Telehealth Capability Among Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities in Counties With High Versus Low COVID-19 Social Distancing.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the availability of telehealth services at substance use treatment facilities in the U.S. at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and determine whether telehealth is available at facilities in counties with the greatest amount of social distancing. METHODS: We merged county-level measures of social distancing through April 18, 2020 to detailed administrative data on substance use treatment facilities. We then calculated the number and share of treatment facilities that offered telehealth services by whether residents of the county social distanced or not. Finally, we estimated a logistic regression that predicted the offering of telehealth services using both county- and facility-level characteristics. RESULTS: Approximately 27% of substance use facilities in the U.S. reported telehealth availability at the outset of the pandemic. Treatment facilities in counties with a greater social distancing were less likely to possess telemedicine capability. Similarly, nonopioid treatment programs that offered buprenorphine or vivitrol in counties with a greater burden of COVID-19 were less likely to offer telemedicine when compared to similar facilities in counties with a lower burden of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively few substance use treatment facilities offered telehealth services at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Policymakers and public health officials should do more to support facilities in offering telehealth services.

Assessing the validity of the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile for telephone administration in drug health treatment populations.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief clinical tool measuring recent substance use, health and wellbeing among clients attending alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services. It has previously been assessed for concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability. In this study we examine whether it is suitable for administration over the telephone. DESIGN AND METHODS: We recruited a sample of 107 AOD clients across public sector specialist AOD treatment services in New South Wales, Australia between 2016 and 2018. Participants had a mean age of 47 years and 46% were female. Participants completed a face-to-face ATOP and a phone ATOP with a researcher within 5 days. Comparisons between the two administration modes were undertaken using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for continuous or ordinal variables, and Cohen's Kappa for nominal variables. RESULTS: Among 107 participants, 59% were attending for alcohol treatment and 41% for opioid treatment. Most ATOP items (76%) reached above 0.7 (good) or 0.9 (excellent) agreement between face-to-face and telephone use. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the ATOP is a suitable instrument for telephone monitoring of recent substance use, health and social functioning among AOD clients. Its validation for remote use over the telephone will support staff to monitor clients' risks and outcomes-of particular relevance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in which services are increasingly relying on telework approaches to client monitoring.