing the track led to the development of women-focused rotations and continuity clinics, as well as enrichment of women’s health didactic education for all fellows. The fellowship track spurred interdepartmental mentorship and collaboration on research and advocacy projects.ConclusionAddiction medicine fellowships can replicate this curriculum model to advance women-focused education, research, and policy. Future curricula should focus on structural sexism in drug use and addiction treatment throughout a woman’s life course.

BackgroundAn emerging public health threat of methamphetamine/opioid co-use is occurring in North America, including increases in overdoses related to concomitant methamphetamine/opioid use. This presents a potential risk to established treatments for opioid use disorder (i.e., medications for opioid use disorder [MOUD]). To date, few studies have examined the impact of methamphetamine use on MOUD-related outcomes, and no studies have synthesized data on MOUD retention.MethodsA scoping review was undertaken to examine the impact of methamphetamine use on MOUD retention. All original published research articles were searched in Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Protocols, and Google scholar databases. Data were extracted into a standardized data extraction chart. Findings were presented narratively.ResultsAll eight included studies demonstrated an increased likelihood of treatment discontinuation or dropout among patients enrolled in MOUD who used methamphetamine. The frequency of methamphetamine use was also associated with MOUD dropout, in that those who used methamphetamine more often were more likely to discontinue MOUD. The definitions and measurements of MOUD retention varied considerably, as did the magnitude of effect size.ConclusionsResults indicate that methamphetamine use has an undesirable impact on MOUD retention and results in an increased risk of treatment discontinuation or dropout. Strategies to identify concurrent methamphetamine use among individuals engaging in MOUD and educate them on the increased risk for dropout should be undertaken. Further research is needed to understand how MOUD retention among patients with concomitant opioid and methamphetamine use can be improved.

BackgroundNovel buprenorphine dosing strategies have emerged with an aim to transition patients from opioid agonists to buprenorphine without prerequisite opioid withdrawal. We applied a configurational approach to a subset of data from our earlier systematic review to answer the following question: when patients received a buprenorphine initiation strategy aimed to eliminate prerequisite withdrawal, what factors consistently distinguished patients that experienced withdrawal during the initiation process from patients that did not?MethodsFrom the 24 cases identified by our systematic review, we included cases that were treated using buprenorphine microdosing strategies (oral or transdermal), cases with opioid use disorder, and cases that fully transitioned to buprenorphine without continuing the full opioid agonist. Configurational analysis was used to identify combinations of patient and regimen level factors that uniquely distinguished cases experiencing withdrawal during induction.ResultFourteen cases were included in our analysis, of which 9 experienced opioid withdrawal symptoms. Three factors were involved in explaining both the presence and absence of withdrawal symptoms: history of heroin use, history of methadone use, and duration of overlap between buprenorphine and the full opioid agonist during induction. For the presence of withdrawal symptoms, the addition of a fourth factor “buprenorphine starting dose” resulted in a model with perfect consistency and coverage; for the absence of withdrawal symptoms, the addition of a fourth factor “induction duration” similarly resulted in a model with perfect consistency and 80% coverage.ConclusionApplication of configurational methods allowed synthesis of case reports identified through a systematic review.

BackgroundEfficient and linguistically appropriate instruments are needed to assess response to addiction treatment, including severity of addiction/mental health status. This is critical for Russian-speaking persons in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) where Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) remain underscaled to address expanding and intertwined opioid, HIV, HCV and tuberculosis epidemics. We developed and conducted a pilot validation of a Russian version of the 24-item Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-24), an addiction/mental health severity instrument with six subscales, previously validated in English.MethodsUsing the Mapi approach, we reviewed, translated, and back-translated the content to Russian, pilot-tested the Russian-version (BASIS-24-R) among new MOUD patients in Ukraine (N = 283). For a subset of patients (n = 44), test-rest was performed 48 h after admission to reassess reliability of BASIS-24-R. Exploratory principal component analysis (PCA) assessed underlying structure of BASIS-24-R.ResultsCronbach alpha coefficients for overall BASIS-24-R and 5 subscales exceeded 0.65; coefficient for Relationship subscale was 0.42. The Pearson correlation coefficients for overall score and all subscales on the BASIS-24-R exceeded 0.8. Each item loaded onto factors that corresponded with English BASIS-24 subscales ≥ 0.4 in PCA.ConclusionInitial version of BASIS-24-R appears statistically valid in Russian. Use of the BASIS-24-R has potential to guide MOUD treatment delivery in the EECA region and help to align addiction treatment with HIV prevention goals in a region where HIV is concentrated in people who inject opioids and where healthcare professionals have not traditionally perceived MOUD as effective treatment, particularly for those with mental health co-morbidities.

BackgroundMedications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs), including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, decrease mortality and morbidity for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Buprenorphine and methadone have the strongest evidence base among MOUDs. Unlike methadone, buprenorphine may be prescribed in office-based settings in the U.S., including by nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) who have a federal waiver and adhere to federal patient limits. Buprenorphine is underutilized nationally, particularly in rural areas, and NPs/PAs could help address this gap. Therefore, we sought to identify perceptions of buprenorphine efficacy and perceptions of prescribing barriers among NPs/PAs. We also sought to compare perceived buprenorphine efficacy and perceived prescribing barriers between waivered and non-waivered NPs/PAs, as well as to compare perceived buprenorphine efficacy to perceived naltrexone and methadone efficacy.MethodsWe disseminated an online survey to a random national sample of NPs/PAs. We used Mann–Whitney U tests to compare between waivered and non-waivered respondents. We used non-parametric Friedman tests and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare perceptions of medication types.Results240 respondents participated (6.5% response rate). Most respondents agreed buprenorphine is efficacious and believed counseling and peer support should complement buprenorphine. Buprenorphine was generally perceived as more efficacious than both naltrexone and methadone. Perceived buprenorphine efficacy and prescribing barriers differed by waiver status. Non-waivered practitioners were more likely than waivered practitioners to have concerns about buprenorphine affecting patient mix. Among waivered NPs/PAs, key buprenorphine prescribing barriers were insurance prior authorization and detoxification access.ConclusionsOur results suggest that different policies should target perceived barriers affecting waivered versus non-waivered NPs/PAs. Concerns about patient mix suggest stigmatization of patients with OUD. NP/PA education is needed about comparative medication efficaciousness, particularly regarding methadone. Even though many buprenorphine treatment patients benefits from counseling and/or peer support groups, NPs/PAs should be informed that such psychosocial treatment methods are not necessary for all buprenorphine patients.

BackgroundThe present study aimed to evaluate the results of a theory-based and systematic intervention on Hookah Tobacco Smoking (HTS) cessation in women local to Bandar Abbas, Iran.MethodsIn the present quasi-experimental research, we used an intervention mapping approach to develop, implement, and evaluate an education and training course as our intervention. Applying the results of a systematic review and two prior local qualitative studies, we identified six HTS determinants and set goals for the intervention. We selected 212 eligible women through systematic stratified random sampling and enrolled them in control and intervention groups. The course was presented to the intervention group in 17 sessions for four months. The educational material was developed to address the goals of the intervention, improve HTS determinants, and change the HTS behavior. We used a questionnaire to collect data on participants’ characteristics, HTS behavior, and detailed determinants of HTS in the control and intervention groups at the beginning of the study, at the end of the intervention, and at three- and six- months follow-up. All work done in the study was guided by ethical considerations.ResultsThe results showed no significant difference between women enrolled in control and intervention groups regarding participants’ characteristics and HTS behavior. At baseline, there were no differences between groups for six determinants of HTS (knowledge, attitude, social norms, self-efficacy, habit, and intention). At the end of the intervention and at three and six months follow-up, the women in the intervention group had significantly better results in all six domains, compared with those in the control group. The rate of HTS abstinence at the end of the intervention and at the three- and six-month follow-ups was 61.3%, 48.5%, and 45.5% for the intervention and 16%, 14.4%, and 10% for the control groups, respectively.ConclusionsHTS is a complicated behavior, and its cessation is hard. However, Intervention Mapping (IM) can be a powerful integrative, purposeful, theory-based, and participation-based method to reduce or cease HTS. This method should be tested in other settings.Trial registration: IRCT20190126042494N1, Registered 3.3.2019. https://en.irct.ir/trial/37129