Impact of Stigma on Clinician Training for Opioid Use Disorder Care: A Qualitative Study in a Primary Care Learning Collaborative

Leveraging neuroscience education to address stigma related to opioid use disorder in the community: a pilot study

Opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths are a public health crisis. One contributing factor is stigma towards people who use opioids. We developed and conducted a public-facing, half-day educational event designed to challenge misperceptions about OUD from a contemporary neuroscience perspective. Participants engaged with three different resources on the neurobiology of addiction, and, at the end of the event, they rated its effectiveness. We also collected and compared pre- and post-event composite OUD stigma scales. Participants rated our approach and the overall event as highly effective. Additionally, OUD stigma scores were lower immediately following the event, and this decrease was primarily driven by decreased internalized stigma. Here, we demonstrate an effective proof-of-concept that an accessible, public-facing, neuroscience education event may reduce OUD stigma in the community.

Patient Perspectives on Mental Health and Pain Management Support Needed Versus Received During Opioid Deprescribing

Prescription opioid tapering has increased significantly over the last decade. Evidence suggests that tapering too quickly or without appropriate support may unintentionally harm patients. The aim of this analysis was to understand patients' experiences with opioid tapering, including support received or not received for pain control or mental health. Patients with evidence of opioid tapering from 6 health care systems participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews; family members of suicide decedents with evidence of opioid tapering were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants included 176 patients and 16 family members. Results showed that 24% of the participants felt their clinicians checked in with them about their taper experiences while 41% reported their clinicians did not. A majority (68%) of individuals who experienced suicide behavior during tapering reported that clinicians did check in about mood and mental health changes specifically; however, 27% of that group reported no such check-in. More individuals reported negative experiences (than positive) with pain management clinics-where patients are often referred for tapering and pain management support. Patients reporting successful tapering experiences named shared decision-making and ability to adjust taper speed or pause tapering as helpful components of care. Fifty-six percent of patients reported needing more support during tapering, including more empathy and compassion (48%) and an individualized approach to tapering (41%). Patient-centered approaches to tapering include reaching out to monitor how patients are doing, involving patients in decision-making, supporting mental health changes, and allowing for flexibility in the tapering pace. PERSPECTIVE: Patients tapering prescription opioids desire more provider-initiated communication including checking in about pain, setting expectations for withdrawal and mental health-related changes, and providing support for mental health. Patients preferred opportunities to share decisions about taper speed and to have flexibility with pausing the taper as needed.

Leveraging neuroscience education to address stigma related to opioid use disorder (OUD) in the community: A pilot study

Opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths are a public health crisis. One contributing factor is stigma towards people who use opioids. We developed and conducted a public-facing, half-day educational event designed to challenge misperceptions about OUD from a contemporary neuroscience perspective. Participants engaged with three different resources on the neurobiology of addiction; at the end of the event, they rated its effectiveness. We also collected and compared pre- and post-event composite OUD stigma scales. Participants rated our approach and the overall event as highly effective. Additionally, OUD stigma scores were lower immediately following the event, and this decrease was primarily driven by decreased internalized stigma. Here, we demonstrate an effective proof-of-concept that an accessible, public-facing, neuroscience education event may reduce OUD stigma in the community.

Intersectionality in nursing research: A scoping review

Background

An intersectional approach to health research provides an analytical foundation to explain the multidimensionality of health status, resource accessibility, privilege, oppression, and current and historical context. The use of intersectionality in health research has known limitations. Its use in health-related fields too often focuses on outcomes, such as health disparities, rather than processes, such as power structures and social determinants.

Objective

This scoping review serves to examine how intersectionality has been implemented by nurses in the peer-reviewed literature. We offer insight into how it may be incorporated to inform future nursing research and healthcare provision.

Design & Methods

Systematic searches of PubMed (n = 257), SCOPUS (n = 807), EMBASE (n = 396), CINAHL (n = 224), and Health Source: Nursing and Academics (n = 491), published since the seminal publication on intersectionality (1989 - 2023), identified 131 research articles that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and synthesis were used to describe the breadth and depth of the literature specific to the application of intersectionality in nursing research.

Results

The included studies used intersectionality to examine the intersections of numerous identities, such as race, gender, and immigration status. However, most studies were descriptive/observational in nature, underreported their methods, and conducted deficit-based research instead of strength-based inquiries. Of note, the vast majority of included articles were published within the last five years.

Conclusions

Future researchers using intersectionality as a framework can improve their approach by reporting clear definitions and operationalization of intersectionality. Observational science dominated the included studies; future research should focus on intervention development and evaluation using an intersectional lens. Lastly, caution should be placed on research that focuses solely on deficits among marginalized communities, which places scientists at risk of perpetuating stereotypes or enhancing already-existing stigmas.

Evaluation of a Primary Care-Based Multidisciplinary Transition Clinic for Patients Newly Initiated on Buprenorphine in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Care transitions represent vulnerable events for patients newly initiating medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Multidisciplinary primary care-based transition clinics may improve care linkage and retention in MOUD treatment. Additionally, these interventions may help primary care clinicians (PCPs) overcome barriers to adopting MOUD into practice. In this evaluation, we assessed the impact of a primary care-based transition clinic for patients newly initiating buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the emergency department.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective program evaluation within a single academic health system involving adults who newly initiated buprenorphine for OUD through an emergency department-based program and were referred to follow up in either a dedicated multidisciplinary primary care-based transition clinic (SPARC) vs referral to usual primary care (UPC). We performed descriptive analyses comparing patient demographics, referral volume, linkage to care, treatment retention, and markers of high-quality care between the 2 groups. A log-rank test was used to determine the difference in probabilities of retention between SPARC and UPC over 6 months.

RESULTS

Over 12 months, the number of referrals to SPARC was greater than to UPC (N = 64 vs N = 26). About 58% of patients referred to SPARC attended an initial visit vs 38% referred to UPC. Treatment retention was consistently greater in SPARC than UPC (1 m: 90% vs 60%; 3 m: 76% vs 40%; 6 m: 60% vs 30%). Markers of care quality including naloxone provision (100% vs 80%) and infectious screening (81% vs 40%) were greater in SPARC clinic. SPARC was associated with a statistically significant increased probability of retention in treatment as compared to UPC (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational evaluation, a primary care-based multidisciplinary transition clinic for patients initiating buprenorphine MOUD was associated with expanded access to longitudinal OUD treatment and superior linkage to care, retention in care, and quality of care compared to referral to usual primary care. Further research using a more rigorous research design is required to further evaluate these findings.