Dataset Information

Patients' perspectives of medications for addiction treatment in HIV clinics: A qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While substance use disorders (SUD) disproportionately impact people with HIV (PWH), HIV clinics inconsistently provide evidence-based medications for addiction treatment (MAT). Patient receptivity to MAT is critical to enhance addiction treatment in these settings. However, we know little from patients about how to best integrate MAT into HIV clinics.

Methods

This qualitative study used four focus groups informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework to identify barriers and facilitators to receiving opioid, alcohol, and tobacco use disorder care in HIV clinics. The study population included 28 patients with HIV and SUD receiving care at one of four HIV clinics in the northeastern United States. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed for content analysis. The study also performed a brief survey assessing demographics and behaviors.

Results

Focus groups revealed several major themes related to MAT in HIV clinics. Barriers included stigma around MAT, knowledge deficits about available MAT options and the impact of substance use on PWH, concerns about medication side effects, substance use screening without adequate clinician follow-up, and peers who discouraged MAT. Facilitators included recognition of substance use as a threat to overall health, integrated care from HIV clinicians, and support for addiction treatment from peers with lived experience.

Conclusions

Efforts to enhance MAT in HIV clinics should include patient education to help them recognize addiction as a chronic disease with available medication treatment options; clinician and staff training to promote integrated, multidisciplinary screening and treatment; and thoughtful inclusion of peers with lived experience.

SUBMITTER: Morford KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9187601 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients' perspectives of medications for addiction treatment in HIV clinics: A qualitative study.

Morford Kenneth L KL Muvvala Srinivas B SB Chan Philip A PA Cornman Deborah H DH Doernberg Molly M Porter Elizabeth E Virata Michael M Yager Jessica E JE Fiellin David A DA Edelman E Jennifer EJ

Journal of substance abuse treatment 20220318

<h4>Background</h4>While substance use disorders (SUD) disproportionately impact people with HIV (PWH), HIV clinics inconsistently provide evidence-based medications for addiction treatment (MAT). Patient receptivity to MAT is critical to enhance addiction treatment in these settings. However, we know little from patients about how to best integrate MAT into HIV clinics.<h4>Methods</h4>This qualitative study used four focus groups informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in He ...[more]

PMID: 35341613

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMedications for addiction treatment (MAT) are inconsistently offered in HIV clinics.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of implementation facilitation (hereafter referred to as "facilitation"), a multicomponent implementation strategy, on increasing provision of MAT for opioid use disorder (MOUD), alcohol use disorder (MAUD), and tobacco use disorder (MTUD).Design, setting, and participantsConducted from July 26, 2016, through July 25, 2020, the Working with HIV Clinics to adopt Addiction Treatment using Implementation Facilitation (WHAT-IF?) study used an unblinded, stepped wedge design to sequentially assign each of 4 HIV clinics in the northeastern US to cross over from control (ie, baseline practices) to facilitation (ie, intervention) and then evaluation and maintenance periods every 6 months. Participants were adult patients with opioid, alcohol, or tobacco use disorder. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to September 2022.InterventionsMulticomponent facilitation.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes, assessed using electronic health record data, were provision of MAT among patients with opioid, alcohol, or tobacco use disorder during the evaluation (primary outcome) and maintenance periods compared with the control period.ResultsAmong 3647 patients, the mean (SD) age was 49 (12) years, 1814 (50%) were Black, 781 (22%) were Hispanic, and 1407 (39%) were female; 121 (3%) had opioid use disorder, 126 (3%) had alcohol use disorder, and 420 (12%) had tobacco use disorder. Compared with the control period, there was no increase in provision of MOUD with facilitation during the evaluation period (243 patients [27%; 95% CI, 22%-32%] vs 135 patients [28%; 95% CI, 22%-35%]; P = .59) or maintenance period (198 patients [29%; 95% CI, 22%-36%]; P = .48). The change in provision of MAUD from the control period to the evaluation period was not statistically significant (251 patients [8%; 95% CI, 5%-12%] vs 112 patients [13%; 95% CI, 8%-21%]; P = .11); however, the difference increased and became significant during the maintenance period (180 patients [17%; 95% CI, 12%-24%]; P = .009). There were significant increases in provision of MTUD with facilitation during both the evaluation (810 patients [33%; 95% CI, 30%-36%] vs 471 patients [40%; 95% CI, 36%-45%]; P = .005) and maintenance (643 patients [38%; 95% CI, 34%-41%]; P = .047) periods.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, facilitation led to increased provision of MTUD, delayed improvements in MAUD, and no improvements in MOUD in HIV clinics. Enhanced strategies, potentially including clinic and patient incentives, especially for MOUD, may be needed to further increase provision of MAT in HIV clinics.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02907944.

Project description:BackgroundRecently developed buprenorphine depot injections have the potential to reduce risk for diversion and misuse, and to increase adherence with fewer visits for supervised intake. However, it is unclear how patients perceive this new form of medication. The purpose of this study was to explore patients' experiences of depot injections and their reasons for continuing, discontinuing, or declining depot injection treatment.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 people, 14 of whom had ongoing depot injection treatment, 11 who had discontinued depot-injections and switched to other medication and seven who had declined treatment with depot formulations. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analysed using NVivo, based on this overall stratification into three participant groups.ResultsThe main categories relate to the effects and side effects of the depot formulation, social and practical factors, psychological benefits and disadvantages, and interactions with treatment staff. Social and practical factors were of importance for choosing depot formulations, such as increased freedom and their making it easier to combine treatment with work and family life, as well as psychological advantages including "feeling normal". Initial withdrawal symptoms that resolved themselves after a number of injections were reported by most participants. Reliable information and patient-staff relationships characterized by trust helped patients to cope with these initial problems. Those who discontinued treatment often did so near the beginning of the treatment, reporting withdrawal symptoms and insufficient effects as the main reasons. Coercion and insufficient information contributed to a negative pharmaceutical atmosphere at one of the clinics, which may have adversely influenced perceptions of depot formulations and decreased willingness to accept and continue treatment.ConclusionsBuprenorphine depot injections may have social, practical, and psychological benefits compared to other formulations. However, depot injections are not perceived as an attractive option by all patients. Trust, consistent and adequate information, and awareness of the implications of the pharmaceutical atmosphere should be considered when introducing new medications.

Project description:BackgroundWhile many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs.ObjectiveTo explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications.DesignThis qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated.ParticipantsTwenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty.ApproachInterviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous.Key resultsParticipants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively.ConclusionsOptimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic notably disrupted care for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) care, necessitating a rapid shift to telemedicine. Despite the growing use of telemedicine, the impact of this transition on patients' experiences, particularly in Canada and considering sociocultural factors, remains underexplored. This study aims to investigate patients with CKD perspectives on telemedicine versus in-person care and to offer recommendations for enhancing telemedicine services.ObjectiveThe objective was to understand patients with CKD views on telemedicine clinics during the pandemic compared to traditional in-person clinics.DesignThis was a qualitative descriptive study employing semi-structured interviews.SettingThis study was conducted in general nephrology and multidisciplinary kidney care clinics in London, Canada.PopulationThe study population was English-speaking patients with CKD with at least one in-person nephrology visit before March 15, 2020, and one telemedicine appointment after March 30, 2020.MethodsInterviews were conducted using a structured guide, with transcripts analyzed line-by-line by 3 independent reviewers through directed content analysis. Themes were identified and agreed upon through group consensus.ResultsInterviews with 12 participants revealed 5 key themes: (1) convenience; (2) building connection and trust; (3) necessity of in-person care; (4) role of family or caregivers; and (5) preferences for clinic types. Most participants (11/12) valued the convenience of telemedicine, noting similar levels of care compared to in-person visits. However, they found it easier to establish personal connections in face-to-face appointments. Most (8/12) preferred in-person visits if their condition worsened. Overall, a combination of in-person and telemedicine was favored, with a preference for video over telephone.LimitationsThe study's focus on one academic nephrology center in Ontario and predominantly white participants limits broader applicability. Additionally, recall bias may affect the findings due to the interview-based design.ConclusionsTelemedicine will remain integral to CKD care, with a hybrid model combining in-person and telemedicine preferred. Integrating patient feedback into future telemedicine practices is essential to enhance flexibility, access, and patient satisfaction.

Dataset Information

Patients' perspectives of medications for addiction treatment in HIV clinics: A qualitative study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patients' perspectives of medications for addiction treatment in HIV clinics: A qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets