A qualitative study of the adoption of buprenorphine for opioid addiction treatment

Patient's and healthcare provider's experiences with Opioid Maintenance Treatment (OMT): a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Opioid Maintenance Treatment (OMT) is the gold standard for people with opioid dependence. However, drop-out rates are high, and many patients do not reach desired outcomes. Understanding patients' and healthcare providers' experiences with the treatment can provide valuable information to improve the quality of OMT and to increase acceptability and accessibility of services. The aim of this systematic review is to explore and synthesise the experiences of OMT among persons with opioid dependence and health care providers, to inform policy makers and practitioners on how to improve OMT outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. We systematically searched in electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and nordic databases) and searched for grey literature. As we identified many studies that met our inclusion criteria, we purposively sampled a manageable number of studies to include in this review. Two researchers independently extracted and coded data from the included studies and used the Andersen's healthcare utilization model to organize and develop codes. We assessed the methodological limitations of the studies, and our confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual.

RESULTS

We retrieved 56 relevant studies and purposively sampled 24 qualitative studies of patients' and healthcare providers' experiences with OMT. Our analyses resulted in six main themes: (1) External stigma prevents engagement and retention in treatment, (2) Being identified as in OMT contributed to an increased experience of stigma (3) Inadequate knowledge and expertise among healthcare providers affected patients' treatment experiences, (4) Quality of communication between personnel and patients impacts patients' engagement with treatment and treatment outcomes, (5) Patients wanted help with many aspects of their lives not just medication, and (6) Balancing positive expectations of OMT with treatment stigma. We found that stigma was an overarching theme across these themes.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that OMT could be more beneficial for patients if treatment programs prioritize efforts to diminish societal and OMT provider stigma and find strategies to better address patient needs. Initiatives should focus on improving treatment knowledge among providers, encouraging the use of client perspectives, considering the context of family members, and establishing a more holistic and flexible treatment environment.

Substance use disorders in hospice palliative care: A narrative review of challenges and a case for physician intervention

OBJECTIVES

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are frequently encountered in hospice palliative care (HPC) and pose substantial quality-of-life issues for patients. However, most HPC physicians do not directly treat their patients' SUDs due to several institutional and personal barriers. This review will expand upon arguments for the integration of SUD treatment into HPC, will elucidate challenges for HPC providers, and will provide recommendations that address these challenges.

METHODS

A thorough review of the literature was conducted. Arguments for the treatment of SUDs and recommendations for physicians have been synthesized and expanded upon.

RESULTS

Treating SUD in HPC has the potential to improve adherence to care, access to social support, and outcomes for pain, mental health, and physical health. Barriers to SUD treatment in HPC include difficulties with accurate assessment, insufficient training, attitudes and stigma, and compromised pain management regimens. Recommendations for physicians and training environments to address these challenges include developing familiarity with standardized SUD assessment tools and pain management practice guidelines, creating and disseminating visual campaigns to combat stigma, including SUD assessment and intervention as fellowship competencies, and obtaining additional training in psychosocial interventions.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

By following these recommendations, HPC physicians can improve their competence and confidence in working with individuals with SUDs, which will help meet the pressing needs of this population.

Determinants of the Implementation of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in Zambia: Application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Cervical cancer can be prevented, primarily by the administration of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Healthcare workers (HCWs) and teachers play important roles when schools are used for vaccine delivery; however, challenges exist. This study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination that are perceived by HCWs and teachers. Guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR), key informant interviews were conducted in Lusaka district between June 2021 and November 2021 using a semi-structured questionnaire. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and imported into NVIVO 12 for data management and analysis. We coded transcripts inductively and deductively based on the adapted CFIR codebook. We reached saturation with 23 participants. We identified barriers and facilitators across the five CFIR domains. Facilitators included offering the HPV vaccine free of charge, HPV vaccine effectiveness, stakeholder engagement, and timely planning of the HPV vaccination. Barriers included vaccine mistrust due to its perceived novelty, low levels of parental knowledge, myths and misinformation about the vaccine, lack of parental consent to vaccinate daughters, lack of transport for vaccination outreach, lack of staff incentives, and inadequate sensitisation. Using the CFIR as a guiding framework, we have identified implementation barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination among HCWs and teachers. Most of the identified barriers are modifiable, hence it is prudent that these are addressed for a high HPV vaccine uptake.

From existing to living: Exploring the meaning of recovery and a sober life after a long duration of a substance use disorder

Aim: The study explores how former patients with substance use disorder (SUD) experience the benefits and challenges of a reoriented identity and way of living. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 participants who had completed treatment for SUD and considered themselves either recovered or in an ongoing rehabilitation process. Interview transcripts were analysed using the content analysis approach. Results: The analysis furthers our understanding of several purposeful aspects of a reorientation towards a sober life in terms of: (1) avoiding illegal drugs, (2) avoiding contact with the substance use relations and milieu, (3) renewing relations and social network, (4) daily occupation, (5) discovering the value of the great, little things in everyday life, (6) new coping strategies, and (7) developing a new identity. Conclusion: The study indicates that rehabilitation from SUDs should take a broader focus than just sobriety. With attention to the present findings, a focus on psychosocial aspects of recovery could contribute to a more overarching framework for SUD treatment.

Financial Sustainability of Novel Delivery Models in Behavioral Health Treatment

BACKGROUND

In the US, much of the research into new intervention and delivery models for behavioral health care is funded by research institutes and foundations, typically through grants to develop and test the new interventions. The original grant funding is typically time-limited. This implies that eventually communities, clinicians, and others must find resources to replace the grant funding -otherwise the innovation will not be adopted. Diffusion is challenged by the continued dominance in the US of fee-for-service reimbursement, especially for behavioral health care.

AIMS

To understand the financial challenges to disseminating innovative behavioral health delivery models posed by fee-for-service reimbursement, and to explore alternative payment models that promise to accelerate adoption by better addressing need for flexibility and sustainability.

METHODS

We review US experience with three specific novel delivery models that emerged in recent years. The models are: collaborative care model for depression (CoCM), outpatient based opioid treatment (OBOT), and the certified community behavioral health clinic (CCBHC) model. These examples were selected as illustrating some common themes and some different issues affecting diffusion. For each model, we discuss its core components; evidence on its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; how its dissemination was funded; how providers are paid; and what has been the uptake so far.

RESULTS

The collaborative care model has existed for longest, but has been slow to disseminate, due in part to a lack of billing codes for key components until recently. The OBOT model faced that problem, and also (until recently) a regulatory requirement requiring physicians to obtain federal waivers in order to prescribe buprenorphine. Similarly, the CCBHC model includes previously nonbillable services, but it appears to be diffusing more successfully than some other innovations, due in part to the approach taken by funders.

DISCUSSION

A common challenge for all three models has been their inclusion of services that were not (initially) reimbursable in a fee-for-service system. However, even establishing new procedure codes may not be enough to give providers the flexibility needed to implement these models, unless payers also implement alternative payment models.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE

For providers who receive time-limited grant funding to implement these novel delivery models, one key lesson is the need to start early on planning how services will be sustained after the grant ends.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY

For research funders (e.g., federal agencies), it is clearly important to speed up the process of obtaining coverage for each novel delivery model, including the development of new billable service codes, and to plan for this as early as possible. Funders also need to collaborate with providers early in the grant period on sustainability planning for the post-grant environment. For payers, a key lesson is the need to fold novel models into stable existing funding streams such as Medicaid and commercial insurance coverage, rather than leaving them at the mercy of revolving time-limited grants, and to provide pathways for contracting for innovations under new payment models.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

For researchers, a key recommendation would be to pay greater attention to the payment environment when designing new delivery models and interventions.

Physician perspective on the implementation of risk mitigation strategies when prescribing opioid medications: a qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To understand the physician perspective on the barriers and facilitators of implementing nine different opioid risk mitigation strategies (RMS) when prescribing opioid medications.

METHODS

We created and dispersed a cross-sectional online survey through the Qualtrics© data collection platform among a nationwide sample of physicians licensed to practice medicine in the United States who have prescribed an opioid medication within the past year. The responses were analyzed using a deductive thematic analysis approach based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ensure a holistic approach to identifying the barriers and facilitators for each RMS assessed. In concordance with this method, the themes and codes for the thematic analysis were defined prior to the analysis. The five domains within the CFIR were used as themes and the 39 nested constructs were treated as the codes. Two members of the research team independently coded the transcripts and discussed points of disagreement until consensus was reached. All analyses were conducted in ATLAS.ti© V7.

RESULTS

The completion rate for this survey was 85.1% with 273 participant responses eligible for analysis. Intercoder reliability was calculated to be 82%. Deductive thematic analysis yielded 2,077 descriptions of factors affecting implementation of the nine RMS. The most salient code across all RMS was Knowledge and Beliefs about the Intervention, which refers to individuals' attitudes towards and value placed on the intervention. Patient Needs and Resources, a code referring to the extent to which patient needs are known and prioritized by the organization, also emerged as a salient code. The physicians agreed that the patient perspective on the issue is vital to the uptake of each of the RMS.

CONCLUSIONS

This deductive thematic analysis identified key points for actionable intervention across the nine RMS assessed and established the importance of patient concordance with physicians when deciding on a course of treatment.

Integrating MOUD and Primary Care: Outcomes of a Multicenter Learning Collaborative

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Opioid use and overdose remain a central and worsening public health emergency in the United States and abroad. Efforts to expand treatment have struggled to match the rising incidence of opioid use disorder (OUD), and treating patients in primary care settings represents one of the most promising opportunities to meet this need. Learning collaboratives (LCs) are one evidence-based strategy to improve implementation of medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in primary care.

METHODS

We developed and studied a multidisciplinary MOUD learning collaborative involving six underserved primary care clinics. We used a mixed-methods approach to assess needs, develop curriculum, and evaluate outcomes from these clinics.

RESULTS

We recruited six clinics to participate in the collaborative. Half had an established MOUD program. Approximately 80% of participants achieved their organizational quality improvement goals for the collaborative. After the collaborative, participants also reported a significant increase in their perceived competence to implement/improve a MOUD program (pre-LC competence=2.80, post-LC competence=6.33/10, P=.02). The most consistent barrier we identified was stigma around OUD and its effects on patients' ability to access services and staff/provider ability to provide services. The most frequent enablers of program success were trainee interest, organizational leadership support, and a dedicated MOUD care team.

CONCLUSIONS

Organizations used clinical and systems improvement knowledge to enhance their existing programs or to take steps to create new programs. All participants identified the need for additional staff/clinician training, especially to overcome stigma around OUD. The outcomes demonstrated the crucial importance of long-term organizational support for program success.

Clinics Optimizing MEthadone Take-homes for opioid use disorder (COMET): Protocol for a stepped-wedge randomized trial to facilitate clinic level changes

INTRODUCTION

Regulatory changes made during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) that relaxed criteria for take-home dosing (THD) of methadone offer an opportunity to improve quality of care with a lifesaving treatment. There is a pressing need for research to study the long-term effects of the new PHE THD rules and to test data-driven interventions to promote more effective adoption by opioid treatment programs (OTPs). We propose a two-phase project to develop and test a multidimensional intervention for OTPs that leverages information from large State administrative data.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We propose a two-phased project to develop then test a multidimensional OTP intervention to address clinical decision making, regulatory confusion, legal liability concerns, capacity for clinical practice change, and financial barriers to THD. The intervention will include OTP THD specific dashboards drawn from multiple State databases. The approach will be informed by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF). In phase 1, we will employ an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to combine analysis of large state administrative databases-Medicaid, treatment registry, THD reporting-with qualitative interviews to develop and refine the intervention. In phase 2, we will conduct a stepped-wedge trial over three years with 36 OTPs randomized to 6 cohorts of a six-month clinic-level intervention. The trial will test intervention effects on OTP-level implementation outcomes and patient outcomes (1) THD use; 2) retention in care; and 3) adverse healthcare events). We will specifically examine intervention effects for Black and Latinx clients. A concurrent triangulation mixed methods design will be used: quantitative and qualitative data collection will occur concurrently and results will be integrated after analysis of each. We will employ generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) in the analysis of stepped-wedge trials. The primary outcome will be weekly or greater THD. The semi-structured interviews will be transcribed and analyzed with Dedoose to identify key facilitators, barriers, and experiences according to HEIF constructs using directed content analysis.

DISCUSSION

This multi-phase, embedded mixed methods project addresses a critical need to support long-term practice changes in methadone treatment for opioid use disorder following systemic changes emerging from the PHE-particularly for Black and Latinx individuals with opioid use disorder. By combining findings from analyses of large administrative data with lessons gleaned from qualitative interviews of OTPs that were flexible with THD and those that were not, we will build and test the intervention to coach clinics to increase flexibility with THD. The findings will inform policy at the local and national level.

Predicting and responding to change: Perceived environmental uncertainty among substance use disorder treatment programs

INTRODUCTION

Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs offering addiction health services (AHS) must be prepared to adapt to change in their operating environment. These environmental uncertainties may have implications for service delivery, and ultimately patient outcomes. To adapt to a multitude of environmental uncertainties, treatment programs must be prepared to predict and respond to change. Yet, research on treatment programs preparedness for change is sparse. We examined reported difficulties in predicting and responding to changes in the AHS system, and factors associated with these outcomes.

METHODS

Cross-sectional surveys of SUD treatment programs in the United States in 2014 and 2017. We used linear and ordered logistic regression to examine associations between key independent variables (e.g., program, staff, and client characteristics) and four outcomes, (1) reported difficulties in predicting change, (2) predicting effect of change on organization, (3) responding to change, and (4) predicting changes to make to respond to environmental uncertainties. Data were collected through telephone surveys.

RESULTS

The proportion of SUD treatment programs reporting difficulty predicting and responding to changes in the AHS system decreased from 2014 to 2017. However, a considerable proportion still reported difficulty in 2017. We identified that different organizational characteristics are associated with their reported ability to predict or respond to environmental uncertainty. Findings show that predicting change is significantly associated with program characteristics only, while predicting effect of change on organizations is associated with program and staff characteristics. Deciding how to respond to change is associated with program, staff, and client characteristics, while predicting changes to make to respond is associated with staff characteristics only.

CONCLUSIONS

Although treatment programs reported decreased difficulty predicting and responding to changes, our findings identify program characteristics and attributes that could better position programs with the foresight to more effectively predict and respond to uncertainties. Given resource constraints at multiple levels in treatment programs, this knowledge might help identify and optimize aspects of programs to intervene upon to enhance their adaptability to change. These efforts may positively influences processes or care delivery, and ultimately translate into improvements in patient outcomes.

Barriers and facilitators to nurse practitioner buprenorphine prescribing for opioid use disorder in primary care settings

BACKGROUND

Increasing access to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment is critical to curbing the opioid epidemic, particularly for rural residents who experience numerous health and health care disparities, including higher overdose death rates and limited OUD treatment access compared with urban dwellers. Buprenorphine-naloxone is an evidence-based treatment for OUD that is well suited for rural areas. However, providers must have a specialized federal waiver to prescribe the medication. Despite the acceleration of the opioid epidemic in rural areas and the recent liberalization of federal buprenorphine-naloxone prescribing laws, few providers hold buprenorphine-naloxone prescribing waivers and even fewer prescribe the medication.

PURPOSE

This study explores barriers and facilitators to buprenorphine-naloxone prescribing among nurse practitioners (NPs) working in primary care settings in eastern North Carolina.

METHODOLOGY

Individual interviews were conducted with 13 NPs working in primary care settings in eastern North Carolina. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to buprenorphine-naloxone prescribing.

RESULTS

Analysis found prescribing barriers related to OUD stigma, perceived knowledge, federal and state regulation, and prescribing resources and found facilitators related to adopting a person-centered approach, developing prescriber skills, and access to prescribing resources.

CONCLUSIONS

The barriers and facilitators that NPs experience related to buprenorphine prescribing for OUD are similar to those faced by physicians, although the barriers arguably more profound. Future research should consider how to mitigate these prescribing barriers to facilitate NP buprenorphine prescribing for OUD.

IMPLICATIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study of NP buprenorphine-naloxone prescribing in rural areas. Given the prominence of OUD in rural regions and the key role NPs play in primary care provision, this study lays import groundwork for developing interventions to support buprenorphine-naloxone prescribing by NPs practicing in rural regions.

Hospitalist perspectives on buprenorphine treatment for inpatients with opioid use disorder

Background

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have high hospital admission rates. Hospitalists, clinicians that work in inpatient medical settings, may have a unique opportunity to intervene on behalf of these patients, yet their experience with and attitudes towards treating patients with OUD need further exploration.

Methods

We conducted qualitative analysis of 22 semi-structured interviews with hospitalists between January and April 2021 in Philadelphia, PA. Participants were hospitalists in one major metropolitan university hospital and one urban community hospital in a city with a high prevalence of OUD and overdose deaths. Participants were asked about their experiences, successes, and difficulties in treating hospitalized patients with OUD.

Results

Twenty-two hospitalists were interviewed. Participants were majority female (14, 64%) and White (16, 73%). We identified the following common themes: lack of training/experience with OUD, a lack of community OUD treatment infrastructure, a lack of inpatient OUD/withdrawal treatment resources, the "X-waiver" as a barrier to prescribing buprenorphine, the "ideal" patient to start on buprenorphine, and the hospital as an ideal intervention setting.

Conclusions

Hospitalization due to acute illness or complication of drug use represents a potential intervention point to initiate treatment for patients with OUD. While hospitalists exhibit willingness to prescribe medications, provide harm reduction education, and link patients to outpatient addiction treatment, they identify training and infrastructure barriers that must first be addressed.

Barriers to Buprenorphine Prescribing for Opioid Use Disorder in Hospice and Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinicians increasingly care for patients with concurrent painful serious illness and opioid use disorder (OUD) or opioid misuse; however, only a minority of HPC clinicians have an X-waiver license or actively use it to prescribe buprenorphine as medication treatment for OUD.

OBJECTIVES

To understand barriers for HPC clinicians to obtaining an X-waiver and prescribing buprenorphine as medication treatment for OUD.

METHODS

We performed content analysis on 100 survey responses from members of the national Buprenorphine Peer Support Network, a group of HPC clinicians interested in buprenorphine, on X-waiver status, barriers to obtaining an X-waiver, and barriers to active prescribing.

RESULTS

Of 100 HPC clinicians surveyed, only 26 of 57 HPC clinicians with X-waivers had ever prescribed. Prominent barriers included discomfort managing concurrent pain, buprenorphine, and OUD; concerns about impacts on practice; unsupportive practice culture; insufficient practice support; patient facing challenges; and cumbersome regulatory policies.

CONCLUSION

Despite HPC clinicians' interest in buprenorphine prescribing for OUD, several steps are needed to facilitate the practice, including clinician education tailored to pain and to clinical challenges faced by HPC clinicians, mentorship on buprenorphine use, and cultural and practice changes to dismantle systemic stigma towards addiction. We propose evidence-based steps derived from our survey findings that individual clinicians, HPC leaders, and national HPC organizations can take to improve care for patients with painful serious illness and OUD.

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13722-022-00312-7.

Champions Among Us: Leading Primary Care to the Forefront of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment

Despite more than a decade of investment in opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment infrastructure, the year 2020 saw the highest mortality related to opioid overdose in American history. Treatment access remains critically limited, with less than half of people living with OUD receiving any treatment. Primary care has been referred to as the "sleeping giant" of addiction care, as few primary care doctors currently prescribe medications to treat OUD. The "clinical champions" framework is a tool that has shown promise in creating the type of mentorship and culture change necessary to expand uptake of medication-based OUD treatment among primary care providers. The early success of this model and the increased availability of tools for broad implementation warrant further investment as a means of leading primary care into a larger role in combatting the opioid addiction epidemic.

A national survey of barriers and facilitators to medications for opioid use disorder among legal-involved veterans in the Veterans Health Administration

Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are clinically effective at treating OUD among legal-involved populations. However, research shows that legal-involved veterans who receive care through the VHA have lower rates of MOUD use compared to non-legal-involved veterans. Education may be a key factor in intervention strategies to improve MOUD access. This study was a national survey of VHA staff to identify barriers to and facilitators of MOUD, as well as MOUD-related education needs for VHA staff, community partners, criminal justice partners, and legal-involved veterans. Method: A 98-item online survey was conducted to examine VHA staff perspectives (N = 218) around needed education, barriers to, and facilitators of MOUD for legal-involved veterans. Descriptive statistics were conducted and linear regression analyses were used to evaluate differences in perceptions by respondents' current position at the VHA and their VHA facility's rate of provision of MOUD among legal-involved veterans. Results: Respondents endorsed a need for education in all areas of MOUD (e.g., existing medications for the treatment of OUD) for VHA staff and providers, community partners, criminal justice partners, and legal-involved veterans. VHA staff perceived barriers to MOUD for legal-involved veterans to include stigma and complicated guidelines around MOUD and OUD treatment. Facilities with low rates of MOUD use highlighted barriers including MOUD conflicting with the philosophy of the local VHA facility and provider stigma toward patients with OUD. Perceptions of efficacy of MOUD differed by respondents' current position at the VHA such that substance use disorder treatment providers perceived buprenorphine and methadone as more effective compared to Veterans Justice Specialists. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest a need for an educational intervention emphasizing the evidence supporting use of MOUD as a lack of knowledge about these medications was considered a barrier to access, whereas gaining education about MOUD was a facilitator to access. Education strategies specifically tailored to address VHA facility-level differences may help address barriers to MOUD experienced by legal-involved veterans.

The impact of methamphetamine/amphetamine use on receipt and outcomes of medications for opioid use disorder: a systematic review

Background

Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these substances may impact receipt of, and outcomes associated with, medications for OUD (MOUD). This systematic review identified studies that examined associations between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and 3 classes of outcomes: (1) receipt of MOUD, (2) retention in MOUD, and (3) opioid abstinence during MOUD.

Methods

We searched 3 databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete) from 1/1/2000 to 7/28/2020 using key words and subject headings, and hand-searched reference lists of included articles. English-language studies of people with documented OUD/opioid use that reported a quantitative association between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and an outcome of interest were included. Study data were extracted using a standardized template, and risk of bias was assessed for each study. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 authors. Study characteristics and findings were summarized for each class of outcomes.

Results

Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies generally found that methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder was negatively associated with receiving methadone and buprenorphine; 2 studies suggested positive associations with receiving naltrexone. Studies generally found negative associations with retention; most studies finding no association had small samples, and these studies tended to examine shorter retention timeframes and describe provision of adjunctive services to address substance use. Studies generally found negative associations with opioid abstinence during treatment among patients receiving methadone or sustained-release naltrexone implants, though observed associations may have been confounded by other polysubstance use. Most studies examining opioid abstinence during other types of MOUD treatment had small samples.

Conclusions

Overall, existing research suggests people who use methamphetamine/amphetamines may have lower receipt of MOUD, retention in MOUD, and opioid abstinence during MOUD. Future research should examine how specific policies and treatment models impact MOUD outcomes for these patients, and seek to understand the perspectives of MOUD providers and people who use both opioids and methamphetamine/amphetamines. Efforts to improve MOUD care and overdose prevention strategies are needed for this population.

Factors Influencing Fidelity to a Calorie Posting Policy in Public Hospitals: A Mixed Methods Study

Background: Labelling menus with nutrition information has increasingly become an important obesity policy option. While much research to-date has focused on determining its effectiveness, few studies report the extent to which menu labelling is implemented as designed. The aim of this study was to explore factors influencing fidelity to a calorie posting policy in Irish acute public hospitals.

Methods: A mixed methods sequential explanatory study design was employed, with a nested case study for the qualitative component. Quantitative data on implementation fidelity at hospitals were analysed first and informed case sampling in the follow-on qualitative phase. Maximum variation sampling was used to select four hospitals with high and low levels of implementation and variation in terms of geographic location, hospital size, complexity of care provided and hospital type. Data were collected using structured observations, unstructured non-participant observations and in-depth semi-structured interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided qualitative data collection and analysis. Using framework analysis, factors influencing implementation were identified. A triangulation protocol was used to integrate fidelity findings from multiple sources. Data on influencing factors and fidelity were then combined using joint displays for within and cross-case analysis.

Results: Quantitative fidelity data showed seven hospitals were categorised as low implementers and 28 hospitals were high implementers of the policy. Across the four hospitals selected as cases, qualitative analysis revealed factors influencing implementation and fidelity were multiple, and operated independently and in combination. Factors were related to the internal hospital environment (e.g., leadership support, access to knowledge and information, perceived importance of calorie posting implementation), external hospital environment (e.g., national policy, monitoring), features of the calorie posting policy (e.g., availability of supporting materials), and the implementation process (e.g., engaging relevant stakeholders). Integrated analysis of fidelity indicated a pattern of partial adherence to the calorie posting policy across the four hospitals. Across all hospitals, there was a consistent pattern of low adherence to calorie posting across all menu items on sale, low adherence to calorie information displayed per standard portion or per meal, low adherence to standardised recipes/portions, and inaccurate calorie information.

Conclusion: Efforts to maximise fidelity require multi-level, multi-component strategies in order to reduce or mitigate barriers and to leverage facilitators. Future research should examine the relative importance of calorie posting determinants and the association between implementation strategies and shifts in fidelity to intervention core components.

Rapid Cycle Implementation and Retrospective Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Checklist in Labor and Delivery

Background

Preparedness efforts for a COVID-19 outbreak required redesign and implementation of a perioperative workflow for the management of obstetric patients. In this report we describe factors which influenced rapid cycle implementation of a novel comprehensive checklist for the perioperative care of the COVID-19 parturient.

Methods

Within our labour and delivery unit, implementation of a novel checklist for the COVID-19 parturient requiring perioperative care was accomplished through rapid cycling, debriefing and on-site walkthroughs. Post-implementation, consistent use of the checklist was reported for all obstetric COVID-19 perioperative cases (100% workflow checklist utilization). Retrospective analysis of the factors influencing implementation was performed using a group deliberation approach, mapped against the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results

Analysis of factors influencing implementation using CFIR revealed domains of process implementation and innovation characteristics as overwhelming facilitators for success. Constructs within the outer setting, inner setting, and characteristic of individuals (external pressures, baseline culture, and personal attributes) were perceived to act as early barriers. Constructs such as communication culture and learning climate, shifted in influence over time.

Conclusion

We describe the influential factors of implementing a novel comprehensive obstetric workflow for care of the COVID-19 perioperative parturient during the first surge of the pandemic using the CFIR framework. Early workflow adoption was facilitated primarily by two domains, namely thoughtful innovation design and careful implementation planning in the setting of a long-standing culture of improvement. Factors initially assessed as barriers such as communication, culture and learning climate, transitioned into facilitators once a perceived benefit was experienced by healthcare teams. These results provide important information for the implementation of rapid change during a time of crisis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06787-5.

Buprenorphine utilization among all Washington State residents' based upon prescription monitoring program data - Characteristics associated with two measures of retention and patterns of care over time

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder is a serious health condition for which buprenorphine is proven effective, yet providers substantially underutilize buprenorphine. We present two approaches to measuring treatment duration, factors associated with retention, and patterns of care.

METHODS

The study determined incident buprenorphine prescribing for all Washingtonians utilizing prescription monitoring program data from 2012 to 2019. The study calculated episode of care and cumulative time in care. Generalized linear models estimated associations among the length of the first episode of care and cumulative time in care with sex, age, and rurality. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the time to discontinuing buprenorphine for the first four episodes of care and time to discontinuing the last episode of care.

RESULTS

Mean and median duration of the first episode were 320 and 84 days, respectively, and for cumulative time in care 308 and 195 days. A minority of peoples' first episodes exceeded 180 days (37%). Being female and older were significantly associated with longer first episodes and cumulative time in care. Survival analyses indicated that the proportion of those still in care at 6, 12, and 24 months into their first episode of care declined for those with more than one episode of care; conversely the study found much smaller differences in retention for the last episode of care, indicating that many people were eventually able to be retained in care for longer periods of time.

CONCLUSION

Episodes of care and cumulative time on buprenorphine were both short compared to minimum quality recommendations of 180 days. Median cumulative time in care was double that of the first episode, highlighting that many people engage in subsequent episodes of substantial length. Episode of care and cumulative care analyses should inform states, payers, health care systems and providers in measuring and setting treatment duration goals.

PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment

Background

Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here.

Methods

PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16–90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims (“electronic health records,” [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization.

Discussion

The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings.

Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1

A facilitation model for implementing quality improvement practices to enhance outpatient substance use disorder treatment outcomes: a stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial study protocol

Background

The misuse of and addiction to opioids is a national crisis that affects public health as well as social and economic welfare. There is an urgent need for strategies to improve opioid use disorder treatment quality (e.g., 6-month retention). Substance use disorder treatment programs are challenged by limited resources and a workforce that does not have the requisite experience or education in quality improvement methods. The purpose of this study is to test a multicomponent clinic-level intervention designed to aid substance use disorder treatment clinics in implementing quality improvement processes to improve high-priority indicators of treatment quality for opioid use disorder.

Methods

A stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial with 30 outpatient treatment clinics serving approximately 2000 clients with opioid use disorder each year will test whether a clinic-level measurement-driven, quality improvement intervention, called Coaching for Addiction Recovery Enhancement (CARE), improves (a) treatment process quality measures (use of medications for opioid use disorder, in-treatment symptom and therapeutic progress, treatment retention) and (b) recovery outcomes (substance use, health, and healthcare utilization). The CARE intervention will have the following components: (1) staff clinical training and tools, (2) quality improvement and change management training, (3) external facilitation to support implementation and sustainability of quality improvement processes, and (4) an electronic client-reported treatment progress tool to support data-driven decision making and clinic-level quality measurement. The study will utilize multiple sources of data to test study aims, including state administrative data, client-reported survey and treatment progress data, and staff interview and survey data.

Discussion

This study will provide the field with a strong test of a multicomponent intervention to improve providers’ capacity to make systematic changes tied to quality metrics. The study will also result in training and materials that can be shared widely to increase quality improvement implementation and enhance clinical practice in the substance use disorder treatment system.

Trial registration

Trial #NCT04632238NCT04632238 registered at clinicaltrials.gov on 17 November 2020

Harm reduction in primary healthcare: an integrative review of care strategies

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the evidence available in the literature on harm reduction actions developed by primary healthcare.

METHOD

Integrative literature review carried out in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of ScienceTM and LILACS.

RESULTS

Seventeen (17) primary studies published from 2008 to 2017 were included in this review. Care strategies for harm reduction included maintenance treatment with methadone, therapy with opioid agonists, needle and syringe distribution programs and the creation of rooms for supervised drug consumption. Health professionals were essential for consolidating inclusion strategies, possessing skills to listen without judgment and prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Harm reduction care strategies have been disseminated in different countries and healthcare levels, aiming toward safe practice and quality, effective and risk-free care actions.

A New Approach for Developing "Implementation Plans" for Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) in Low and Middle-Income Countries: Results From the CST-International Study

Background: Even with a strong evidence base, many healthcare interventions fail to be translated to clinical practice due to the absence of robust implementation strategies. For disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, access to evidence-based interventions beyond research settings is of great importance. Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) is a brief, group-based intervention, with consistent evidence of effectiveness. Methods: An implementation focused, three-phase methodology was developed using extensive stakeholder engagement. The methods resulted in a standardized Implementation Plan for the successful translation of CST from research to practice. The methodology was developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and refined in three countries that vary in levels of economic development and healthcare systems (Brazil, India and Tanzania). Results: Five Implemention Plans for CST were produced. Each plan contained implementation strategies and action plans devised in conjunction with policy professionals, healthcare professionals, people with dementia and family carers, and an international team of researchers and clinicians. Conclusion: This novel methodology can act as a template for implementation studies in diverse healthcare systems across the world. It is an effective means of devising socio-culturally informed Implementation Plans that account for economic realities, health equity and healthcare access.

Attitudes toward opioid use disorder medications: Results from a U.S. national study of individuals who resolved a substance use problem

The attitudes of individuals who receive, provide, or influence opioid use disorder (OUD) medication services, also called stakeholders, may enhance or hinder their dissemination and adoption. Individuals who have resolved a significant alcohol or other drug (AOD) problem are a group of key stakeholders whose OUD medication attitudes are not well understood empirically. This group subsumes, but is not limited to, individuals who identify as being "in recovery." Analyses leveraged the National Recovery Study, a geo-demographically representative survey of U.S. adults who resolved a significant AOD problem (N = 1,946). We examined the prevalence of positive, neutral, and negative attitudes toward agonists, such as buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone, and antagonists, such as oral and extended-release depot injection naltrexone. Single-predictor logistic regression models tested for demographic, clinical, and recovery-related correlates of these attitudes and, for those significant at the .1 level, multivariable-predictor logistic regression models tested unique associations between these correlates and attitudes. Results showed that participants were equally likely to hold positive (21.4 [18.9-24.0]%) and negative agonist (23.8 [21.2-26.7]%) attitudes but significantly more likely to hold negative (30.3 [27.4-33.3]%) than positive antagonist attitudes (18.0 [15.9-20.4]%). Neutral attitudes were most commonly endorsed for both agonists (54.8 [51.6-57.9]%) and antagonists (51.7 [48.5-54.8]%). For agonists, more recent AOD problem resolution was a unique predictor of positive attitude, whereas Black and Hispanic races/ethnicities, compared with White, were unique predictors of negative attitude. For antagonists, older age group (45-59 and 60 + vs. 18-29 years), lifetime opioid antagonist medication prescription, and past 90-day non-12-step mutual-help attendance were unique predictors of positive attitude, whereas greater spirituality was a unique predictor of negative attitude. This population-level study of U.S. adults who resolved an AOD problem showed that agonist attitudes may be more positive than anecdotal evidence suggests. Certain characteristics and experiences, however, highlight a greater likelihood of negative attitudes, suggesting these factors may be potential barriers to OUD medication adoption. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The Role of Behavioral Interventions in Buprenorphine Maintenance Treatment: A Review

(Reprinted with permission from Am J Psychiatry 2017;174:738-747).

Patient decision aid for medication treatment for opioid use disorder (PtDA-MOUD): Rationale, methodology, and preliminary results

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) expands within general healthcare settings such as primary care, mechanisms to facilitate decision-making processes are increasingly necessary. Decision aids have the capacity to bolster existing resources in diverse treatment settings by increasing knowledge of treatment options and facilitating shared decision making. The aim of this study is to develop and test a patient decision aid for medication treatment for opioid use disorder (PtDA-MOUD) that assists individuals with OUD in making informed decisions about treatment at the time of initial clinical visit. Use of the PtDA-MOUD will be further tested in diverse treatment settings within the California Hub and Spoke System developed under the SAMHSA State Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis grants.

METHODS

The PtDA-MOUD was iteratively developed with input from a scientific expert panel and both patient and provider focus groups, incorporating International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Thirty-six patients with OUD entering treatment pilot tested the PtDA and completed assessments, and results from clinical records were compared with matched controls who did not receive the PtDA. A clinical profile based on assessment data was created for use within the clinical visit.

RESULTS

The developed decision aid provides information on MOUD and captures patient characteristics relevant to medication treatment decisions. Feedback indicated that the PtDA-MOUD was feasible to implement and useful. Though the small sample size limited the ability to detect significant differences (p > .05), a greater number of individuals who reviewed the PtDA (37%) were inducted on MOUD than controls (11%) and received MOUD for more days (M = 14.0, SD = 24.7) than controls (M = 8.4; SD = 22.5). Moreover, the difference in means for days receiving MOUD had an approximately medium effect size (r = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient perceptions of the decision aid were favorable and it showed promise as a tool in the OUD treatment process. Pilot testing results suggested preliminary positive effects on MOUD initiation. Future phases of this study will further investigate the usefulness of this tool. ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier:NCT03394261.

Attitudes of primary care physicians toward prescribing buprenorphine: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

The opioid epidemic is a major public health issue associated with significant overdose deaths. Effective treatments exist, such as the medication buprenorphine, but are not widely available. This narrative review examines the attitudes of primary care providers (PCPs) toward prescribing buprenorphine.

METHODS

Narrative review of 20 articles published after the year 2000, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to organize the findings.

RESULTS

Three of the five CFIR domains ("Intervention Characteristics," "Outer Setting," "Inner Setting") were strongly represented in our analysis. Providers were concerned about the clientele associated with buprenorphine, diversion, and their self-efficacy in prescribing the medication. Some believed that buprenorphine does not belong in the discipline of primary care. Other barriers included philosophical objections and stigma toward substance use disorders. Notably, two studies reported a shift in attitudes once physicians prescribed buprenorphine to actual patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Negative attitudes toward buprenorphine encompassed multi-layered concerns, ranging from skepticism about the medication itself, the behaviors of patients with opioid use disorders, and beliefs regarding substance use disorders more generally. We speculate, however, that negative attitudes may be improved by tailoring support strategies that address providers' self-efficacy and level of knowledge.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Pharmacotherapy for Opioid Use Disorders in VHA Residential Treatment Programs

OBJECTIVE

Despite evidence of effectiveness, pharmacotherapy-methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone-is prescribed to less than 35% of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD). Among veterans whose OUD treatment is provided in VHA residential programs, factors influencing pharmacotherapy implementation are unknown. We examined barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD among patients diagnosed with OUD in VHA residential programs to inform the development of implementation strategies to improve medication receipt.

METHOD

VHA electronic health records and program survey data were used to describe pharmacotherapy provided to a national cohort of VHA patients with OUD in residential treatment programs (N = 4,323, 6% female). Staff members (N = 63, 57% women) from 44 residential programs (response rate = 32%) participated in interviews. Barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD were identified from transcripts using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Across all 97 residential treatment programs, the average rate of pharmacotherapy for OUD was 21% (range: 0%-67%). Reported barriers included provider or program philosophy against pharmacotherapy, a lack of care coordination with nonresidential treatment settings, and provider perceptions of low patient interest or need. Facilitators included having a prescriber on staff, education and training for patients and staff, and support from leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypothesis, barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD in VHA residential treatment programs were consistent with prior research in outpatient settings. Intensive educational programs, such as academic detailing, and policy changes such as mandating buprenorphine waiver training for VHA providers, may help improve receipt of pharmacotherapy for OUD.

Changing Clinical Practice: Evaluation of Implementing Recommendations for Opportunistic Salpingectomy in British Columbia and Ontario

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to explore the factors that contributed to the adoption of opportunistic salpingectomies (removal of fallopian at the time of hysterectomy or in lieu of tubal ligation) by gynecologic surgeons in British Columbia (where a knowledge translation initiative took place) and in Ontario (a comparator where no knowledge translation initiative took place). We aimed to understand why the knowledge translation initiative undertaken by OVCARE in British Columbia resulted in such a dramatic uptake in opportunistic salpingectomy.

METHODS

We undertook a qualitative evaluation of clinicians' decisions about whether or not they should adopt the practice of opportunistic salpingectomy based on interviews with gynecologic surgeons in British Columbia and Ontario (n = 28). The analysis draws from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Regional cohesion combined with practice change information exposure and thought leader support were important in explaining differences in adoption levels between participants. The British Columbian knowledge translation campaign was successful because provincial thought leaders exposed gynecologic surgeons to recommendations through multiple sources within a highly socially cohesive environment wherein clinicians felt pressure to adopt the recommendations. In both provinces, high adopters often believed that the workload and surgical risk associated with the adoption was low and the potential benefit-because of limited ovarian cancer detection and treatment options-was high.

CONCLUSION

This research points to the important role that local professional networks can play in encouraging clinicians to change their practice by creating a cohesive regional environment where clinicians are repeatedly exposed to important information and supported in their practice change by local thought leaders.

Use of the consolidated framework for implementation research to guide dissemination and implementation of new technologies in surgery

Background

Improving surgical outcomes is important to patients, providers, and healthcare systems. Understanding best methods to ensure evidence based practices are successfully implemented and sustained in clinical practices leads to improved care. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science facilitates the successful pathway from clinical trials to sustained implementation.

Methods

We describe D&I science, introduce the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR), a D&I framework, and provide an example of how CFIR was utilized to facilitate the translational process from design adaptations to implementation, broad utilization by clinicians, and sustainability of the SUrgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) tool into regular clinical practice. SURPAS creates data-driven individualized risk assessments of common adverse postoperative outcomes to enhance the informed consent process, shared decision making, and consequently improved surgical outcomes. The CFIR provided a structured systematic way to identify constructs influencing the D&I of SURPAS, including adaptations for the process and tool.

Results

We identified three domains, each with specific constructs, that participants believed would strongly influence effectiveness of SURPAS implementation efforts: the importance of patients' perspectives (outer setting); the quality of SURPAS (intervention characteristic); and integration of SURPAS into the electronic health record (inner setting). Additionally, providers' positive attitudes toward and support of SURPAS (characteristics of individuals); and the ease of integration of SURPAS into the workflow (process), were also identified. Tension emerged between patients' preference of the provision of risk information and providers' concern about additional clinic time required for formal risk discussion with low-risk patients.

Conclusions

Systematically identifying constructs from the beginning of the design through the implementation process can guide design of a multi-component strategy for future large-scale implementation by assessing the relative impact of factors on implementation using the CFIR framework. In the example studied, this allows key stakeholders to ensure success of D&I of SURPAS at multiple levels and times, continuously optimizing the process.

Facility-level changes in receipt of pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder: Implications for implementation science

BACKGROUND

The U.S. is facing an opioid epidemic, but despite mandates for pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder to be available at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities, the majority of veterans with opioid use disorder do not receive these medications. In implementation research, facilities are often targeted for qualitative inquiry or quality improvement efforts based on quality measure performance during a one-year period. However, sites that experience quality performance changes from one year to the next may be highly informative because mechanisms that impact facility change may be more discoverable. The current study examined changes in receipt of pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder in a national healthcare system to determine the extent to which sites fluctuated in performance over a two-year period and illustrate how changes in quality measures over time may be useful for implementation research and healthcare surveillance of quality measures.

METHODS

Using national VHA data from Fiscal Years (FY) 2016 and 2017, we calculated quality measure performance as the number of patients who received pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (i.e., methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) divided by the number of patients with a current non-remitted opioid use disorder diagnosis for each FY at each facility (n = 129) and examined change from FY16 to FY17.

RESULTS

The mean rate of receipt of pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder was 38% (facility range = 3% to 74%) in FY16 and 41% (facility range = 2% to 76%) in FY17. The average facility-level change in performance was 3% and ranged from -19% to 26%. There were 32 facilities that decreased in provision of pharmacotherapy, 12 facilities with no change, and 85 facilities that increased.

CONCLUSIONS

For facilities with average or high performance, it was difficult to maintain their performance over time. Identifying and learning from facilities with recent fluctuations may be more informative to guide the design of future quality improvement efforts than studying facilities with stable high or low performance.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Pharmacotherapy for Opioid Use Disorders in VHA Residential Treatment Programs

OBJECTIVE

Despite evidence of effectiveness, pharmacotherapy-methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone-is prescribed to less than 35% of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD). Among veterans whose OUD treatment is provided in VHA residential programs, factors influencing pharmacotherapy implementation are unknown. We examined barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD among patients diagnosed with OUD in VHA residential programs to inform the development of implementation strategies to improve medication receipt.

METHOD

VHA electronic health records and program survey data were used to describe pharmacotherapy provided to a national cohort of VHA patients with OUD in residential treatment programs (N = 4,323, 6% female). Staff members (N = 63, 57% women) from 44 residential programs (response rate = 32%) participated in interviews. Barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD were identified from transcripts using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Across all 97 residential treatment programs, the average rate of pharmacotherapy for OUD was 21% (range: 0%-67%). Reported barriers included provider or program philosophy against pharmacotherapy, a lack of care coordination with nonresidential treatment settings, and provider perceptions of low patient interest or need. Facilitators included having a prescriber on staff, education and training for patients and staff, and support from leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypothesis, barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD in VHA residential treatment programs were consistent with prior research in outpatient settings. Intensive educational programs, such as academic detailing, and policy changes such as mandating buprenorphine waiver training for VHA providers, may help improve receipt of pharmacotherapy for OUD.

Emergency Physicians' Perception of Barriers and Facilitators for Adopting an Opioid Prescribing Guideline in Ohio: A Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Ohio has the fifth highest rate of prescription opioid overdose deaths in the United States. One strategy implemented to address this concern is a state-wide opioid prescribing guideline in the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to explore emergency physicians' perceptions on barriers and strategies for the Ohio ED opioid prescribing guideline.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with emergency physicians in Ohio were conducted from October to December 2016. Emergency physicians were recruited through the American College of Emergency Physicians Ohio State Chapter. The interview guide explored issues related to the implementation of the guidelines. Interview data were transcribed and thematically analyzed and coded using a scheme of inductively determined labels.

RESULTS

In total, we conducted 20 interviews. Of these, 11 were also the ED medical director at their institution. Main themes we identified were: 1) increased organizational responsibility, 2) improved prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) integration, 3) concerns regarding patient satisfaction scores, and 4) increased patient involvement. In addition, some physicians wanted the guidelines to contain more clinical information and be worded more strongly against opioid prescribing. Emergency physicians felt patient satisfaction scores were perceived to negatively impact opioid prescribing guidelines, as they may encourage physicians to prescribe opioids. Furthermore, some participants reported that this is compounded if the emergency physicians' income was linked to their patient satisfaction score.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency physicians interviewed generally supported the state-wide opioid prescribing guideline but felt hospitals needed to take additional organizational responsibility for addressing inappropriate opioid prescribing.

The Role of Behavioral Interventions in Buprenorphine Maintenance Treatment: A Review

OBJECTIVE

Although counseling is a required part of office-based buprenorphine treatment of opioid use disorders, the nature of what constitutes appropriate counseling is unclear and controversial. The authors review the literature on the role, nature, and intensity of behavioral interventions in office-based buprenorphine treatment.

METHOD

The authors conducted a review of randomized controlled studies testing the efficacy of adding a behavioral intervention to buprenorphine maintenance treatment.

RESULTS

Four key studies showed no benefit from adding a behavioral intervention to buprenorphine plus medical management, and four studies indicated some benefit for specific behavioral interventions, primarily contingency management. The authors examined the findings from the negative trials in the context of six questions: 1) Is buprenorphine that effective? 2) Is medical management that effective? 3) Are behavioral interventions that ineffective in this population? 4) How has research design affected the results of studies of buprenorphine plus behavioral treatment? 5) What do we know about subgroups of patients who do and those who do not seem to benefit from behavioral interventions? 6) What should clinicians aim for in terms of treatment outcome in buprenorphine maintenance?

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality medical management may suffice for some patients, but there are few data regarding the types of individuals for whom medical management is sufficient. Physicians should consider a stepped-care model in which patients may begin with relatively nonintensive treatment, with increased intensity for patients who struggle early in treatment. Finally, with 6-month retention rates seldom exceeding 50% and poor outcomes following dropout, we must explore innovative strategies for enhancing retention in buprenorphine treatment.

Patient-reported pathways to opioid use disorders and pain-related barriers to treatment engagement

BACKGROUND

Risk factors associated with developing opioid use disorders (OUD) are documented, but less is known about different pathways to initiation of opioids or opioid dependence, or how such pathways affect treatment engagement.

METHODS

We recruited 283 adults with electronic medical record (EMR) evidence of opioid dependence diagnoses. Open-ended and structured interview items focused on prior opioid treatment experiences, barriers to and knowledge of treatment options. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. In exploratory analyses, we used a modified grounded theory approach to organize emergent, patient-reported themes describing participants' perceived pathways to opioid dependence.

RESULTS

121 participants described one or more pathways to OUD. Qualitative analyses revealed five pathway themes. Three pathways were related to pain control: inadequately controlled chronic pain, exposure to opioids during acute pain episodes, and chronic pain among individuals with prior substance use disorders. A fourth pathway included individuals for whom opioids provided relief from emotional distress; the fifth related to recreational or non-medically supervised opioid use. We identified pain-related barriers to reducing/stopping opioids and treatment engagement barriers among individuals who perceived themselves solely as pain patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients' perceptions of inadequately controlled pain, patients' previous substance use disorders, and the relief from emotional distress that some patients feel while using opioids are relevant when making clinical decisions about whether to initiate or sustain opioid therapy, and for how to monitor certain individuals. Among individuals with pain and OUD, treatment barriers include fear of uncontrolled pain, and stigmatization of being treated alongside people with non-medical opioid use.

Integrating evidence-based practices for increasing cancer screenings in safety net health systems: a multiple case study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Background

Implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) to increase cancer screenings in safety net primary care systems has great potential for reducing cancer disparities. Yet there is a gap in understanding the factors and mechanisms that influence EBP implementation within these high-priority systems. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), our study aims to fill this gap with a multiple case study of health care safety net systems that were funded by an American Cancer Society (ACS) grants program to increase breast and colorectal cancer screening rates. The initiative funded 68 safety net systems to increase cancer screening through implementation of evidence-based provider and client-oriented strategies.

Methods

Data are from a mixed-methods evaluation with nine purposively selected safety net systems. Fifty-two interviews were conducted with project leaders, implementers, and ACS staff. Funded safety net systems were categorized into high-, medium-, and low-performing cases based on the level of EBP implementation. Within- and cross-case analyses were performed to identify CFIR constructs that influenced level of EBP implementation.

Results

Of 39 CFIR constructs examined, six distinguished levels of implementation. Two constructs were from the intervention characteristics domain: adaptability and trialability. Three were from the inner setting domain: leadership engagement, tension for change, and access to information and knowledge. Engaging formally appointed internal implementation leaders, from the process domain, also distinguished level of implementation. No constructs from the outer setting or individual characteristics domain differentiated systems by level of implementation.

Conclusions

Our study identified a number of influential CFIR constructs and illustrated how they impacted EBP implementation across a variety of safety net systems. Findings may inform future dissemination efforts of EBPs for increasing cancer screening in similar settings. Moreover, our analytic approach is similar to previous case studies using CFIR and hence could facilitate comparisons across studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0477-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

BACKGROUND

In 2009, Damschroder et al. developed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which provides a comprehensive listing of constructs thought to influence implementation. This systematic review assesses the extent to which the CFIR's use in implementation research fulfills goals set forth by Damschroder et al. in terms of breadth of use, depth of application, and contribution to implementation research.

METHODS

We searched Scopus and Web of Science for publications that cited the original CFIR publication by Damschroder et al. (Implement Sci 4:50, 2009) and downloaded each unique result for review. After applying exclusion criteria, the final articles were empirical studies published in peer-review journals that used the CFIR in a meaningful way (i.e., used the CFIR to guide data collection, measurement, coding, analysis, and/or reporting). A framework analysis approach was used to guide abstraction and synthesis of the included articles.

RESULTS

Twenty-six of 429 unique articles (6 %) met inclusion criteria. We found great breadth in CFIR application; the CFIR was applied across a wide variety of study objectives, settings, and units of analysis. There was also variation in the method of included studies (mixed methods (n = 13); qualitative (n = 10); quantitative (n = 3)). Depth of CFIR application revealed some areas for improvement. Few studies (n = 3) reported justification for selection of CFIR constructs used; the majority of studies (n = 14) used the CFIR to guide data analysis only; and few studies investigated any outcomes (n = 11). Finally, reflections on the contribution of the CFIR to implementation research were scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the CFIR has been used across a wide range of studies, though more in-depth use of the CFIR may help advance implementation science. To harness its potential, researchers should consider how to most meaningfully use the CFIR. Specific recommendations for applying the CFIR include explicitly justifying selection of CFIR constructs; integrating the CFIR throughout the research process (in study design, data collection, and analysis); and appropriately using the CFIR given the phase of implementation of the research (e.g., if the research is post-implementation, using the CFIR to link determinants of implementation to outcomes).

Methadone, buprenorphine and preferences for opioid agonist treatment: A qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients and clinicians have begun to recognize the advantages and disadvantages of buprenorphine relative to methadone, but factors that influence choices between these two medications remain unclear. For example, we know little about how patients' preferences and previous experiences influence treatment decisions. Understanding these issues may enhance treatment engagement and retention.

METHODS

Adults with opioid dependence (n=283) were recruited from two integrated health systems to participate in interviews focused on prior experiences with treatment for opioid dependence, knowledge of medication options, preferences for treatment, and experiences with treatment for chronic pain in the context of problems with opioids. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using Atlas.ti.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed seven areas of consideration for opioid agonist treatment decision-making: (1) awareness of treatment options; (2) expectations and goals for duration of treatment and abstinence; (3) prior experience with buprenorphine or methadone; (4) need for accountability and structured support; (5) preference to avoid methadone clinics or associated stigma; (6) fear of continued addiction and perceived difficulty of withdrawal; and (7) pain control.

CONCLUSION

The availability of medication options increases the need for clear communication between clinicians and patients, for additional patient education about these medications, and for collaboration and patient influence over choices in treatment decision-making. Our results suggest that access to both methadone and buprenorphine will increase treatment options and patient choice and may enhance treatment adherence and outcomes.

Implementation of integrated stepped care for unhealthy alcohol use in HIV clinics

Background

Effective counseling and pharmacotherapy for unhealthy alcohol use are rarely provided in HIV treatment settings to patients. Our goal was to describe factors influencing implementation of a stepped care model to address unhealthy alcohol use in HIV clinics from the perspectives of social workers, psychologists and addiction psychiatrists.

Methods

We conducted two focus groups with Social Workers (n = 4), Psychologists (n = 2), and Addiction Psychiatrists (n = 4) involved in an ongoing randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of integrated stepped care for unhealthy alcohol use in HIV-infected patients at five Veterans Health Administration (VA) HIV clinics. Data collection and analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains, with a focus on the three domains which we considered to be most relevant: intervention characteristics (i.e. motivational interviewing, pharmacotherapy), the inner setting (i.e. HIV clinics), and characteristics of individuals (i.e. the providers). A multidisciplinary team used directed content analysis to identify major themes.

Results

From the providers’ perspective, the major implementation themes that emerged by CFIR domain included: (1) Intervention characteristics: providers valued tools and processes for facilitating patient motivation for treatment of unhealthy alcohol use given their perceived lack of motivation, but expressed a desire for greater flexibility; (2) Inner setting: treating unhealthy alcohol use in HIV clinics was perceived by providers to be consistent with VA priorities; and (3) Characteristics of individuals: there was high self-efficacy to conduct the intervention, an expressed need for more consistent utilization to maintain skills, and consideration of alternative models for delivering the components of the intervention.

Conclusions

Use of the CFIR framework reveals that implementation of integrated stepped care for unhealthy alcohol use in HIV clinics is facilitated by tools to help providers enhance patient motivation or address unhealthy alcohol use among patients perceived to be unmotivated. Implementation may be facilitated by its consistency with organizational values and existing models of care and attention to optimizing provider self-efficacy and roles (i.e. approaches to treatment integration).

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to Identify Barriers and Facilitators for the Implementation of an Internet-Based Patient-Provider Communication Service in Five Settings: A Qualitative Study

Background

Although there is growing evidence of the positive effects of Internet-based patient-provider communication (IPPC) services for both patients and health care providers, their implementation into clinical practice continues to be a challenge.

Objective

The 3 aims of this study were to (1) identify and compare barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of an IPPC service in 5 hospital units using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), (2) assess the ability of the different constructs of CFIR to distinguish between high and low implementation success, and (3) compare our findings with those from other studies that used the CFIR to discriminate between high and low implementation success.

Methods

This study was based on individual interviews with 10 nurses, 6 physicians, and 1 nutritionist who had used the IPPC to answer messages from patients.

Results

Of the 36 CFIR constructs, 28 were addressed in the interviews, of which 12 distinguished between high and low implementation units. Most of the distinguishing constructs were related to the inner setting domain of CFIR, indicating that institutional factors were particularly important for successful implementation. Health care providers’ beliefs in the intervention as useful for themselves and their patients as well as the implementation process itself were also important. A comparison of constructs across ours and 2 other studies that also used the CFIR to discriminate between high and low implementation success showed that 24 CFIR constructs distinguished between high and low implementation units in at least 1 study; 11 constructs distinguished in 2 studies. However, only 2 constructs (patient need and resources and available resources) distinguished consistently between high and low implementation units in all 3 studies.

Conclusions

The CFIR is a helpful framework for illuminating barriers and facilitators influencing IPPC implementation. However, CFIR’s strength of being broad and comprehensive also limits its usefulness as an implementation framework because it does not discriminate between the relative importance of its many constructs for implementation success. This is the first study to identify which CFIR constructs are the most promising to distinguish between high and low implementation success across settings and interventions. Findings from this study can contribute to the refinement of CFIR toward a more succinct and parsimonious framework for planning and evaluation of the implementation of clinical interventions.

ClinicalTrial

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00971139; http://clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/show/NCT00971139 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6cWeqN1uY)

Buprenorphine Prescribing Availability in a Sample of Ohio Specialty Treatment Organizations

OBJECTIVE

Buprenorphine, a medication for treating opioid dependence, is underutilized in specialty addiction treatment organizations. Only physicians who have obtained a buprenorphine prescribing license or "waiver" may administer this medication. A limited number of physicians are pursuing this waiver, and a concern in the substance use disorder treatment field is that the shortage of prescribers could be contributing to the low use of buprenorphine at specialty addiction treatment centers. The objective of this study is to assess Ohio specialty treatment organizations' access to buprenorphine prescribers and the barriers they encounter when seeking new physician prescribing capacity.

METHODS

Forty-one Ohio specialty addiction treatment organizations were invited to complete a survey of their buprenorphine practices and availability of buprenorphine prescribers during August-October 2014. Data was collected on pharmacotherapies used in the treatment of opioid dependence, arrangements treatment organizations have with prescribing physicians, buprenorphine prescribing capacity, and barriers encountered in recruiting new physician prescribers.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven treatment organizations responded, for a response rate of 90.2%. Seventy-eight percent (n=29) of the sample provided buprenorphine therapy. Of those treatment organizations, 48.3% (n=14) reported insufficient prescribing capacity. Of those, 50% (n=7) indicated they had to turn patients away from buprenorphine therapy due to limited physician prescribing capacity.

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that buprenorphine use is constrained by limited physician prescribing capacity, to the degree that 24.1% of the organizations surveyed using buprenorphine therapy had to turn patients away. Potential remedies include encouraging more specialty treatment organizations to have physicians on staff, removing the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA 2000) cap that limits physician buprenorphine caseloads at 100 patients (after year 1), and developing strategies to recruit physicians into addiction treatment practice. Additional research is needed to increase the knowledge of physician prescribing capacity as a barrier to buprenorphine use, how to overcome these barriers, and to understand the extent physician capacity shortages are affecting buprenorphine use.

Costs of care for persons with opioid dependence in commercial integrated health systems

BACKGROUND

When used in general medical practices, buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid dependence, yet little is known about how use of buprenorphine affects the utilization and cost of health care in commercial health systems.

METHODS

The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to examine how buprenorphine affects patterns of medical care, addiction medicine services, and costs from the health system perspective. Individuals with two or more opioid-dependence diagnoses per year, in two large health systems (System A: n = 1836; System B: n = 4204) over the time span 2007-2008 were included. Propensity scores were used to help adjust for group differences.

RESULTS

Patients receiving buprenorphine plus addiction counseling had significantly lower total health care costs than patients with little or no addiction treatment (mean health care costs with buprenorphine treatment = $13,578; vs. mean health care costs with no addiction treatment = $31,055; p < .0001), while those receiving buprenorphine plus addiction counseling and those with addiction counseling only did not differ significantly in total health care costs (mean costs with counseling only: $17,017; p = .5897). In comparison to patients receiving buprenorphine plus counseling, those with little or no addiction treatment had significantly greater use of primary care (p < .001), other medical visits (p = .001), and emergency services (p = .020). Patients with counseling only (compared to patients with buprenorphine plus counseling) used less inpatient detoxification (p < .001), and had significantly more PC visits (p = .001), other medical visits (p = .005), and mental health visits (p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is a viable alternative to other treatment approaches for opioid dependence in commercial integrated health systems, with total costs of health care similar to abstinence-based counseling. Patients with buprenorphine plus counseling had reduced use of general medical services compared to the alternatives.