Medication-Assisted Treatment in Problem-solving Courts: A National Survey of State and Local Court Coordinators

Barriers to Universal Availability of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in US Jails

Importance

Many of the approximately 2 million people being held in US correctional facilities are experiencing an opioid use disorder (OUD). Providing medications for OUD (MOUD) to this population is, therefore, essential to curb the opioid crisis.

Objective

To examine the types of MOUD jails are making available, factors associated with availability, and additional supports needed for jails to address implementation challenges.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study used a cross-sectional survey of jails conducted between February 2 and July 1, 2023, to explore how they administer MOUD. Publicly available county-level data were connected with the survey responses to assess how variables in the surrounding community were associated with MOUD availability. The survey was administered to jails via mail, telephone, and online survey link. Participants included jails with MOUD available that completed the survey.

Exposures

Urbanization, average daily population, availability of a health care professional to administer MOUD, whether the state expanded Medicaid, average drive time to MOUD in the county, county overdose rate, and county social vulnerability were assessed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the type of MOUD available in the jail, including buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone, or all 3 medications. Binary logistic regressions were conducted to identify the characteristics of jails and county-level factors associated with offering the medications.

Results

A total of 462 jails were invited to complete the survey based on responses to a previous nationally representative survey of jails, in which they indicated that MOUD was available to individuals in their facility. A total of 265 US jails with MOUD available were included in the analysis, representative of 1243 jails nationwide with MOUD available after weighting (812 jails [65.3%] provided buprenorphine, 646 jails [52.0%] provided naltrexone, 560 jails [45.0%] provided methadone, and 343 jails [27.6%] provided all 3 medications). Availability was associated with urbanicity, location in a Medicaid expansion state, county opioid overdose rate, and county social vulnerability. Common challenges included jail policies and procedures and the logistical accessibility of the medication.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this survey study of US jails demonstrate that jails with MOUD available still experience challenges with making all 3 types of medication available to anyone held within their facility. Policy, regulatory, financing, staffing, and educational solutions are needed to ensure that all detainees with OUD have access to treatment while incarcerated.

Increasing Initiation of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Through Recovery Coaches: The Role of Implementation Setting

OBJECTIVES

Programs to increase linkage to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) through peer recovery coaches may hold promise in increasing MOUD initiation. However, the impact of linkage programs may vary based on contextual factors, such as the implementation setting. This study examines whether implementation setting is associated with MOUD initiation following participation in peer-based linkage programs.

METHODS

The University of Kentucky and Voices of Hope Lexington, a recovery community organization, trained recovery coaches to implement a MOUD linkage program. Coaches were deployed in 9 criminal-legal organizations (ie, jails, specialty court, and pretrial services) and 20 community organizations in 4 rural and 4 urban counties. Coaches worked with participants (n = 754) to set person-centered goals, provided MOUD education, addressed MOUD initiation barriers, and assisted with scheduling appointments. A typology of implementation setting categorized participants by where they enrolled in the linkage program: (1) urban community organizations (reference group), (2) urban criminal-legal organizations, (3) rural community organizations, or (4) rural criminal-legal organizations. The odds of MOUD initiation were estimated using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 754 participants, 23.1% (n = 174) reported initiating MOUD. Relative to urban community organizations, individuals enrolled in rural community organizations were more likely to initiate MOUD (odds ratio = 1.85, P = 0.04), whereas individuals enrolled in rural criminal-legal organizations were less likely to initiate MOUD (odds ratio = 0.34, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation setting may impact the likelihood of MOUD initiation through peer-based linkage programs. Future research should examine how implementation strategies might overcome setting-specific barriers to MOUD initiation, particularly in rural criminal-legal settings.

The wide-angle lens of implementation science to improve health outcomes in criminal legal settings

BACKGROUND

Implementation science (IS) is an emerging discipline that offers frameworks, theories, measures, and interventions to understand both the effective organizational change processes and the contextual factors that affect how well an innovation operates in real-world settings.

RESULTS

In this article, we present an overview of the basic concepts and methods of IS. We then present six studies where IS was used as a means to understand implementation of a new innovations designed to improve the health and well-being of individuals under criminal legal system supervision.

CONCLUSION

We discuss how IS has developed new knowledge on how to implement efficacious innovations and suggesting future research needed to further our understanding of implementation and sustainability of innovations in the legal context.

Factors affecting problem-solving court team decisions about medications for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Problem-solving courts (PSCs) provide alternatives to prosecution and incarceration for drug-related crimes and offer integrated support for people who have lost custody of children due to drug use. Methadone and buprenorphine are lifesaving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) but are underused by PSC clients. Even when PSCs lack a court-level prohibition against MOUD, court staff still make individualized decisions about whether a court client can use MOUD. Therefore, we sought to identify factors involved in such individualized PSC court decisions about clients' use of MOUD.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups between Summer and Fall 2022 with a convenience sample of 54 PSC staff members from 33 courts across four states. Data were analyzed using iterative categorization.

RESULTS

Interviewees indicated that their courts had eliminated blanket prohibitions against MOUD due to federal and state policy funding requirements, widespread dissemination of voluntary best practice standards, fear of lawsuits, and MOUD education targeting courts. Courts allowed MOUD if the court client accessed it through a treatment provider with whom the court collaborates. Some courts only allowed court clients to access MOUD from non-partnering treatment providers after a court-led "vetting" process of the proposed MOUD provider. MOUD provider characteristics considered during the vetting process included the provider's willingness to communicate with the court, frequent drug testing, adjustments of medication or dosage in response to aberrant results, offering of counseling, and acceptance of Medicaid or sliding scale payments. PSC staff were least comfortable with court clients using methadone treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence (or lack of) a PSC-MOUD partnership is a key factor involved in court staff decisions when a court client desires MOUD. Therefore, increasing the number of partnerships between PSCs and MOUD providers could lead to higher rates of MOUD utilization. It is unclear whether court-led vetting processes for non-partnering MOUD treatment providers are necessary or appropriate, and such vetting processes could reduce treatment choice or access in communities with few MOUD providers.

Factors Associated With the Availability of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in US Jails

Importance

In 2023, more than 80 000 individuals died from an overdose involving opioids. With almost two-thirds of the US jail population experiencing a substance use disorder, jails present a key opportunity for providing lifesaving treatments, such as medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

Objectives

To examine the prevalence of MOUD in US jails and the association of jail- and county-level factors with MOUD prevalence using a national sample.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study used a nationally representative cross-sectional survey querying 1028 jails from June 2022 to April 2023 on their provision of substance use disorder treatment services. The survey was conducted via mail, phone, and the internet. County-level data were linked to survey data, and binary logistic regressions were conducted to assess the probability that a jail offered any treatment and MOUD. A stratified random sample of 2791 jails identified by federal lists of all jails in the US was invited to participate. Staff members knowledgeable about substance use disorder services available in the jail completed the survey.

Exposures

US Census region, urbanicity, jail size, jail health care model (direct employees or contracted), county opioid overdose rate, county social vulnerability (measured using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020 Social Vulnerability Index summary ranking, which ranks counties based on 16 social factors), and access to treatment in the county were assessed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Availability of any type of substance use disorder treatment (eg, self-help meetings), availability of MOUD (ie, buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) to at least some individuals, and availability of MOUD to any individual with an OUD were assessed.

Results

Of 2791 invited jails, 1028 jails participated (36.8% response rate). After merging the sample with county data, 927 jails were included in analysis, representative of 3157 jails nationally after weighting; most were from nonmetropolitan counties (‭1756 jails [55.6%; 95% CI, 52.3%-59.0%]) and had contracted health care services (1886 jails [59.7%; 95% CI, 56.5%-63.0%]); fewer than half of these jails (1383 jails [43.8%; 95% CI, 40.5%-47.1%]) offered MOUD to at least some individuals, and 405 jails (12.8%; 95% CI, 10.7% to 14.9%) offered MOUD to anyone with an OUD. Jails located in counties with lower social vulnerability (adjusted odds ratio per 1-percentile increase = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.40) and shorter mean distances to the nearest facility providing MOUD (adjusted odds ratio per 1-SD increase, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88) were more likely to offer MOUD.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, few jails indicated offering frontline treatments despite being well positioned to reach individuals with an OUD. These findings suggest that efforts and policies to increase MOUD availability in jails and the surrounding community may be associated with helping more individuals receive treatment.

A National Survey of Problem-Solving Court Staff Perceptions of In-Person versus Virtual Hearings

During the COVID-19 pandemic, problem-solving courts adopted virtual hearings. We conducted an online nationwide survey with a convenience sample of court staff to elicit their perceptions of court participants' attendance, engagement, willingness to talk, and ability to form connection with judges during in-person versus virtual hearings. Sign tests compared ordinal ratings for perceptions of court participant outcomes during in-person versus virtual hearing modalities, and for audiovisual technology versus audio-only technology. The final analysis included 146 staff. Staff felt that during in-person hearings judges could form closer relationships with participants, quality of information exchanged was higher, and participants were more willing to talk. Staff rated attendance as high regardless of the modality. Staff felt participant engagement was higher with audiovisual technology than audio-only technology. Our results suggest that staff have concerns about effects of virtual hearings on court participant engagement and ability to form relationships with judges. Courts should address these potential negative effects of virtual hearings. We are concerned that staff perceived participants more negatively when participants used audio-only versus audiovisual technology, because technology access could be associated with participant demographic characteristics. Further research is needed to examine court participant perceptions and outcomes.

Viewing Then Doing?: Problem-Solving Court Coordinators' Perceptions of Medications for Opioid Use Disorders from a Nationally Representative Survey in the United States

Background. Overdose deaths in the United States (U.S.) surpassed 100,000 in 2021. Problem-solving courts (PSCs), which originally began as drug courts, divert people with nonviolent felonies and underlying social issues (e.g. opioid use disorders (OUDs)) from the carceral system to a community-based treatment court program. PSCs are operated by a collaborative court staff team including a judge that supervises PSC clients, local court coordinators that manage PSC operations, among other staff. Based on staff recommendations, medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) can be integrated into court clients' treatment plans. MOUDs are an evidence-based treatment option. However, MOUDs remain widely underutilized within criminal justice settings partially due to negative perceptions of MOUDs held by staff. Objective. PSCs are an understudied justice setting where MOUD usage would be beneficial. This study sought to understand how court coordinators' perceptions and attitudes about MOUDs influenced their uptake and utilization in PSCs. Methods. A nationally representative survey of 849 local and 42 state PSC coordinators in the U.S. was conducted to understand how coordinators' perceptions influenced MOUD utilization. Results. Generally, court coordinators hold positive views of MOUDs, especially naltrexone. While state and local coordinators' views do not differ greatly, their stronger attitudes align with different aspects of and issues in PSCs such as medication diversion (i.e. misuse). Conclusions. This study has implications for PSCs and their staff, treatment providers, and other community supervision staff (e.g. probation/parole officers, court staff) who can promote and encourage the use of MOUDs by clients.

Pandemic Procedures: Adapting Problem-Solving Court (PSC) Operations and Treatment Protocols During COVID-19

With an ongoing pandemic claiming hundreds of lives a day, it is unclear how COVID-19 has affected court operations, particularly problem-solving courts (PSCs) which have goals rooted in rehabilitation for participants in their programs. Even with practical recommendations from national organizations directing courts on how to manage COVID-19, whether and how PSCs met the needs of PSC participants during this time is underexplored. This study, drawn from a larger national study using a survey of PSC coordinators, examines the COVID-19 responses of PSCs to remain safely operational for participants. A sub-sample of survey respondents (n = 82 PSC coordinators) detailed how the COVID-19 pandemic led to changes to their court and treatment operations amidst the constraints of the pandemic. The courts' shifts in policy and practice have important impacts for court participants' treatment retention and success in the PSC program, and these shifts need more in-depth research in the future.

Providing substance use disorder treatment in correctional settings: knowledge gaps and proposed research priorities-overview and commentary

This manuscript is the product of the authors' discussions, literature overview, and consultation with experts in the field, and identifies important gaps in the evidence base for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment effectiveness within criminal justice (CJ) settings. Lacking from the extant literature are longitudinal investigations of treatment related outcomes during and after incarceration. Such studies could provide rich contextual data about treatment delivery and effectiveness across the CJ continuum, and would provide important insight into individual characteristics (e.g., motivation, treatment modality preferences, treatment completion rates, etc.) as well as institutional and environmental factors (e.g., appropriate staffing, space limitations for individual treatment sessions, distribution of medications, etc.). We also identified the importance of reproducibility within CJ research, and the unfortunate reality of too many single studies conducted in single (or relatively few) correctional facilities. Some of this has been because the studies designed to produce that evidence are not prioritized for funding, which has continually placed researchers in a position where we cannot make firm conclusions or recommendations based on available evidence. The importance of replicating the foundational studies in this field cannot be overstated. We hope this article spurs other researchers to join in the healthy process of questioning the existing state of the CJ-based SUD treatment research, what should be re-examined, and how we can lay a stronger foundation for the future.