Perspectives on unhealthy alcohol use among men who have sex with men prescribed HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: A qualitative study.

Unhealthy alcohol use is a common, often unaddressed behavior associated with increased risk for acquisition of HIV and may also be associated with decreased adherence to oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) living in the United States. To inform future alcohol-reduction interventions among individuals engaging in PrEP care, we sought to explore perspectives on alcohol use, PrEP adherence, and the acceptability of alcohol use treatment options for MSM prescribed oral formulations of PrEP in the Northeastern United States. Between February 2019 and July 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 MSM without HIV who were prescribed PrEP and screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use with AUDIT-C ≥ 4 and were receiving care in Providence, Rhode Island or New Haven, Connecticut. Interviews were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Three themes emerged: 1) Consequences of fluctuations in drinking 2) Alcohol use negatively impacts health and relationships; and 3) Desire for a multimodal approach to treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. Our findings support the need to raise awareness of potential alcohol-related harms, address the spectrum of unhealthy alcohol use among MSM prescribed PrEP, and the acceptability and preferences for alcohol reduction interventions within PrEP programs.

Associations between Patient Experience and Addiction Treatment Facility Services: Results of the Addiction Treatment Locator, Assessment, and Standards Surveys.

OBJECTIVES: Patient experience and presence of evidence-based facility services are 2 dimensions of assessing quality of addiction treatment facilities. However, the relationship between these two is not well described. The objective of this study was to explore associations between patient experience measures and service offerings at addiction treatment facilities. METHODS: We used data from cross-sectional surveys of addiction treatment facilities and persons involved in treatment at corresponding facilities to identify facility services (eg, availability of medications for alcohol use disorder, assistance with obtaining social services, etc) and patient experience measures (overall facility rating, extent helped by treatment, ability to deal with daily problems after treatment), respectively. We used hierarchical multiple logistic regression to test for associations between top-box scores for each patient experience outcome and facility services. RESULTS: We analyzed 9191 patient experience surveys from 149 facilities. Assistance with obtaining social services (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.43 [0.28-0.66]) was associated with lower overall treatment facility ratings. Childcare (2.00 [1.04-3.84]) was associated with top-box scores for extent helped. Availability of cognitive behavioral therapy (2.67 [1.25-5.73]) and childcare (1.77 [1.08-2.92]) were associated with top-box scores for ability to deal with daily problems after treatment. Assistance with obtaining social services (0.61 [0.41-0.90]) was associated with lower scores for ability to deal with problems after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Few addiction treatment facility services were associated with patient experience measures. Future work should explore bridging the gap between evidence-based services and positive patient experiences.

Drive Time to Addiction Treatment Facilities Providing Contingency Management across Rural and Urban Census Tracts in 6 US States.

OBJECTIVE: We examined drive times to outpatient substance use disorder treatment providers that provide contingency management (CM) and those that integrate CM with medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) services in 6 US states. METHODS: We completed cross-sectional geospatial analysis among census tracts in Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, and West Virginia. We excluded census tracts with a population of zero. Using data from the 2020 Shatterproof substance use treatment facility survey, our outcome was the minimum drive time in minutes from the census tract mean center of population to the nearest outpatient CM provider, outpatient CM provider with MOUD services, and federally qualified health centers (FQHC). We stratified census tracts by 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes and by state. RESULTS: The population was greater than zero in 11,719 of 11,899 census tracts. The median drive time to the nearest CM provider was 12.2 [interquartile range (IQR), 7.0-23.5) minutes and the median drive time to the nearest CM provider increased from 9.7 (IQR, 6.0-15.0) minutes in urban census tracts to 38.8 (IQR, 25.4-53.0) minutes in rural ( H = 3683, P < 0.001). The median drive time increased to the nearest CM provider with MOUD services [14.2 (IQR, 7.9-29.5) minutes, W = 18,877, P < 0.001] and decreased to the nearest FQHC [7.9 (IQR, 4.3-13.6) minutes, W = 11,555,894, P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest limited availability of CM, particularly within rural communities and for patients needing concurrent CM and MOUD treatment. Our results suggest greater adoption of CM within FQHCs could reduce urban-rural disparities in CM availability.

Availability of Specific Programs and Medications for Addiction Treatment to Vulnerable Populations: Results from the Addiction Treatment Locator, Assessment, and Standards (ATLAS) Survey.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe addiction treatment facilities by their offerings of medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) and/or for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and by their offering services to groups with barriers to care: uninsured and publicly insured, youth, seniors, individuals preferring to receive care in Spanish, and sexual minority individuals. METHODS: We examined addiction treatment facility survey data in 6 US states. We performed bivariate analyses comparing facilities that offered MAUD, MOUD, and both (main outcomes). We then constructed a multivariable model to identify predictors of offering MAUD, MOUD, or both, including exposures that demonstrate programming for special populations. RESULTS: Among 2474 facilities, 1228 (50%) responded between October 2019 and January 2020. Programs were offered for youth (30%), elderly (40%), Spanish-speaking (37%), and sexual minority populations (39%), with 58% providing MAUD, 67% providing MOUD, and 56% providing both. Among those providing MAUD, MOUD, or both, a majority (>60% for all exposures) offered programming to vulnerable populations. With Delaware as reference, Louisiana (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.67) and North Carolina (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.72) facilities had lesser odds of offering both MAUD and MOUD. All exposures identifying facilities offering treatment to vulnerable groups were associated with offerings of MAUD and/or MOUD except for offerings to youth; these facilities had less odds of offering MOUD (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.31-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: There are facility-level disparities in providing MAUD and MOUD by state, and facilities with youth programming have lesser odds of offering MOUD than other facilities.

Strategic planning for addiction programs within academic medical centers: Examples from the Yale Program in Addiction Medicine.

Background Addiction programs at academic medical centers must navigate complex, multidisciplinary environments as they work to advance the field and improve substance use treatment access and outcomes. Programs can employ strategic planning processes to identify goals and strategies for success. Methods: The Yale Program in Addiction Medicine began a series of strategic planning activities in February 2020 with the primary aims of (1) conducting a point-in-time needs assessment for the Program and (2) identifying goals for Program improvement and expansion. Drawing upon a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis framework and the Delphi method for group decision-making, these strategic planning activities were implemented in four steps involving multimodal engagement and iterative feedback amongst Program faculty and selected stakeholders. Results: Primary deliverables included four overarching programmatic goals, associated action items, strategies for success, a proposed implementation timeline, and a revised Mission, Vision, and Values statement for the Program. Conclusion: Methodologic considerations and environmental factors offer insight into the strengths, limitations, and adaptive potential of this approach as well as others described in the literature. Key outputs highlight the benefits and timeliness of strategic planning for addiction programs, as heightened interest and investment in substance use treatment, prevention, and harm reduction paves the way for opportunity and innovation.