Explore the vast range of titles available.

Methadone is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder; however, its provision in the US is limited to federally-regulated opioid treatment programs (OTP). Expansion of methadone treatment into non-OTP substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs ('expanded methadone treatment access') is a promising intervention to increase access. We performed a cross-sectional geospatial analysis of public transit times to OTPs, expanded methadone treatment access, and other healthcare facilities as of March, 2024 in New York City (NYC). We estimated one-way public transit travel time and compared travel times using population weighted paired t-tests. For OTPs, 38.2% (95% CI: 38.0, 38.4) of the NYC population was within 15 minutes and 79.7% (95% CI: 79.5, 79.9) was within 30 minutes. For expanded methadone treatment access, 72.1% (95% CI: 71.9, 72.2) of the NYC population was within 15 minutes and 97.5% (95% CI: 97.5, 97.6) was within 30 minutes. The mean travel time was 20.4 minutes (SD: 10.9) for OTPs and 12.1 minutes (SD: 7.1) for expanded methadone treatment access (difference: -8.3 minutes [95% CI: -8.5, -8.1]; P < 0.001). The mean travel time for expanded methadone treatment access was slightly longer than the mean travel time for dialysis facilities (difference: 0.22 minutes [95% CI: 0.06, 0.39]; P = 0.009]), not significantly different than Federally Qualified Health Centers (difference: -0.06 minutes [95% CI: -0.22, 0.11]; P = 0.51), and significantly shorter than the mean travel time to ambulatory surgical centers (difference: -6.3 [95% CI: -6.5, -6.0]; P < 0.001) and hospitals (difference: -8.1 [95% CI: -8.3, -7.9]; P < 0.001). Efforts to increase access to methadone treatment in the US should promote expansion to additional non-OTP outpatient SUD treatment programs. Such integration is anticipated to increase spatial accessibility of methadone treatment substantially, greatly enhancing the potential for patient access.

Amid the ongoing overdose crisis, U.S. lawmakers are considering policy reforms that could significantly change availability and accessibility of methadone treatment (MT) for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, uncertainty remains about which potential changes will lead to the greatest health benefits while minimizing unintended harms. In this protocol, we describe a planned NIH-funded study (R21DA061660) to simulate alternative MT delivery scenarios currently being considered in U.S. policy discussions, and estimate their impact on population-level rates of treatment initiation and retention and opioid overdose across different sociodemographic groups. We will use an agent-based model focused on 16 counties in NY State to simulate two alternative policy scenarios compared to the current status quo of opioid-treatment program (OTP) delivered MT: 1) office-based prescribing by addiction-certified providers with pharmacy and OTP dispensing; and 2) office-based prescribing by general practitioners with pharmacy and OTP dispensing. Agents will represent individuals with OUD and we will simulate access to MT based on alternative policy scenarios (e.g., locations of existing OTPs vs. provider offices and pharmacies). Probabilities of treatment initiation, retention, and opioid overdose will be informed by estimates from the scientific literature and administrative datasets from NY State. Multiple implementation scenarios will be considered to account for potential variation in adoption of office-based methadone by patients, providers, and pharmacies. To ensure relevance to directly impacted communities and policy makers, the study involves a collaboration between academic researchers and NY State government partners and relies on input from an Expert Advisory Board of people with lived and living experience with methadone, addiction medicine, and policy experts. Findings will be disseminated via a public dashboard. This study will inform ongoing policy discussions and shed light on the potential of researcher-policy partnerships to promote evidence-based policies that can reduce overdose and improve population health.

In the United States, there has been a concerning rise in the prevalence of opioid use disorders (OUD) among transition-age (TA) adults, 18 to 25-years old, with a disproportionate impact on individuals and families covered by Medicaid. Of equal concern, the treatment system continues to underperform for many young people, emphasizing the need to address the treatment challenges faced by this vulnerable population at a pivotal juncture in their life course. Pharmacotherapy is the most effective treatment for OUD, yet notably, observational studies reveal gaps in the receipt of and retention in medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), resulting in poor outcomes for many TA adults in treatment. Few current studies on OUD treatment quality explicitly consider the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors, especially for young people whose social roles and institutional ties remain in flux. We introduce a retrospective, longitudinal cohort design to study treatment quality practices and outcomes among approximately 65,000 TA adults entering treatment for OUD between 2012 and 2025 in New York. We propose to combine data from multiple sources, including Medicaid claims and encounter data and a state registry of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment episodes, to examine three aspects of OUD treatment quality: 1) MOUD use, including MOUD option (e.g., buprenorphine, methadone, or extended-release [XR] naltrexone); 2) adherence to pharmacotherapy and retention in treatment; and 3) adverse events (e.g., overdoses). Using rigorous analytical methods, we will provide insights into how variation in treatment practices and outcomes are structured more broadly by multilevel processes related to communities, treatment programs, and characteristics of the patient, as well as their complex interplay. Our findings will inform clinical decision making by patients and providers as well as public health responses to the rising number of young adults seeking treatment for OUD amidst the opioid and polysubstance overdose crisis in the U.S.

The United States is facing an opioid use disorder (OUD) epidemic, marked by unprecedented overdose death rates. In New York State, synthetic opioids significantly contribute to the increasing overdose deaths, disproportionately impacting Black and Latinx communities. There is an urgent need to address issues related to equitable access to and the quality of care provided by substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs. In light of this, the Quality Measurement and Management Research Center (QM2-RC) brought together an academic-government partnership to develop a person-centered quality measurement system and to assess its impact on a statewide treatment system that serves approximately 180,000 individuals per year. The QM2-RC encompasses three interconnected projects (Project 1, 2, and 3) aimed at developing a quality management strategy and evaluating its impact on system performance across New York State. This report specifically focuses on Project 3, which involves a stepped-wedge trial with 35 clinics receiving a quality management intervention that includes performance coaching. This intervention will be compared to a treatment-as-usual (TAU) condition for clinics not participating in the trial. Administrative data will be utilized to monitor outcomes over four years. The coaching intervention, guided by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) model, emphasizes interpreting quality measures and applying insights to enhance care. Coaches will provide support on data utilization, patient-centered care, harm reduction strategies, and the use of patient monitoring tools. The trial aims to evaluate clinic staff and leadership attitudes, experiences, and behaviors through surveys, semi-structured interviews, and external facilitator notes. Primary clinic outcomes will be assessed through adverse events, decreased clinic rates of substance use related emergency department visits and hospitalizations as well as mortality among patients within the first 12 months after admission to treatment after adjusting for individual and community level characteristics. This study is being developed over a multi-year period and will be informed by a mixed-methods approach incorporating multiple data sources, qualitative interviews, patient and clinic surveys. The study is being conducted in partnership with New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports (OASAS) and will be informed by input from patient, providers, health insurers, family members and local governing units. Project 3 of the QM2 study specifically targets key barriers in measuring the quality of SUD treatment, including technological limitations, unvalidated measures, workforce data literacy, and concerns about fairness in assessing clinical complexity. Through the implementation of a stepped-wedge trial involving 35 clinics, the project aims to develop new quality measures, offer performance feedback, and engage clinic leadership and staff in efforts to improve practices. The ultimate goal of Project 3 is to overcome these barriers, promote person-centered care, and improve SUD treatment practices across New York State.

Background Spatial accessibility of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is a crucial component of access and a comprehensive analysis can help to identify if and where a lack of spatial accessibility is a barrier to treatment. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of spatial accessibility of SUD treatment (outpatient, opioid treatment program, and residential) in New York State (NYS). We estimated two measures of spatial accessibility: one-way travel time (i.e., drive time for NYS outside of New York City [NYC] and public transit time for NYC) and robustness (i.e., the difference in travel time between the closest and fifth closest facility). Comparison facilities included Federally Qualified Health Centers, dialysis facilities, and hospitals. We compared travel time and robustness by urbanicity (NYC, urban non-NYC, rural) and NYS economic development region using population-weighted paired t-tests. Results The percentage of NYS residents within 30 min travel time was 97.2% for outpatient SUD treatment programs and 82.3% for opioid treatment programs. Mean statewide travel time to outpatient SUD treatment programs was comparable to travel time to Federally Qualified Health Centers (difference: 1.0 min [95%CI 0.9 to 1.1; P  < 0.001]) and dialysis facilities (difference: 0.1 min [95%CI 0.03 to 0.2; P  = 0.01]), and significantly shorter than to hospitals (difference: 5.6 min [95%CI 5.4 to 5.7; P  < 0.001]). Travel time to opioid treatment programs was significantly longer than to Federally Qualified Health Centers (difference: -7.4 min [95%CI − 7.6 to − 7.2; P  < 0.001]), dialysis facilities (difference: -8.2 min [95%CI − 8.4 to − 8.1; P  < 0.001]), and hospitals (difference: − 2.8 min [95%CI − 3.0 to − 2.6; P  < 0.001]). Compared with NYC, mean travel time to each type of SUD treatment program was significantly shorter in urban non-NYC areas and longer in rural areas. For robustness, compared with NYC, there was no significant difference in urban non-NYC areas for outpatient and residential SUD treatment programs, but more limited robustness for opioid treatment programs in urban non-NYC areas and all types of SUD treatment programs in rural areas. Conclusion We identified widespread spatial accessibility of SUD treatment facilities across NYS. Recent opportunities such as revised federal regulations on opioid treatment program mobile medication units, increased flexibility in using telehealth in opioid treatment programs and other settings, and opioid settlement funding can be leveraged to increase access in rural areas.

Introduction We evaluated racial/ethnic differences in the receipt of naloxone distributed by opioid overdose prevention programs (OOPPs) in New York City (NYC). Methods We used naloxone recipient racial/ethnic data collected by OOPPs from April 2018 to March 2019. We aggregated quarterly neighborhood-specific rates of naloxone receipt and other covariates to 42 NYC neighborhoods. We used a multilevel negative binomial regression model to assess the relationship between neighborhood-specific naloxone receipt rates and race/ethnicity. Race/ethnicity was stratified into four mutually exclusive groups: Latino, non-Latino Black, non-Latino White, and non-Latino Other. We also conducted racial/ethnic-specific geospatial analyses to assess whether there was within-group geographic variation in naloxone receipt rates for each racial/ethnic group. Results Non-Latino Black residents had the highest median quarterly naloxone receipt rate of 41.8 per 100,000 residents, followed by Latino residents (22.0 per 100,000), non-Latino White (13.6 per 100,000) and non-Latino Other residents (13.3 per 100,000). In our multivariable analysis, compared with non-Latino White residents, non-Latino Black residents had a significantly higher receipt rate, and non-Latino Other residents had a significantly lower receipt rate. In the geospatial analyses, both Latino and non-Latino Black residents had the most within-group geographic variation in naloxone receipt rates compared to non-Latino White and Other residents. Conclusions This study found significant racial/ethnic differences in naloxone receipt from NYC OOPPs. We observed substantial variation in naloxone receipt for non-Latino Black and Latino residents across neighborhoods, indicating relatively poorer access in some neighborhoods and opportunities for new approaches to address geographic and structural barriers in these locations.

Background: People who use drugs (PWUD) are at high risk for COVID-19 infection, morbidity, and mortality. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at reducing serious illness and death from COVID-19. There are sparse data on the perceptions and willingness of PWUD to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Materials and Methods: In order to assess the perceptions of, and willingness to receive, COVID-19 vaccination among PWUD, we conducted a rapid survey-based assessment of 100 PWUD in NYC (Spring 2021) who reported not having received COVID-19 vaccination and who reported past 30-day illicit drug use. Results: More than 80% of respondents agreed that personally receiving a COVID-19 vaccine was important for the health of others in the community, and endorsing this belief was significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccine willingness reflecting a high prevalence of altruistic beliefs (p-value: 0.01). Other reported perceptions that were significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccine willingness were believing that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for PWUD and trusting COVID-19 information from their healthcare providers (p-values < 0.05). That said, 62% reported being unwilling to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and 70–83% had concerns about general vaccine safety/efficacy. Examining pairs of questions to explore potential ambivalence between vaccine endorsement and vaccine concerns identified that 56–65% simultaneously reported vaccine safety/efficacy concerns and beliefs that vaccination was an important intervention. Of the 75 respondents who reported past 30-day use of harm reduction and/or substance use disorder (SUD) programs, nearly 90% reported these programs as trusted sources of COVID-19 information. Conclusion: Most participants reported altruistic beliefs about the role of vaccines for community health, including COVID-19 vaccines, and this altruism was associated with willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19. These findings suggest a complex relationship between beliefs about the role of vaccination in community health and the safety/efficacy of vaccines; this ambivalence suggests that COVID-19 vaccine willingness may not be firmly fixed, indicating potential opportunities to address questions and build vaccine confidence. Harm reduction and SUD programs could be leveraged to further engage PWUD in receipt of COVID-19 information and/or vaccination. Recognizing vaccine ambivalence, emphasizing collective and individual benefits of vaccination, and messaging from trusted sources may be promising approaches to increase vaccination in this population.

Background: Cognitive decline (CD) occurs frequently in elderly patients with cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD). In China, elderly patients are more likely to enter healthcare in community hospitals where no magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is available. This study aimed to explore the screening value of Sylvian fissure ratio (SFR) on CD and compare its gender difference from community-transferred patients. Methods: We performed a single-center, observational study (collected between April 1, 2016, and March 1, 2019) to evaluate the association between Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and SFR in 203 eligible community-transferred patients. Baseline characteristics of patients were collected during hospitalization. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to estimate the effect of variables on MoCA, and interactions between select variables were analyzed in different models. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the discriminative effect of SFR to severe CD. Results: We identified that a meaningful SFR cutoff of 0.05 had important screening value (likelihood ratio test, p = 0.067) on CD. The ratio had a lower screen value in males when compared to females (adjusted β, −5.54; 95% CI, −8.78 to −2.30 vs. adjusted β, −1.01; 95% CI, −2.84 to 0.82). The gender difference was further verified by ROC curve analysis, in which this discriminative effect was more potent in females (from 0.878 to 0.948) compared to males (from 0.838 to 0.837). Conclusion: An SFR of 0.05 may be more useful to distinguish CD in female patients with CSVD than male patients in whom the syndrome is suspected clinically.

HIV testing rates remain low among youth ages 13–24 in the US, with only 55% of HIV-positive youth aware of their serostatus. We conducted a systematic review to assess the utility of technology-based interventions to increase point-of-care youth HIV testing and linkage to care. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials of technology-based interventions aimed at increasing point-of-care youth HIV testing, published between 2008 and 2020. All identified citations were independently screened for inclusion by two authors, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials was used to assess the quality of included studies. Three studies met all inclusion criteria. Two interventions were effective in increasing HIV testing, while one was effective at linkage to care. Technology-based interventions have the potential to increase youth HIV testing in clinical settings and facilitate linkage to care, possibly reducing undiagnosed HIV among adolescents and emerging adults.

The social determinants of health (SDOH) framework has proven useful for research and practice in addressing the social causes of many health outcomes. However, its limitations may restrict its value as the world undergoes rapid ecological and social change. We argue that SDOH does not adequately incorporate rapidly changing or “far upstream” social processes (particularly social movements), the dialectics of social conflict and creative social innovation, or bidirectional causation. Ecosocial theory addresses some of these issues, yet dialectical frameworks offer additional insights during periods of rapid social change and disruption. The implications for research methods and practice are discussed. ( Am J Public Health. 2025;115(11):1868–1876. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308239 )