Differences in Substance Use and Harm Reduction Practices by Race and Ethnicity: Rhode Island Harm Reduction Surveillance System, 2021-2022.

CONTEXT: In the United States, minority populations are disproportionately affected by the overdose epidemic, have higher mortality rates, and unequal access to harm reduction and treatment services. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aims to better understand harm reduction utilization and substance use patterns among minority populations to improve overdose outreach and prevention initiatives in Rhode Island. DESIGN: The present analysis used data from the Harm Reduction Surveillance System from January 2021 to December 2022 (N = 393). Chi-square tests and multivariable regression models were used to investigate differences in substance use behaviors by race and ethnicity. SETTING: Rhode Island. PARTICIPANTS: Participants include individuals who self-reported the use of illicit drugs, currently reside in Rhode Island, and were older than 18 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Methods of drug use and uptake of harm reduction practices. RESULTS: Among survey participants, 41% were non-Hispanic White, 57% were aged 25 to 44 years, 62% identified as male, and 95% had health insurance coverage. Most participants reported smoking as their method of drug use (90%) and harm reduction practices were underutilized by all race and ethnicity groups. Fewer non-Hispanic Black participants reported carrying naloxone compared to the other race and ethnicity groups. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants were significantly less likely to inject drugs compared with non-Hispanic White participants (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.45) (AOR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking was the most common self-reported method of substance administration for all participants, whereas injection was more prevalent among non-Hispanic White participants. There is a continued need for minority-led and culturally informed harm reduction and treatment services for minority populations.

Quality of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment for Persons With and Without Disabling Conditions.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with opioid use disorder (OUD) are disproportionately high among people with disabilities (PWD) compared with those without disability. A gap remains in understanding the quality of OUD treatment for people with physical, sensory, cognitive, and developmental disabilities, specifically regarding medications for OUD (MOUD), a foundation of treatment. Objective: To examine the use and quality of OUD treatment in adults with diagnosed disabling conditions, compared with adults without these diagnoses. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study used Washington State Medicaid data from 2016 to 2019 (for use) and 2017 to 2018 (for continuity). Data were obtained for outpatient, residential, and inpatient settings with Medicaid claims. Participants included Washington State full-benefit Medicaid enrollees aged 18 to 64 years, continuously eligible for 12 months, with OUD during the study years and not enrolled in Medicare. Data analysis was performed from January to September 2022. Exposures: Disability status, including physical (spinal cord injury or mobility impairment), sensory (visual or hearing impairments), developmental (intellectual or developmental disability or autism), and cognitive (traumatic brain injury) disabilities. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measures: (1) use of MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone) during each study year and (2) 6-month continuity of treatment (for those taking MOUD). Results: A total of 84 728 Washington Medicaid enrollees had claims evidence of OUD, representing 159 591 person-years (84 762 person-years [53.1%] for female participants, 116 145 person-years [72.8%] for non-Hispanic White participants, and 100 970 person-years [63.3%] for participants aged 18-39 years); 15.5% of the population (24 743 person-years) had evidence of a physical, sensory, developmental, or cognitive disability. PWD were 40% less likely than those without a disability to receive any MOUD (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.61; P < .001). This was true for each disability type, with variations. Individuals with a developmental disability were least likely to use MOUD (AOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55; P < .001). Of those using MOUD, PWD were 13% less likely than people without disability to continue MOUD for 6 months (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study of a Medicaid population, treatment differences were found between PWD and people without these disabilities; these differences cannot be explained clinically and highlight inequities in treatment. Policies and interventions to increase MOUD access are critical to reducing morbidity and mortality among PWD. Potential solutions include improved enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, workforce best practice training, and addressing stigma, accessibility, and the need for accommodations to improve OUD treatment for PWD.

Peer Support at the Intersection of Disability and Opioid (Mis)Use: Key Stakeholders Provide Essential Considerations.

Individuals with disabilities may experience higher rates of opioid/substance use disorders (OUD/SUD) than other individuals and are likely vulnerable to unmet treatment needs. Peer support may be beneficial to these individuals, given the evidence of benefits in target populations with similar needs and the potential for overcoming barriers to treatment suggested in the available literature. The objective of this exploratory study was to specify essential considerations in adapting peer support for this population. Diverse key stakeholders (n = 16) were interviewed to explore the experiences, needs, and available supports for individuals with disabilities and OUD/SUD. A Peer Support Work Group including members with lived experience advised each component of the study. Semi-structured interview data were content analyzed and memos generated to summarize themes related to the research question. Participants reported extensive professional and personal experience in human services, disability, and recovery. Emergent themes included the importance of accessibility and model fit, the notion of "peerness" and peer match, and essential aspects of peer recruitment, training, and support. An accessible, acceptable, effective model of peer support requires particular attention to the needs of this diverse and varied population, and the contexts in which they are identified, referred, and engaged in services.

Perspectives of adults with disabilities and opioid misuse: Qualitative findings illuminating experiences with stigma and substance use treatment.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a significant public health problem in the United States; however, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the experiences of individuals who have experienced both opioid misuse/opioid use disorder (OUD) and another disability. This gap in knowledge is particularly problematic because people with disabilities are more likely to have co-occurring serious mental illness, experience chronic pain, and be socially isolated, which are all independent risk factors for any substance use disorder (SUD). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to illuminate the perspectives of individuals who have both opioid misuse/OUD and another disability, focusing on their experiences accessing and engaging in SUD treatment. METHODS: We recruited adults who had lived experience with both disability and an "opioid use problem." We conducted 17 individual interviews and facilitated two focus groups with 11 participants. The interview protocol included items related to individuals' experiences with OUD/SUD treatment as well as stigma. RESULTS: Respondents encountered many barriers to receiving SUD treatment related to their disability. People with disabilities experienced added layers of stigma and other systemic barriers (e.g., lack of accommodations) that complicated treatment quality and access. This was further compounded by intersecting identities (e.g., female gender, race, homelessness). CONCLUSION: SUD treatment providers should be trained to understand and adopt accommodations critical to the unique needs of individuals with disabilities, with cultural responsiveness, to encourage successful SUD treatment and recovery.

Sexual Violence Against Women With Disabilities: Experiences With Force and Lifetime Risk.

INTRODUCTION: Emerging research suggests that people with disabilities experience an increased risk of sexual violence. However, few studies have examined the relationship between disability types and various forms of sexual violence, involving either physical or nonphysical force. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used nationally representative data from years 2011-2017 of the National Survey of Family Growth among women aged 18-44 years. Analyses were conducted in March 2020-June 2021. Using binary and multinomial logistic regression models, lifetime risk of sexual violence and experience of physical or nonphysical force at first intercourse were modeled as a function of disability type (sensory, physical, cognitive, or ≥2 disabilities). Models also controlled for relevant demographic confounders. RESULTS: Women with any type of disability reported experiencing sexual violence in their lifetime approximately double the proportion of that experienced by nondisabled women (∼30% vs 16.9%), with women with multiple disabilities experiencing the greatest prevalence (42.1%) and risk (AOR=2.94, p<0.001) than nondisabled women. Women with cognitive disabilities or multiple disabilities were significantly more likely to experience either physical (cognitive: AOR=1.55, p<0.001; multiple: AOR=1.50, p<0.05) or nonphysical force (cognitive: AOR=2.28, p<0.01; multiple: AOR=2.74, p<0.001) during their first intercourse than nondisabled women. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that future research should focus on the association between various types of disability and sexual violence. The development of inclusive evidence-based violence intervention and prevention programs for girls and women with disabilities is recommended.