Search

Introduction: Increasing evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is key to reducing opioid-related morbidity and mortality. Family and close friends of people with OUD can play an important role in motivating and facilitating their loved ones' treatment. We examined evolving knowledge about OUD and its treatment among family and close friends of people who use illicit opioids and their experiences navigating the treatment system., Methods: Eligible individuals were Massachusetts residents, ≥18 years of age, did not use illicit opioids in the past 30 days, and had a close relationship with someone who currently uses illicit opioids. Recruitment leveraged a nonprofit support network for family members of persons with a substance use disorder (SUD). We used a sequential mixed methods approach, in which a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews (N = 22, April-July 2018) informed the development of a quantitative survey (N = 260, February-July 2020). Attitudes and experiences related to OUD treatment constituted an emergent theme in qualitative interviews, which informed a section of the subsequent survey., Results: Both qualitative and quantitative data indicated support groups were instrumental in increasing OUD knowledge and influencing attitudes toward treatment options. Regarding how best to motivate drug treatment engagement, some participants favored what they referred to as a "tough love" approach that typically included a preference for abstinence-based treatment, while others favored a positive reinforcement approach focused on enhancing treatment motivation. Loved ones' treatment preferences and scientific evidence played a minor role in determining preferred treatment modalities, and only 38 % of survey participants believed that using medications for OUD is more effective than treatment without medications. A majority (57 %) agreed that finding a drug treatment slot or bed was either somewhat or very difficult, and that once in the system treatment was costly and involved multiple returns to treatment after relapse., Conclusions: Support groups appear to be important forums for gaining knowledge about OUD, negotiating strategies to motivate their loved ones' entry into treatment, and forming preferences for treatment modalities. Participants emphasized the influence of other group members more so than their loved ones' preferences or empirical evidence of effectiveness with regard to choosing treatment programs and approaches., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest or financial relationships., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In a previous statewide naloxone purchase trial conducted in Massachusetts, we documented high levels of naloxone accessibility, upon patient request, under the state's naloxone standing order (NSO) program. Equally important for reducing overdose mortality rates is expanding naloxone access via codispensing alongside opioid prescription and syringe purchases at pharmacies., Objective: To understand naloxone codispensing from the perspective of pharmacists under the Massachusetts NSO program., Methods: The study used a mixed methods design involving 3 focus groups and a quantitative survey. Participants in both the focus groups (N = 27) and survey (N = 339) were licensed Massachusetts pharmacists. Focus groups were conducted at 3 separate professional conferences for pharmacists. The survey was conducted using a stratified random sample of 400 chain and independent retail pharmacies across Massachusetts. All data were collected between September 2018 and November 2019. Quantitative and qualitative analyses examined current policies, practices, and attitudes regarding naloxone codispensing for patients at risk of opioid overdose., Results: Most pharmacists (69%) reported that they, their pharmacy, or both promoted codispensing alongside opioid prescriptions. A majority promoting naloxone codispensing did so for patients prescribed high opioid dosages (80%); fewer promoted codispensing for patients also prescribed benzodiazepines (20%). Facilitators to codispensing were pre-existing relationships between pharmacists and prescribers, mandatory pharmacist consultation, and universal naloxone promotion to all patients meeting certain criteria. Barriers to codispensing were pharmacists' concerns about offending patients by initiating a conversation about naloxone, insufficient technician training, workflow and resource constraints, and misconceptions surrounding naloxone. We found no substantive differences in outcomes between chain and independent pharmacies., Conclusion: We documented several facilitators and barriers to naloxone codispensing in Massachusetts pharmacies. Areas amenable to intervention include increased training for front-line pharmacy technicians, mandatory pharmacist consultation for opioid-prescribed patients, workflow reorganization, and addressing stigma concerns on the pharmacist end., (Copyright © 2022 American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Expanding access to the opioid antagonist naloxone to reduce overdose mortality is a public health priority in the United States. Naloxone standing orders (NSOs) have been established in many states to increase naloxone dispensing at pharmacies, but increased pharmacy access does not ensure optimal uptake among those likely to witness an overdose. In a prior statewide purchase trial, we documented high levels of naloxone access at Massachusetts pharmacies under a statewide NSO. In this study, we characterize barriers to pharmacy-based naloxone uptake among potential opioid overdose "bystanders" (friends or family of people who use opioids) that may be amenable to intervention., Methods: Eligible bystanders were Massachusetts residents ≥ 18 years of age, did not use illicit opioids in the past 30 days, and knew someone who currently uses illicit opioids. We used a sequential mixed methods approach, in which a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews (N = 22) were conducted April-July 2018, to inform the development of a subsequent quantitative survey (N = 260), conducted February-July 2020., Results: Most survey participants (77%) reported ever obtaining naloxone but few (21%) attempted to purchase it at a pharmacy. Qualitative participants revealed that barriers to utilizing the NSO included low perceived risk of overdose, which was rooted in misconceptions regarding the risks of prescription opioid misuse, denial about their loved one's drug use, and drug use stereotypes; inaccurate beliefs about the impact of naloxone on riskier opioid use; and concerns regarding anticipated stigma and confidentiality. Many participants had engaged in mutual support groups, which served as a source of free naloxone for half (50%) of those who had ever obtained naloxone., Conclusions: Despite high levels of pharmacy naloxone access in Massachusetts, few bystanders in our study had attempted to obtain naloxone under the NSO. Low perceived risk of overdose, misinformation, stigma, and confidentiality were important barriers to pharmacy naloxone uptake, all of which are amenable to intervention. Support groups provided a setting for addressing stigma and misinformation and provided a discreet and comfortable setting for naloxone access. Where these groups do not exist and for bystanders who do not participate in such groups, pharmacies are well-positioned to fill gaps in naloxone availability., (© 2022. The Author(s).)