Search

Abstract Background People who use drugs (PWUD) in rural communities increasingly use stimulants, such as methamphetamine and cocaine, with opioids. We examined differences in hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing and treatment history among rural PWUD with opioids, stimulants, and other substance use combinations. Methods PWUD were enrolled from ten rural U.S. communities from 2018 to 2020. Participants self-reporting a positive HCV result were asked about their HCV treatment history and drug use history. Drug use was categorized as opioids alone, stimulants alone, both, or other drug(s) within the past 30 days. Prevalence ratios (PR) were yielded using adjusted multivariable log-binomial regression with generalized linear mixed models. Results Of the 2,705 PWUD, most reported both opioid and stimulant use (74%); while stimulant-only (12%), opioid-only (11%), and other drug use (2%) were less common. Most (76%) reported receiving HCV testing. Compared to other drug use, those who reported opioid use alone had a lower prevalence of HCV testing (aPR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.02). Among participants (n = 944) who self-reported an HCV diagnosis in their lifetime, 111 (12%) ever took anti-HCV medication; those who used both opioids and stimulants were less likely to have taken anti-HCV medication compared with other drug(s) (aPR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.91). Conclusions In this pre-COVID study of U.S. rural PWUD, those who reported opioid use alone had a lower prevalence of reported HCV testing. Those diagnosed with HCV and reported both opioid and stimulant use were less likely to report ever taking anti-HCV medication.

Abstract Background Incarceration provides an opportunity for health interventions, including opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment and prevention of opioid-related overdoses post-release. All FDA-approved forms of medication for OUD (MOUD) treatment were mandated in several Massachusetts jails in 2019, with some jails offering extended-release buprenorphine (XR-Bup). Little is known about patient perspectives on and experiences with XR-Bup in carceral settings. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews in 2022 with community-dwelling people who received MOUD during a recent incarceration in a Massachusetts jail. We asked participants about their experiences with and perspectives on XR-Bup while in jail. Qualitative data were double-coded deductively and reviewed inductively to identify emergent themes, which were structured using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Results Participants (n = 38) had a mean age of 41.5 years, were 86% male, 84% White, 24% Hispanic, and 95% continued to receive MOUD at the time of their interview, including 11% receiving XR-Bup. Participants who viewed XR-Bup favorably appreciated avoiding the taste of sublingual buprenorphine; avoiding procedural difficulties and indignities associated with daily dosing in carceral settings (e.g., mouth checks, stigmatizing treatment from correctional staff); avoiding daily reminders of their addiction; experiencing less withdrawal; having extra time for other activities, such as work; and reduction of diversion of MOUD within the jail setting. Participants who viewed XR-Bup less favorably preferred to maintain their daily dosing routine; liked daily time out of their housing unit; wanted to know what was “going into my body everyday”; and feared needles and adverse events. Participants also reported that jail clinicians used XR-Bup for patients who were previously caught diverting sublingual buprenorphine, suggesting limited patient participation in decision-making around XR-Bup initiation in some jails. Conclusion People who received MOUD in Massachusetts jails had both favorable and unfavorable views and experiences with XR-Bup. Understanding these preferences can inform protocols in jails that are considering implementation of XR-Bup treatment.

Abstract Background Opioid-related overdose is the leading cause of death for people recently released from incarceration, however treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) during incarceration can reduce the mortality risk. This study seeks to qualitatively analyze perceptions of post-release overdose risk from the perspectives of people who received MOUD while incarcerated in one of eight Massachusetts jails during 2021–2022 using the Risk Environment Framework to guide analyses. Methods N = 38 participants with lived experience of MOUD treatment during incarceration who are now living in the community were interviewed on factors that may contribute to or protect against post-release overdose risk. Themes were identified inductively and deductively using the Risk Environment Framework and its domains, which organizes themes along physical, social, economic, and policy environments on both the micro- and macro- scales. Results The physical risk environment included loss of opioid tolerance during incarceration, polysubstance use, and the toxicity of the regional drug supply as key producers of increased risk for post-release overdose. Social drivers of risk included peer group risk norms—including peer-driven harm reduction practices and interpersonal relationships between drug sellers and buyers—as well as macro-level social determinants of health such as housing insecurity and availability of mental health services. Economic drivers of post-release overdose risk included lack of income generation during incarceration and employment challenges. Participants discussed several aspects of policy that contribute to post-release overdose risk, including availability of harm reduction supplies, public health services, and broader policy around MOUD. Conclusions The perspectives of people with lived experience are vital to understanding the disproportionate risks of overdose for those recently released from incarceration. Our results highlight the intersectional factors that produce and reproduce the post-release overdose risk environment, providing support for interventions across each domain of the Risk Environment Framework. By capturing perspectives from people with lived experience of OUD and incarceration during this critical period of risk, we can better identify interventions that target and mitigate overdose-related harm in this population.

Abstract Background Accurate prevalence estimates of drug use and its harms are important to characterize burden and develop interventions to reduce negative health outcomes and disparities. Lack of a sampling frame for marginalized/stigmatized populations, including persons who use drugs (PWUD) in rural settings, makes this challenging. Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is frequently used to recruit PWUD. However, the validity of RDS-generated population-level prevalence estimates relies on assumptions that should be evaluated. Methods RDS was used to recruit PWUD across seven Rural Opioid Initiative studies between 2018-2020. To evaluate RDS assumptions, we computed recruitment homophily and design effects, generated convergence and bottleneck plots, and tested for recruitment and degree differences. We compared sample proportions with three RDS-adjusted estimators (two variations of RDS-I and RDS-II) for five variables of interest (past 30-day use of heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine; past 6-month homelessness; and being positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody) using linear regression with robust confidence intervals. We compared regression estimates for the associations between HCV positive antibody status and (a) heroin use, (b) fentanyl use, and (c) age using RDS-1 and RDS-II probability weights and no weights using logistic and modified Poisson regression and random-effects meta-analyses. Results Among 2,842 PWUD, median age was 34 years and 43% were female. Most participants (54%) reported opioids as their drug of choice, however regional differences were present (e.g., methamphetamine range: 4-52%). Many recruitment chains were not long enough to achieve sample equilibrium. Recruitment homophily was present for some variables. Differences with respect to recruitment and degree varied across studies. Prevalence estimates varied only slightly with different RDS weighting approaches, most confidence intervals overlapped. Variations in measures of association varied little based on weighting approach. Conclusions RDS was a useful recruitment tool for PWUD in rural settings. However, several violations of key RDS assumptions were observed which slightly impacts estimation of proportion although not associations.

Abstract Background Hospitalization presents an opportunity to begin people with opioid use disorder (OUD) on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and link them to care after discharge; regrettably, people admitted to the hospital with an underlying OUD typically do not receive MOUD and are not connected with subsequent treatment for their condition. To address this gap, we launched a multi-site randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a hospital-based addiction consultation team (the Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START)) consisting of an addiction medicine specialist and care manager team that provide collaborative care and a specified intervention to people with OUD during the inpatient stay. Successful implementation of new practices can be impacted by organizational context, though no previous studies have examined context prior to implementation of addiction consultation services (ACS). This study assessed pre-implementation context for implementing a specialized ACS and tailoring it accordingly. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital administrators, physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and social workers at the three study sites between April and August 2021 before the launch of the pragmatic trial. Using an analytical framework based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we completed a thematic analysis of interview data to understand potential barriers or enablers and perceptions about acceptability and feasibility. Results We interviewed 28 participants across three sites. The following themes emerged across sites: (1) START is an urgently needed model for people with OUD; (2) Intervention adaptations are recommended to meet local and cultural needs; (3) Linking people with OUD to community clinicians is a highly needed component of START; (4) It is important to engage stakeholders across departments and roles throughout implementation. Across sites, participants generally saw a need for change from usual care to support people with OUD, and thought the START was acceptable and feasible to implement. Differences among sites included tailoring the START to support the needs of varying patient populations and different perceptions of the prevalence of OUD. Conclusions Hospitals planning to implement an ACS in the inpatient setting may wish to engage in a systematic pre-implementation contextual assessment using a similar framework to understand and address potential barriers and contextual factors that may impact implementation. Pre-implementation work can help ensure the ACS and other new practices fit within each unique hospital context.

Abstract Background Drug overdose deaths in the United States exceeded 100,000 in 2021 and 2022. Substance use stigma is a major barrier to treatment and harm reduction utilization and is a priority target in ending the overdose epidemic. However, little is known about the relationship between stigma and overdose, especially in rural areas. We aimed to characterize the association between felt stigma and non-fatal overdose in a multi-state sample of rural-dwelling people who use drugs. Methods Between January 2018 and March 2020, 2,608 people reporting past 30-day opioid use were recruited via modified chain-referral sampling in rural areas across 10 states. Participants completed a computer-assisted survey of substance use and substance-related attitudes, behaviors, and experiences. We used multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to test the association between felt stigma and recent non-fatal overdose. Results 6.6% of participants (n = 173) reported an overdose in the past 30 days. Recent non-fatal overdose was significantly associated with felt stigma after adjusting for demographic and substance use-related covariates (aOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.20–1.81). The association remained significant in sensitivity analyses on component fear of enacted stigma items (aOR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.20–1.83) and an internalized stigma item (aOR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.07–2.14). Conclusions Felt stigma related to substance use is associated with higher risk of non-fatal overdose in rural-dwelling people who use drugs. Stigma reduction interventions and tailored services for those experiencing high stigma are underutilized approaches that may mitigate overdose risk.

Abstract Background Implementation of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in jails varies by facility and across states. Organizational climate, including staff attitudes toward change and exposure to education, can influence perceptions of innovations like MOUD in jails. Using a mixed methods design, we aimed to understand the association between organizational climate and jail staff perceptions of MOUD. Methods Jail staff (n = 111) who operate MOUD programs in 6 Massachusetts jails completed surveys that included the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) survey. Random effects logistic regression models assessed associations between organizational climate and several outcomes of perceived MOUD efficacy, acceptability, and knowledge, while controlling for covariates. Jail staff (N = 61) participated in qualitative interviews and focus groups focused on organizational climate and knowledge diffusion, which we analyzed using inductive and deductive methods. Results The results indicate that organizational change readiness on the ORIC was associated with positive perceptions of MOUD, and educational resources facilitated MOUD implementation. Greater ORIC was associated with higher perception of methadone as highly acceptable for jail populations (Odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.2 to 4.4), and high knowledge of methadone (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.9), with similar magnitude of effects for buprenorphine. High levels of training for jail staff on methadone and buprenorphine were also associated with higher knowledge of these medications (Methadone: OR 7.2, 95% CI 2.2 to 23.2; Buprenorphine: OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 9.5). Qualitative results point towards the importance of organizational climate and elucidate educational strategies to improve staff perceptions of MOUD. Conclusion Results underscore the importance of organizational climate for successful implementation of jail MOUD programs and provide support for medication-specific educational resources as a facilitator of successful MOUD implementation in jail settings. Findings highlight implementation strategies that may improve jail staff perceptions of MOUD.

Abstract Background Hepatitis C virus (HCV) disproportionately affects rural communities, where health services are geographically dispersed. It remains unknown whether proximity to a syringe services program (SSP) is associated with HCV infection among rural people who inject drugs (PWID). Methods Data are from a cross-sectional sample of adults who reported injecting drugs in the past 30 days recruited from rural counties in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts (2018–2019). We calculated the road network distance between each participant’s address and the nearest fixed-site SSP, categorized as ≤ 1 mile, 1–3 miles, 3–10 miles, and > 10 miles. Staff performed HCV antibody tests and a survey assessed past 30-day injection equipment sharing practices: borrowing used syringes, borrowing other used injection equipment, and backloading. Mixed effects modified Poisson regression estimated prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Analyses were also stratified by means of transportation. Results Among 330 PWID, 25% lived ≤ 1 mile of the nearest SSP, 17% lived 1–3 miles of an SSP, 12% lived 3–10 miles of an SSP, and 46% lived > 10 miles from an SSP. In multivariable models, compared to PWID who lived within 1 mile of an SSP, those who lived 3 to 10 miles away had a higher prevalence of HCV seropositivity (aPR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.06–1.46), borrowing other used injection equipment (aPR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.04–1.46), and backloading (aPR: 1.48, 95% CI 1.17–1.88). Similar results were observed for PWID living > 10 miles from an SSP: aPR [HCV]: 1.19, 95% CI 1.01–1.40; aPR [borrowing other used equipment]:1.45, 95% CI 1.29–1.63; and aPR [backloading]: 1.59, 95% CI 1.13–2.24. Associations between living 1 to 3 miles of an SSP and each outcome did not reach statistical significance. When stratified by means of transportation, associations between distance to SSP and each outcome (except borrowing other used injection equipment) were only observed among PWID who traveled by other means (versus traveled by automobile). Conclusions Among PWID in rural New England, living farther from a fixed-site SSP was associated with a higher prevalence of HCV seropositivity, borrowing other used injection equipment, and backloading, reinforcing the need to increase SSP accessibility in rural areas. Means of transportation may modify this relationship.

Abstract Background Research conducted in urban areas has highlighted the impact of housing instability on people who inject drugs (PWID), revealing that it exacerbates vulnerability to drug-related harms and impedes syringe service program (SSP) use. However, few studies have explored the effects of houselessness on SSP use among rural PWID. This study examines the relationship between houselessness and SSP utilization among PWID in eight rural areas across 10 states. Methods PWID were recruited using respondent-driven sampling for a cross-sectional survey that queried self-reported drug use and SSP utilization in the prior 30 days, houselessness in the prior 6 months and sociodemographic characteristics. Using binomial logistic regression, we examined the relationship between experiencing houselessness and any SSP use. To assess the relationship between houselessness and the frequency of SSP use, we conducted multinomial logistic regression analyses among participants reporting any past 30-day SSP use. Results Among 2394 rural PWID, 56.5% had experienced houselessness in the prior 6 months, and 43.5% reported past 30-day SSP use. PWID who had experienced houselessness were more likely to report using an SSP compared to their housed counterparts (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.24 [95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.01, 1.52]). Among those who had used an SSP at least once (n = 972), those who experienced houselessness were just as likely to report SSP use two (aOR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.60, 1.36]) and three times (aOR = 1.18 [95% CI 0.77, 1.98]) compared to once. However, they were less likely to visit an SSP four or more times compared to once in the prior 30 days (aOR = 0.59 [95% CI 0.40, 0.85]). Conclusion This study provides evidence that rural PWID who experience houselessness utilize SSPs at similar or higher rates as their housed counterparts. However, housing instability may pose barriers to more frequent SSP use. These findings are significant as people who experience houselessness are at increased risk for drug-related harms and encounter additional challenges when attempting to access SSPs.

Abstract Background Among people who inject drugs (PWID), obtaining syringes via syringe services programs (SSPs) and pharmacies reduces injection sharing practices associated with hepatitis C virus (HCV). Whether indirect use of SSPs via secondary exchange confers a similar benefit remains unknown, particularly in rural settings. We compared HCV serostatus and injection sharing practices by primary syringe source among a sample of rural PWID. Methods Data are from a cross-sectional study of adults who use drugs recruited from eleven rural counties in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts using respondent-driven sampling (2018–2019). Study staff performed HCV antibody testing. An audio computer-assisted self-interview assessed sociodemographic characteristics, past 30-day injection practices, and past 30-day primary syringe source. Primary syringe source was classified as direct SSP, pharmacy, indirect SSP (secondary exchange), or “other” (friend/acquaintance, street seller, partner/relative, found them). Mixed effects modified Poisson models assessed the association of primary syringe source with HCV seroprevalence and injection sharing practices. Results Among 397 PWID, the most common primary syringe source was “other” (33%), then pharmacies (27%), SSPs (22%), and secondary exchange (18%). In multivariable models, compared with those obtaining most syringes from “other” sources, those obtaining most syringes from pharmacies had a lower HCV seroprevalence [adjusted prevalence ratio (APR):0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73–0.9985]; however, the upper bound of the 95% CI was close to 1.0. Compared with those obtaining most syringes from other sources, PWID obtaining most syringes directly from SSPs or pharmacies were less likely to report borrowing used syringes [APR(SSP):0.60, 95% CI 0.43–0.85 and APR(Pharmacies):0.70, 95% CI 0.52–0.93], borrowing used injection equipment [APR(SSP):0.59, 95% CI 0.50–0.69 and APR (Pharmacies):0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.98], and backloading [APR(SSP):0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.88 and APR(Pharmacies):0.78, 95% CI 0.67–0.91]. Potential inverse associations between obtaining most syringes via secondary exchange and injection sharing practices did not reach the threshold for statistical significance. Conclusions PWID in rural New England largely relied on informal syringe sources (i.e., secondary exchange or sources besides SSPs/pharmacies). Those obtaining most syringes from an SSP or pharmacy were less likely to share injection equipment/syringes and had a lower HCV seroprevalence, which suggests using these sources reduces the risk of new HCV infections or serves as proxy for past injection behavior.

Abstract Objective To characterize and address the opioid crisis disproportionately impacting rural U.S. regions. Methods The Rural Opioid Initiative (ROI) is a two-phase project to collect and harmonize quantitative and qualitative data and develop tailored interventions to address rural opioid use. The baseline quantitative survey data from people who use drugs (PWUD) characterizes the current opioid epidemic (2018–2020) in eight geographically diverse regions. Results Among 3,084 PWUD, 92% reported ever injecting drugs, 86% reported using opioids (most often heroin) and 74% reported using methamphetamine to get high in the past 30 days; 53% experienced homelessness in the prior 6 months; and 49% had ever overdosed. Syringe service program use varied by region and 53% had ever received an overdose kit or naloxone prescription. Less than half (48%) ever received medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Conclusions The ROI combines data across eight rural regions to better understand drug use including drivers and potential interventions in rural areas with limited resources. Baseline ROI data demonstrate extensive overlap between opioid and methamphetamine use, high homelessness rates, inadequate access to MOUD, and other unmet needs among PWUD in the rural U.S. By combining data across studies, the ROI provides much greater statistical power to address research questions and better understand the syndemic of infectious diseases and drug use in rural settings including unmet treatment needs.

Abstract Background People with opioid use disorder experience high burden of disease from medical comorbidities and are increasingly hospitalized with medical complications. Medications for opioid use disorder are an effective, life-saving treatment, but patients with an opioid use disorder admitted to the hospital seldom initiate medication for their disorder while in the hospital, nor are they linked with outpatient treatment after discharge. The inpatient stay, when patients may be more receptive to improving their health and reducing substance use, offers an opportunity to discuss opioid use disorder and facilitate medication initiation and linkage to treatment after discharge. An addiction-focus consultative team that uses evidence-based tools and resources could address barriers, such as the need for the primary medical team to focus on the primary health problem and lack of time and expertise, that prevent primary medical teams from addressing substance use. Methods This study is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that will evaluate whether a consultative team, called the Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START), increases initiation of any US Food and Drug Administration approved medication for opioid use disorder (buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone) during the hospital stay and increases linkage to treatment after discharge compared to patients receiving usual care. The study is being conducted at three geographically distinct academic hospitals. Patients are randomly assigned within each hospital to receive the START intervention or usual care. Primary study outcomes are initiation of medication for opioid use disorder in the hospital and linkage to medication or other opioid use disorder treatment after discharge. Outcomes are assessed through participant interviews at baseline and 1 month after discharge and data from hospital and outpatient medical records. Discussion The START intervention offers a compelling model to improve care for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder. The study could also advance translational science by identifying an effective and generalizable approach to treating not only opioid use disorder, but also other substance use disorders and behavioral health conditions. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05086796, Registered on 10/21/2021. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?recrs=ab&cond=&term=NCT05086796&cntry=&state=&city=&dist =