Lori J Ducharme’s research while affiliated with National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health and other places

Background The outcomes of planned implementation efforts have been mixed, with some applications failing to achieve the desired change or impact. While reasons for mixed findings in implementation research are multifaceted (e.g., Damschroder et al., 2009, 2022), how the implementation strategy (IS) was deployed (i.e., integrity) and its impact on the implementation outcomes of evidence-based innovations (EBIs) is under-studied and warrants further clarification. Method This article builds on the IS fidelity and mechanisms of change literature to create the Implementation Strategy Integrity Framework (ISIF). The ISIF was developed by a set of implementation science researchers in the Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network seeking to document the role of implementation strategies in influencing EBI outcomes. Results The authors identified four areas of documentation and measurement to examine the role of IS integrity on EBI outcomes. (a) Implementation Strategy Rigor (i.e., adherence, dose, and quality) requires those implementing the strategy/strategies to specify them, document adherence to the planned strategies, quality of execution, and any adaptations made. (b) Target User Responsiveness documents the extent and quality of targeted users’ participation in IS activities and how well the target users perform their roles in conducting actions intended by the implementation strategies. (c) Target Mechanism Activation notes to what degree the implementation strategies achieved the intended impact(s) on targeted factors that facilitate EBI use. Finally, (d) these three areas are combined with selected Inner and Outer Context variables to explain IS integrity’s potential moderating and mediating effects on EBI outcomes. Conclusions A framework that can define the integrity of an IS and allow for its subsequent use as an explanatory variable in EBI outcomes is necessary for better elucidating mechanisms of action. The ISIF offers a structured approach to operationalize, measure, and evaluate the application and related impacts of implementation strategies.

Aims To understand how the US public defines recovery from opioid misuse and the recovery‐related resources it views as most helpful, and to compare differences by opioid misuse history and demographic characteristics. Design Observational study of data from the nationally representative AmeriSpeak® Panel survey administered in October/November 2021. Setting United States. Participants 6515 adults (≥ 18 years). Measurements Respondents ranked 10 definitions of recovery (religious in nature; spiritual in nature; physical/mental in nature; contributing to society; enhanced quality of life; seeking professional help; having a sense of purpose; moderate/controlled substance use; no drug use; abstaining from all substance use) and 9 resources that might contribute to recovery (primary care physician; intensive inpatient program; residential rehabilitation program; self‐help group; therapist/psychologist/social worker; prescribed medication; talking to family/friends; spiritual/natural healer; faith‐based organization). We explored differences in rankings by opioid misuse history (personal vs. family/friend vs. no history) and demographic characteristics (race, sex, age) using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Findings Seeking professional help was the most endorsed recovery definition overall [mean (M) = 6.97, standard error (SE) = 0.03]. Those with personal opioid misuse history ranked enhanced quality of life (B = 0.16, P = 0.049) and having a sense of purpose (B = 0.16, P = 0.029) significantly higher, and ranked abstaining from substance use (B = ‐0.20, P = 0.009) significantly lower as recovery definitions than those without a history of opioid misuse. Compared with White respondents, Black (B = 0.60, P < 0.001) and Hispanic (B = 0.55, P < 0.001) respondents defined recovery as more religious in nature. Residential rehabilitation program was identified as the most helpful resource for recovery (M = 7.16, SE = 0.02), while prescribed medication received a relatively low ranking overall (M = 4.05, SE = 0.03). Those with family/friend opioid misuse history ranked prescribed medication as less helpful than others (B = ‐0.14, P = 0.003). Conclusions The general US public's views around recovery from opioid misuse appear to focus on abstinence and formal treatment receipt, while people with a history of opioid misuse place less emphasis on abstinence and greater emphasis on other aspects of well‐being.

Importance In 2023, more than 80 000 individuals died from an overdose involving opioids. With almost two-thirds of the US jail population experiencing a substance use disorder, jails present a key opportunity for providing lifesaving treatments, such as medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Objectives To examine the prevalence of MOUD in US jails and the association of jail- and county-level factors with MOUD prevalence using a national sample. Design, Setting, and Participants This survey study used a nationally representative cross-sectional survey querying 1028 jails from June 2022 to April 2023 on their provision of substance use disorder treatment services. The survey was conducted via mail, phone, and the internet. County-level data were linked to survey data, and binary logistic regressions were conducted to assess the probability that a jail offered any treatment and MOUD. A stratified random sample of 2791 jails identified by federal lists of all jails in the US was invited to participate. Staff members knowledgeable about substance use disorder services available in the jail completed the survey. Exposures US Census region, urbanicity, jail size, jail health care model (direct employees or contracted), county opioid overdose rate, county social vulnerability (measured using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020 Social Vulnerability Index summary ranking, which ranks counties based on 16 social factors), and access to treatment in the county were assessed. Main Outcomes and Measures Availability of any type of substance use disorder treatment (eg, self-help meetings), availability of MOUD (ie, buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) to at least some individuals, and availability of MOUD to any individual with an OUD were assessed. Results Of 2791 invited jails, 1028 jails participated (36.8% response rate). After merging the sample with county data, 927 jails were included in analysis, representative of 3157 jails nationally after weighting; most were from nonmetropolitan counties (‭1756 jails [55.6%; 95% CI, 52.3%-59.0%]) and had contracted health care services (1886 jails [59.7%; 95% CI, 56.5%-63.0%]); fewer than half of these jails (1383 jails [43.8%; 95% CI, 40.5%-47.1%]) offered MOUD to at least some individuals, and 405 jails (12.8%; 95% CI, 10.7% to 14.9%) offered MOUD to anyone with an OUD. Jails located in counties with lower social vulnerability (adjusted odds ratio per 1-percentile increase = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.40) and shorter mean distances to the nearest facility providing MOUD (adjusted odds ratio per 1-SD increase, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88) were more likely to offer MOUD. Conclusions and relevance In this study, few jails indicated offering frontline treatments despite being well positioned to reach individuals with an OUD. These findings suggest that efforts and policies to increase MOUD availability in jails and the surrounding community may be associated with helping more individuals receive treatment.

This survey study assesses the US public’s perception and awareness regarding medication for opioid use disorder and its availability in primary care settings.

Many individuals with opioid use disorder come into contact with the justice system each year, making the nexus between the criminal justice system and the health care system a critical juncture for responding to the opioid crisis and simultaneously promoting public health and public safety. Collaborations across these sectors are essential to providing effective screening, treatment, and discharge planning; connecting individuals to services following release; promoting long-term recovery while reducing recidivism; and ultimately bringing the opioid crisis under control. In 2019, with the support of the NIH Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative, the National Institute on Drug Abuse launched the Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (JCOIN). JCOIN is a >$150M multisite cooperative designed to facilitate transdisciplinary collaborations that can create actionable, translatable insights for the justice system and community-based organizations to address the opioid epidemic in justice-involved populations. JCOIN brings together 11 Research Hubs, a coordination and translation center (CTC), and a methodology and advanced analytics resource center (MAARC), with the goal of generating evidence that is greater than the sum of the parts. Collectively, the network will field at least 12 large-scale multisite clinical trials, which are described in this special issue. This article provides a brief overview of the scientific underpinnings for these trials; describes the broad themes connecting them; and discusses the intersections of the JCOIN initiative with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: This paper describes the means by which a United States National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded cooperative, Juvenile Justice-Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS), utilized an established implementation science framework in conducting a multi-site, multi-research center implementation intervention initiative. The initiative aimed to bolster the ability of juvenile justice agencies to address unmet client needs related to substance use while enhancing inter-organizational relationships between juvenile justice and local behavioral health partners. Methods: The EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) framework was selected and utilized as the guiding model from inception through project completion; including the mapping of implementation strategies to EPIS stages, articulation of research questions, and selection, content, and timing of measurement protocols. Among other key developments, the project led to a reconceptualization of its governing implementation science framework into cyclical form as the EPIS Wheel. The EPIS Wheel is more consistent with rapid-cycle testing principles and permits researchers to track both progressive and recursive movement through EPIS. Moreover, because this randomized controlled trial was predicated on a bundled strategy method, JJ-TRIALS was designed to rigorously test progress through the EPIS stages as promoted by facilitation of data-driven decision making principles. The project extended EPIS by (1) elucidating the role and nature of recursive activity in promoting change (yielding the circular EPIS Wheel), (2) by expanding the applicability of the EPIS framework beyond a single evidence-based practice (EBP) to address varying process improvement efforts (representing varying EBPs), and (3) by disentangling outcome measures of progression through EPIS stages from the a priori established study timeline. Discussion: The utilization of EPIS in JJ-TRIALS provides a model for practical and applied use of implementation frameworks in real-world settings that span outer service system and inner organizational contexts in improving care for vulnerable populations. Trial registration: NCT02672150 . Retrospectively registered on 22 January 2016.

The wide variety of dissemination and implementation designs now being used to evaluate and improve health systems and outcomes warrants review of the scope, features, and limitations of these designs. This article is one product of a design workgroup that was formed in 2013 by the National Institutes of Health to address dissemination and implementation research, and whose members represented diverse methodologic backgrounds, content focus areas, and health sectors. These experts integrated their collective knowledge on dissemination and implementation designs with searches of published evaluations strategies. This article emphasizes randomized and nonrandomized designs for the traditional translational research continuum or pipeline, which builds on existing efficacy and effectiveness trials to examine how one or more evidence-based clinical/prevention interventions are adopted, scaled up, and sustained in community or service delivery systems. We also mention other designs, including hybrid designs that combine effectiveness and implementation research, quality improvement designs for local knowledge, and designs that use simulation modeling.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) share an interest in promoting high quality, rigorous health services research to improve the availability and utilization of evidence-based treatment for substance use disorders (SUD). Recent and continuing changes in the healthcare policy and funding environments prioritize the integration of evidence-based substance abuse treatments into primary care and general medical settings. This area is a prime candidate for implementation research. Recent and ongoing implementation projects funded by these agencies are reviewed. Research in five areas is highlighted: screening and brief intervention for risky drinking; screening and brief intervention for tobacco use; uptake of FDA-approved addiction pharmacotherapies; safe opioid prescribing; and disease management. Gaps in the portfolios, and priorities for future research, are described. Published by Elsevier Inc.