Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Novel strategies are needed to engage people who use stimulants into the continuum of addiction care. Contingency management (CM) is the most effective intervention for stimulant use disorder and may engage non-treatment-seeking populations, especially when delivered by peer recovery support specialists (peers). We describe development and training for a novel peer-delivered CM program for stimulant use harm reduction and treatment engagement. Methods We used a community based participatory research (CBPR) process to develop a CM program focused on self-identified goals for harm reduction and treatment engagement. A steering committee of peers guided study design, CM rewards, schedule, and incentivized goals. Peers completed coaching-to-criterion of six CM skills based on the CM Competence Scale (CMCS), then completed a one-on-one roleplay with a standardized patient. Coaches rated peer performance of each CMCS skill according to its Likert scale (1 = Very Poor to 7 = Excellent) and an a priori rating criterion of 4 (‘adequate’). Roleplays included feedback and a ‘replay’ of skills, if necessary. Results The steering committee devised two CM interventions: an enhanced standard-of-care incentivizing peer visits ($20 for weekly peer visits) and an intervention that additionally incentivized self-directed goals ($20 for weekly peer visits and $30 for completed goal-related activities). Self-identified goal-related activities were chosen through a collaborative process and organized into 6 domains: (1) overdose/overamping prevention (2) substance use supports/treatment (3) daily living/housing (4) education/employment (5) mental/physical/spiritual health (6) social relationships. Forty-seven peers across nine peer-led organizations (three rural and six urban organizations across Oregon) completed CM training. All 47 peers met the a priori criterion in their roleplay, with seventeen (36%) requiring a ‘replay’ of a skill. Mean CMSC summary scores were 28.51 (SD 4.73) on the first attempt and 29.62 (SD 4.01) on the second attempt. Conclusions PEER-CM (Peers Expanding Engagement in Stimulant Harm Reduction with Contingency Management) is among the first trials to use peer-delivered CM for stimulant use, incentivizing peer engagement and self-identified goals for harm reduction and treatment engagement. A CBPR approach strengthened the study design by incorporating peer guidance. Peers in this large, multisite sample demonstrated adequate CM delivery skills with acceptable fidelity following training. Trial Registration This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 05700994). Registered 26 January, 2023.

Introduction Online data collection methods can increase study accessibility and ease the burden of data collection for participants. Asynchronous Online Focus Groups are a promising method for data collection among healthcare professionals. Methods In this article, we describe the use of, and lessons learned from conducting 19 Asynchronous Online Focus Groups across four research studies. Results We describe our experiences preparing for, recruiting for, and conducting Asynchronous Online Focus Groups. We highlight decision points around timeframe, eligibility, recruitment, participation, focus group assignment, moderation, and participant engagement. We found that removing geographic barriers was advantageous for collecting data, focus group attrition is a concern for asynchronous formats, and group assignment may affect data. Conclusions Asynchronous Online Focus Groups are a promising method for data collection among healthcare professionals. When conducting Asynchronous Online Focus Groups researchers should consider the suitability and the unique implications of this data collection method for data quality.

Background Illicit fentanyl has contributed to a drastic increase in overdose drug deaths. While fentanyl has subsumed the drug supply in the Northeastern and Midwestern USA, it has more recently reached the Western USA. For this study, we explored perspectives of people who use drugs (PWUD) on the changing drug supply in Oregon, experiences of and response to fentanyl-involved overdose, and recommendations from PWUD to reduce overdose risk within the context of illicit fentanyl’s dramatic increase in the recreational drug supply over the past decade. Methods We conducted in-depth interviews by phone with 34 PWUD in Oregon from May to June of 2021. We used thematic analysis to analyze transcripts and construct themes. Results PWUD knew about fentanyl, expressed concern about fentanyl pills, and were aware of other illicit drugs containing fentanyl. Participants were aware of the increased risk of an overdose but remained reluctant to engage with professional first responders due to fear of arrest. Participants had recommendations for reducing fentanyl overdose risk, including increasing access to information, harm reduction supplies (e.g., naloxone, fentanyl test strips), and medications for opioid use disorder; establishing drug checking services and overdose prevention sites; legalizing and regulating the drug supply; and reducing stigma enacted by healthcare providers. Conclusion PWUD in Oregon are aware of the rise of fentanyl and fentanyl pills and desire access to tools to reduce harm from fentanyl. As states in the Western USA face an inflection point of fentanyl in the drug supply, public health staff, behavioral health providers, and first responders can take action identified by the needs of PWUD.

A collective identity is a set of shared values and value propositions that an investigator network projects as they deliver data and knowledge generated through their studies to community partners, policymakers, research participants, public health authorities, and prospective end users. The strategic process of identifying common values and establishing procedures to ensure the consistent communication of a collective identity across a diverse network of research teams is often not considered in research networks' dissemination of results. This paper describes how the HEAL Research on Interventions for Stability and Engagement (RISE) network co-created communication pillars that embody a set of common values and shared research imperatives to frame dissemination activities. Early in the development of RISE, project teams participated in an in-person workshop to identify attributes and core values that they believed to be representative of their individual research programs. Dissemination coordinators analyzed and synthesized themes from workshop material, including presentations and posterboard illustrations, and used Mural whiteboarding software to distill these themes into core values and value propositions to collectively share across the research sites. The four communication pillars, which encompass our collective identity and are the foundation of our dissemination program, are (1) Doing Research with Communities, (2) Centering on the Lives and Experiences of People Who Use Drugs, (3) Emphasizing Scientific Rigor and Integrity; and (4) Focusing on Social Determinants. We present examples of how project teams are demonstrating the pillars throughout the research process and outline how the communication pillars inform the planning and dissemination of RISE-produced evidence to end users. Applying concepts from strategic communication and social marketing, we demonstrate how a research network of independent investigators can create a collective identity, formulate a cogent narrative communicating their contributions to a field of practice, and establish a foundation for a successful research dissemination program.

Background Contingency management (CM) that is delivered by peer recovery support specialists and incentivizes harm reduction goals among people not seeking treatment for stimulant use has not been tested. The Peers Expanding Engagement in Stimulant Harm Reduction with Contingency Management (PEER-CM) study compares the effectiveness of two peer-facilitated CM interventions: (1) an experimental approach incentivizing achievement of client-identified harm reduction goals and (2) an enhanced standard of care approach incentivizing peer visit attendance. Methods Applying a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation framework and stepped-wedge design across 14 community-based peer services sites across Oregon, the PEER-CM study trains peers to conduct CM. All sites implement the standard CM approach of incentivizing peer visit attendance. Every 2 months, two sites are randomly assigned to initiate the experimental CM condition of incentives for achieving client-directed harm reduction activities. Peers monitor progress and manage incentives. In the experimental approach, peers facilitate client progress on goal-related activities (selected from a standardized list of goals) to support the primary study outcome of reducing opioid overdoses and stimulant overamping. The intended study enrollment is approximately 80 clients per site (N = 1,120). Peer specialists participate in skills-focused coaching-to-criterion coaching process to document proficient CM delivery skills. This includes a series of group coaching sessions and an individual assessment with a standardized patient, observed and rated according to core dimensions of the Contingency Management Competence Scale. Results The primary study outcome is time until peer-reported fatal or first participant-reported non-fatal overdose or overamp (acute stimulant toxicity). Secondary outcomes include achievement of client-identified harm reduction goals and engagement in substance use disorder treatment. We will also demonstrate the feasibility of our coaching-to-criterion process by documenting peer proficiency in CM skills. Qualitative interviews with peers and their clients will explore the optimal context and implementation strategies for peer-facilitated CM. Conclusion PEER-CM is among the first trials to test the effectiveness of peer-facilitated CM for achieving harm reduction goals and reducing overdose in non-treatment-seeking people who use stimulants. The findings will generate evidence for peer-facilitated delivery of CM and application of CM to client-identified harm reduction goals. Trial Registration : This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 05700994).

Background Efforts to distribute naloxone have equipped more people with the ability to reverse opioid overdoses but people who use drugs are often reluctant to call 911 due to concerns for legal repercussions. Rural communities face unique challenges in reducing overdose deaths compared to urban communities, including limited access to harm reduction services as well as greater concerns about stigma and privacy. Methods The Rural Opioid Initiative was funded in 2017 to better understand the health-related harms associated with the opioid crisis in rural US communities and consists of eight studies spanning ten states and 65 counties. Each study conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with people who use drugs to understand contextual factors influencing drug use and health behaviors. We analyzed qualitative data from seven studies with data available at the time of analysis to understand peer response to overdose. Results Of the 304 participants interviewed, 55% were men, 70% were white, 80% reported current injection drug use, and 60% reported methamphetamine use. Similar to what has been found in studies focused on urban settings, people who use drugs in rural communities use a range of strategies to reverse overdoses, including non-evidence-based approaches. Several reported that multiple doses of naloxone are needed to reverse overdose. Three themes emerged around the willingness to call 911, including (1) hesitancy to call 911 for fear of legal consequences, (2) negative perceptions or experiences with law enforcement officers, and (3) efforts to obtain medical intervention while avoiding identification/law enforcement involvement. Conclusion People who use drugs employ multiple strategies to attempt overdose reversal, including non-evidence-based approaches. Greater education about the most effective and least harmful strategies is needed. Reluctance to call 911 is rooted in concerns about potential legal consequences as well as perceptions about law enforcement officers, which may be heightened in rural communities where people who use drugs are more easily identified by law enforcement. People who use drugs will go to great strides to connect their peers to needed medical services, suggesting that comprehensive interventions to reduce interactions with law enforcement officers and eliminate legal consequences for reporting overdoses are critical.

Objectives: The PINPOINT (PaIn aNd oPiOId maNagemenT) intervention in Oregon aimed to support primary care clinics in applying evidence-based guidelines for pain management and opioid use disorder treatment. We evaluated the impact of this intervention on opioid use disorder treatment and overdose outcomes. Methods: Data from the voluntary Oregon All Payer All Claims datasets were integrated with several administrative datasets to create the Provider Results of Opioid Management and Prescribing Training dataset, which tracks clinical and prescribing activities at the provider level. We employed difference-in-differences models to assess the impact of PaIn aNd oPiOId maNagemenT enrollment on changes in opioid use disorder treatment and overdose outcomes. The intervention sample consisted of 289 primary care providers from clinics participating in PaIn aNd oPiOId maNagemenT, compared with 2000 control providers identified through administrative claims. Results: The difference-in-differences models indicated statistically significant associations between intervention enrollment and treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.214, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.100-1.340), any substance use disorder treatment (IRR = 1.120, 95% CI = 1.070-1.172), and any outpatient opioid use disorder treatment (IRR = 1.102, 95% CI = 1.034-1.175) compared to controls. No statistically significant changes were observed in overall non-fatal drug overdoses, non-fatal opioid overdoses, and naloxone overdose reversals, though absolute event rates were low. Conclusions: We found that multi-faceted, evidence-based approaches to improve clinical practice in primary care settings were associated with increased treatment for opioid use disorder, however differences in overdose outcomes were not observed. Further research is needed to assess the scalability and clinical impact of these interventions across diverse care environments.

BackgroundDrug overdose is the leading cause of death after release from prison, and this risk is significantly higher among women compared to men. Within the first 2 weeks after release, the risk of death from drug overdose is 12.7 times higher than the general population, with risk of death further elevated among females. Although female inmates have higher rates of opioid use disorder and post-release overdose fatality, justice-involved women are under-represented in studies of medications for opioid use disorder. The Reducing Overdose After Release from Incarceration (ROAR) pilot intervention and evaluation (recruitment June 2019 through December 2020) aims to reduce opioid overdose among women released to the community following incarceration in state prison. The evaluation further assesses induction, acceptance and effectiveness of extended release naltrexone in a female post-prison population.Methods/designIn the week prior to their release, female adults in custody with moderate to severe opioid use disorder start treatment with extended release naltrexone, an injectable opioid antagonist that blocks the effects of opioids for up to 1 month. All ROAR participants receive training to use naloxone rescue kits and are provided nasal naloxone at release. Ongoing support from a certified recovery mentor to facilitate sustained engagement with treatment for substance use disorders begins in the month prior to release from prison and continues for 6 months in community. We evaluate the association between ROAR participation and the primary outcome of opioid overdose.Using administrative data provided by the Oregon Department of Corrections and the Oregon Health Authority, we compare the odds of overdose among ROAR participants versus a comparison group of females released from prison during the study period. Evaluation activities in community includes survey and qualitative interviews for 6 months post release, as well as a review of clinic records to assess retention on medication among the pilot cohort (N = 100).DiscussionROAR is a collaboration between Oregon’s public health, criminal justice, and medical communities. The ROAR intervention and evaluation provide critical information on improving interventions to prevent opioid overdose and improve retention on treatment in community in an overlooked, high-risk population: incarcerated women re-entering the community.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov TRN: NCT03902821.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may influence HIV/HCV transmission risk behaviors in rural communities. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with people who use drugs (PWUD) in five rural Oregon counties and asked about COVID-19 impact on substance use and harm reduction practices and their advice for improving public health responses. Participants (n = 36) reported using only methamphetamine (52.8%), only heroin (16.7%), or both (30.6%); 75% of participants reported recent injection. Three thematic categories emerged: SSP adaptations and accessibility, PWUD harm reduction practices, and policy suggestions. Participants noted the importance of SSPs to COVID-19 prevention and wellbeing, though some experienced increased barriers, leading to increased risky injection practices. Participants suggested need-based rather than one-for-one exchange, increasing syringe delivery services, encouraging secondary exchange by PWUD, and peers as trusted voices for information exchange. Rapid implementation of policy and practice changes are urgently required to improve SSP access, reinforce safer use, and prevent HIV/HCV and COVID-19 transmission.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a research approach that benefits from the expertise of community members being involved in the research along all stages of a project (Israel et al., 2003). CBPR is often utilized with marginalized populations in order to amplify a community’s voice on important issues in their lives (Bastida, Tseng, McKeever, & Jack, 2010; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008). In the past, persons with disability have been excluded from research in order to protect them from exploitation. This practice of exclusion undermines opportunities for persons with disabilities to be independent and make decisions that are important for themselves and their communities. Exclusion also limits the generation of new knowledge that can benefit them (McDonald & Keys, 2008). Through involvement on a CBPR project, persons with disabilities are given the opportunity to become empowered within the context of the project (Atkinson, 2004; Oden, Hernandez, & Hidalgo, 2010). This study examined empowerment definitions, evolution of empowerment definitions, and facilitators and barriers to community partners with and without disabilities becoming empowered through their work on a CBPR project. Overall, community partners’ definitions of empowerment related to individual and setting-level characteristics. Individual-level empowerment was defined as self-efficacy, self-esteem, control over decision-making, and disability rights advocacy. Facilitators to empowerment within the CBPR process were promoting inclusion, promoting an accessible partnership, sharing of power within and between groups, and actively sharing and gaining knowledge within and between groups. Inaccessible communication, inaccessible language, and lack of project ownership were identified as possible barriers to empowerment. In most cases, empowerment definitions remained stable across one’s work on this project, but there were instances of positive change in the lives of some community partners who expressed being empowered through the partnership. CBPR provides an opportunity for persons with developmental disabilities to be included in the research processes as well as possibly gain important qualities throughout, such as empowerment. This study situated the individual’s empowerment beliefs and behaviors within the CBPR setting, identifying both facilitators and barriers, and provides support that a CBPR process can be empowering for community partners. Future research in collaboration with community partners should continue to focus on empowerment in all stages of the research project, local collaborations, and continued diversity of community engagement in research. Engaging in a formal reflection process and documenting the process for other researchers to learn from diverse barriers and facilitators to empowerment is encouraged.