Telehealth for opioid use disorder: retention as a function of demographics and rurality.

Background: Despite lifesaving medications such as buprenorphine and methadone, the majority of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) face access barriers to evidence-based treatment. COVID-19 era regulatory reforms have shown that telehealth can improve access to care, although disparities in clinical outcomes are likely to persist.Objective: We aimed to analyze 180-day and 365-day retention in treatment with buprenorphine for OUD overall and by demographics, hypothesizing that retention would be lower among racial/ethnic minorities and rural patients.Methods: We analyzed data from a cohort of individuals with OUD enrolled in treatment from April 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, in Pennsylvania and New York using a virtual-first telehealth OUD treatment platform to assess rates of 180-day and 365-day retention. Associations between demographic characteristics and retention were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models.Results: Among 1,378 patients (58.8% male), 180-day retention was 56.4%, and 365-day retention was 48.3%. Adjusted analyses found that only an association between older age and greater odds of 180-day retention was significant (aOR for patients aged 30-50 vs. <30: 1.83 [1.37-2.45]). There were no significant associations between sex, race/ethnicity, state, or rurality with retention.Conclusion: While we were unable to control for socioeconomic variables, we found retention within telehealth services for buprenorphine was high irrespective of geography or race/ethnicity, but disparities with age indicate a subset of patients who may benefit from more intensive services early in care.

"The new normal has become a nonstop crisis": a qualitative study of burnout among Philadelphia's harm reduction and substance use disorder treatment workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic worsened the ongoing overdose crisis in the United States (US) and caused significant mental health strain and burnout among health care workers (HCW). Harm reduction, overdose prevention, and substance use disorder (SUD) workers may be especially impacted due to underfunding, resources shortages, and chaotic working environments. Existing research on HCW burnout primarily focuses on licensed HCWs in traditional environments and fails to account for the unique experiences of harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis descriptive study of 30 Philadelphia-based harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians about their experiences working in their roles during the COVID-19 pandemic in July-August 2020. Our analysis was guided by Shanafelt and Noseworthy's model of key drivers of burnout and engagement. We aimed to assess the applicability of this model to the experiences of SUD and harm reduction workers in non-traditional settings. RESULTS: We deductively coded our data in alignment with Shanafelt and Noseworthy's key drivers of burnout and engagement: (1) workload and job demands, (2) meaning in work, (3) control and flexibility, (4) work-life integration, (5) organizational culture and values, (6) efficiency and resources and (7) social support and community at work. While Shanafelt and Noseworthy's model broadly encompassed the experiences of our participants, it did not fully account for their concerns about safety at work, lack of control over the work environment, and experiences of task-shifting. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout among healthcare providers is receiving increasing attention nationally. Much of this coverage and the existing research have focused on workers in traditional healthcare spaces and often do not consider the experiences of community-based SUD treatment, overdose prevention, and harm reduction providers. Our findings indicate a gap in existing frameworks for burnout and a need for models that encompass the full range of the harm reduction, overdose prevention, and SUD treatment workforce. As the US overdose crisis continues, it is vital that we address and mitigate experiences of burnout among harm reduction workers, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians to protect their wellbeing and to ensure the sustainability of their invaluable work.

Substance use policy and practice in the COVID-19 pandemic: Learning from early pandemic responses through internationally comparative field data.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented natural experiment in drug policy, treatment delivery, and harm reduction strategies by exposing wide variation in public health infrastructures and social safety nets around the world. Using qualitative data including ethnographic methods, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews with people who use drugs (PWUD) and Delphi-method with experts from field sites spanning 13 different countries, this paper compares national responses to substance use during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Field data was collected by the Substance Use x COVID-19 (SU x COVID) Data Collaborative, an international network of social scientists, public health scientists, and community health practitioners convened to identify and contextualise health service delivery models and social protections that influence the health and wellbeing of PWUD during COVID-19. Findings suggest that countries with stronger social welfare systems pre-COVID introduced durable interventions targeting structural drivers of health. Countries with fragmented social service infrastructures implemented temporary initiatives for PWUD led by non-governmental organisations. The paper summarises the most successful early pandemic responses seen across countries and ends by calling for greater systemic investments in social protections for PWUD, diversion away from criminal-legal systems toward health interventions, and integrated harm reduction, treatment and recovery supports for PWUD.

Lessons Learned From Dear Pandemic, a Social Media-Based Science Communication Project Targeting the COVID-19 Infodemic.

The World Health Organization has identified excessive COVID-19 pandemic-related information as a public health crisis, calling it an "infodemic." Social media allows misinformation to spread quickly and outcompete scientifically grounded information delivered via other methods. Dear Pandemic is an innovative, multidisciplinary, social media-based science communication project whose mission is to educate and empower individuals to successfully navigate the overwhelming amount of information circulating during the pandemic. This mission has 2 primary objectives: (1) to disseminate trustworthy, comprehensive, and timely scientific content about the pandemic to lay audiences via social media and (2) to promote media literacy and information-hygiene practices, equipping readers to better manage the COVID-19 infodemic within their own networks. The volunteer team of scientists publishes 8-16 posts per week on pandemic-relevant topics. Nearly 2 years after it launched in March 2020, the project has a combined monthly reach of more than 4 million unique views across 4 social media channels, an email newsletter, and a website. We describe the project's guiding principles, lessons learned, challenges, and opportunities. Dear Pandemic has emerged as an example of a promising new paradigm for public health communication and intervention. The contributors deliver content in ways that are personal, practical, actionable, responsive, and native to social media platforms. The project's guiding principles are a model for public health communication targeting future infodemics and can bridge the chasm between the scientific community and the practical daily decision-making needs of the general public.

"We have to be uncomfortable and creative": Reflections on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on overdose prevention, harm reduction & homelessness advocacy in Philadelphia.

The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing service delivery interruptions had serious impacts on people who use drugs (PWUD) and people experiencing homelessness, including instability in the drug supply, decreased access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and harm reduction supplies, increased substance use and relapse due to stress and isolation, inability to properly isolate and quarantine without stable housing, and risk of COVID-19 spread in congregate living spaces. At the same time, many have noted a potential opportunity for rapid change in health, housing, and drug policy despite previous stagnation-referred to as a "punctuated equilibrium" by Baumgartner and Jones-in response to the pandemic. The pandemic forced some important policy interventions in the United States at both national and local levels, including eviction moratoriums and loosening of drug policy related to substance use treatment. However, to what extent some of these changes will be sustained past the current COVID-19 crisis is still unclear, as is how drug and housing related policy shifts have impacted the work of frontline overdose prevention, substance use treatment, and homelessness advocacy workers. In this qualitative study, we used semi-structured interviews to assess how Philadelphia's harm reduction advocates, community organizers, and SUD treatment clinicians have responded to the overdose and homelessness crises during COVID-19, and how they predict the pandemic and ensuing policy changes will impact the future of overdose prevention, harm reduction efforts, and homelessness advocacy. We interviewed 30 eligible participants during July and August 2020. The analysis of these data yielded three themes: 1/"None of it should be new to anybody": COVID-era issues impacting PWUD and people experiencing homelessness are extensions of existing problems; 2/"An opportunity to actually benefit in some way from this crisis": Possibility for innovation and improved care for PWUD and people experiencing homelessness; and 3/"Nothing we've tried has worked, so we have to be uncomfortable and creative": The uncertain path forward. Despite the many barriers that participants faced to promoting the health and well-being of marginalized communities during the pandemic, they also believed that the pandemic presented an important opportunity for positive policy change that has the potential to promote drug user health into the future, including a continuation of loosened federal restrictions on substance use disorder treatment, legalization of safe consumption spaces, safe supply of substances, and progressive, creative housing solutions.

Telehealth for opioid use disorder treatment in low-barrier clinic settings: an exploration of clinician and staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The majority of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) face access barriers to evidence-based treatment, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the United States (US) opioid overdose crisis. However, the pandemic has also ushered in rapid transitions to telehealth in the USA, including for substance use disorder treatment with buprenorphine. These changes have the potential to mitigate barriers to care or to exacerbate pre-existing treatment inequities. The objective of this study was to qualitatively explore Philadelphia-based low-barrier, harm-reduction oriented, opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment provider perspectives about and experiences with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess their desire to offer telehealth to patients at their programs in the future. METHODS: We interviewed 22 OUD treatment prescribers and staff working outpatient programs offering OUD treatment with buprenorphine in Philadelphia during July and August 2020. All participants worked at low-barrier treatment programs that provide buprenorphine using a harm reduction-oriented approach and without mandating counseling or other requirements as a condition of treatment. We analyzed the data using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis yielded three themes: 1/ Easier access for some: telehealth facilitates care for many patients who have difficulty attending in-person appointments due to logistical and psychological barriers; 2/ A layered digital divide: engagement with telehealth can be seriously limited by patients' access to and comfort with technology; and 3/ Clinician control: despite some clinic staff beliefs that patients should have the freedom to choose their treatment modality, patients' access to treatment via telehealth may hinge on clinician perceptions of patient "stability" rather than patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth may address many access issues, however, barriers to implementation remain, including patient ability and desire to attend healthcare appointments virtually. In addition, the potential for telehealth models to extend OUD care to patients currently underserved by in-person models may partially depend on clinician comfort treating patients deemed "unstable" via this modality. The ability of telehealth to expand access to OUD care for individuals who have previously struggled to engage with in-person care will likely be limited if these patients are not given the opportunity to receive treatment via telehealth.

Taking Call.

Telehealth proves to be more than just a stopgap in providing support to patients.

A free mailed naloxone program in Philadelphia amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Access to naloxone is essential as the overdose crisis persists. We described barriers to accessing naloxone among individuals who requested and received the medication from a free mailed program and explored the relationship between how individuals with and without personal proximity to overdose learned about the program. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a web-based form collected 1st March 2020 to 31st January 2021. Access barriers, personal proximity to overdose (broadly defined as personally overdosing or witnessing/worrying about others overdosing), and method of learning about the program were categorized and described. RESULTS: Among 422 respondents, the most frequently reported barriers to accessing naloxone were: COVID quarantine (25.1%), lack of knowledge about access (13.2%), and cost (11.2%). Compared to those without personal proximity to overdose (38.2%), individuals with personal proximity (61.8%) heard about the program more often through an active online search (21.4% vs. 8.8%; p-value = 0.001) and less often through word of mouth (19.8% vs. 40.9%; p-value = <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Longstanding barriers to naloxone access are compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, making mailing programs especially salient. Differences in ways that individuals with and without personal proximity to substance use and overdose learned about this program can inform how such programs can effectively reach their target audience.

Considering the harms of our habits: The reflexive urine drug screen in opioid use disorder treatment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to abrupt changes in the delivery of substance use treatment, notably the adoption of telehealth services and a departure from mandatory urine drug screens (UDS). Amid current circumstances, the UDS, which had evolved to signal a "successful" recovery, no longer seems feasible, safe, or necessary. Even prior to the pandemic, the UDS had notable drawbacks, including sending a message of mistrust and hierarchy, potentially causing psychological trauma, and incentivizing falsification. Nonetheless, certain patients may state that they depend on the UDS for motivation or structure while some providers may rely on it to discover which patients are struggling. While a combination of self-report and UDS is generally regarded as the strongest measure of substance use among patients, our experiences caring for patients without the results of the UDS during the COVID-19 pandemic have forced us to examine the use of other measures to define a successful recovery. Complete abstinence may not be the goal for all patients and those who achieve abstinence may have additional goals worth supporting. While the UDS will likely be incorporated back into our treatment plans, we suggest unseating it as the centerpiece of substance use care and discovering additional methods of measuring our patients' outcomes in less traumatizing and more patient-centered ways.