Publications

There is an alarming shortage of addiction psychiatrists in the United States. To promote interest in addiction psychiatry (ADP), it is essential to maximize resources available through ADP fellowship websites. The aim of this study was to investigate the perceived adequacy and accessibility of content on ADP fellowship websites and discover what further information is considered important among trainees interested in becoming addiction specialists. Three virtual focus groups were conducted between January and February 2021 among medical students and residents in diverse geographic regions. Participants were asked about the availability of information on ADP fellowship program websites and other material they would like to see available. Focus groups were recorded, with data transcribed and coded using NVivo 11 and Dedoose. A coding scheme was deductively developed based on the core research questions. The majority of participants ( = 27) identified areas of dissatisfaction with the content currently available on ADP websites. The sample was highly representative of racial and ethnic minoritized trainees ( = 12) and genderqueer/non-binary participants ( = 3). Three major themes were identified and durable across all focus groups: lack of emphasis on diversity/health equity, lack of portrayal of everyday life and activities of fellows, and inadequate representation of curricula. Overwhelmingly, participants identified a dedication to health equity (for example, working with minoritized populations) as a key deciding factor in whether to apply to a particular ADP fellowship. ADP fellowship websites are perceived to have considerable variability in the amount and quality of information. Many do not appear to provide the full spectrum of content desired by diverse potential applicants, such as information regarding current fellows and community-centered initiatives. This is concerning, as it suggests ADP fellowships may be interfacing poorly with burgeoning leaders, especially those from race and gender minoritized backgrounds, neglecting potential opportunities to develop future addiction specialists.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States (US) was already facing an epidemic of opioid overdose deaths. Overdose deaths continued to surge during the pandemic. To limit COVID-19 spread and to avoid disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including buprenorphine and methadone, US federal and state agencies granted unprecedented exemptions to existing MOUD guidelines for Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs), including loosening criteria for unsupervised take-home doses. We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate the impact of these policy changes on MOUD treatment experiences for providers and patients at an OTP in California. We interviewed 10 providers (including two physicians, five social worker associates, and three nurse practitioners) and 20 patients receiving MOUD. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed all interviews to identify emergent themes. Patient participants were middle-aged (median age 51 years) and were predominantly men (53%). Providers discussed clinical decision-making processes and experiences providing take-homes. Implementation of expanded take-home policies was cautious. Providers reported making individualized decisions, using patient factors to decide if benefits outweighed risks of overdose and misuse. Decision-making factors included patient drug use, overdose risk, housing status, and vulnerability to COVID-19. New patient groups started receiving take-homes and providers noted few adverse events. Patients who received take-homes reported increased autonomy and treatment flexibility, which in turn increased likelihood of treatment stabilization and engagement. Patients who remained ineligible for take-homes, usually due to ongoing non-prescribed opioid or benzodiazepine use, desired greater transparency and shared decision-making. Federal exemptions in response to COVID-19 led to the unprecedented expansion of access to MOUD take-homes within OTPs. Providers and patients perceived benefits to expanding access to take-homes and experienced few adverse outcomes, suggesting expanded take-home policies should remain post-COVID-19. Future studies should explore whether these findings are generalizable to other OTPs and assess larger samples to quantify patient-level outcomes resulting from expanded take-home policies.