C J Banta-Green1, J R Williams2, J M Sears3, A S Floyd4, J I Tsui5, T J Hoeft6. 1. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: calebbg@u.washington.edu. 2. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is common among people in jail and is effectively treated with medications for OUD (MOUD). People with OUD may have an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of OUD and MOUD, and of how to access care. We evaluated an OUD treatment decision making (TDM) intervention to determine whether the intervention increased MOUD initiation post-release. METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study of the TDM intervention on initiation of MOUD, individuals with records data indicating confirmed or suspected OUD incarcerated in four eligible jails were eligible to receive the intervention. Time-to-event analyses of the TDM intervention were conducted using Cox proportional hazard modeling with MOUD as the outcome. RESULTS: Cox proportional hazard modeling, with the intervention modeled as having a time-varying effect due to violation of the proportionality assumption, indicated that those receiving the TDM intervention (n = 568) were significantly more likely to initiate MOUD during the first month after release from jail (adjusted hazard ratio 6.27, 95 % C.I. 4.20-9.37), but not in subsequent months (AHR 1.33 95 % C.I. 0.94-1.89), adjusting for demographics, prior MOUD, or felony or gross misdemeanor arrest in the prior year compared to those not receiving the intervention (n = 3174). CONCLUSION: The TDM intervention was associated with a significantly higher relative hazard of starting MOUD, specifically during the first month after incarceration. However, a minority of all eligible people received any MOUD. Future research should examine ways to increase initiation on MOUD immediately after (or ideally during) incarceration.
INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is common among people in jail and is effectively treated with medications for OUD (MOUD). People with OUD may have an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of OUD and MOUD, and of how to access care. We evaluated an OUD treatment decision making (TDM) intervention to determine whether the intervention increased MOUD initiation post-release. METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study of the TDM intervention on initiation of MOUD, individuals with records data indicating confirmed or suspected OUD incarcerated in four eligible jails were eligible to receive the intervention. Time-to-event analyses of the TDM intervention were conducted using Cox proportional hazard modeling with MOUD as the outcome. RESULTS: Cox proportional hazard modeling, with the intervention modeled as having a time-varying effect due to violation of the proportionality assumption, indicated that those receiving the TDM intervention (n = 568) were significantly more likely to initiate MOUD during the first month after release from jail (adjusted hazard ratio 6.27, 95 % C.I. 4.20-9.37), but not in subsequent months (AHR 1.33 95 % C.I. 0.94-1.89), adjusting for demographics, prior MOUD, or felony or gross misdemeanor arrest in the prior year compared to those not receiving the intervention (n = 3174). CONCLUSION: The TDM intervention was associated with a significantly higher relative hazard of starting MOUD, specifically during the first month after incarceration. However, a minority of all eligible people received any MOUD. Future research should examine ways to increase initiation on MOUD immediately after (or ideally during) incarceration.
Authors: Susan L Ettner; David Huang; Elizabeth Evans; Danielle Rose Ash; Mary Hardy; Mickel Jourabchi; Yih-Ing Hser Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Sharon M Kelly; Barry S Brown; Elizabeth C Katz; Kevin E O'Grady; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Stuart King; Robert P Schwartz Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Caleb J Banta-Green; Charles Maynard; Thomas D Koepsell; Elizabeth A Wells; Dennis M Donovan Journal: Addiction Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Joshua D Lee; Edward V Nunes; Patricia Novo; Ken Bachrach; Genie L Bailey; Snehal Bhatt; Sarah Farkas; Marc Fishman; Phoebe Gauthier; Candace C Hodgkins; Jacquie King; Robert Lindblad; David Liu; Abigail G Matthews; Jeanine May; K Michelle Peavy; Stephen Ross; Dagmar Salazar; Paul Schkolnik; Dikla Shmueli-Blumberg; Don Stablein; Geetha Subramaniam; John Rotrosen Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert P Schwartz; Sharon M Kelly; Kevin E O'Grady; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; James A Peterson; Heather Schacht Reisinger; Michael H Agar; Barry S Brown Journal: Am J Addict Date: 2008 Sep-Oct
Authors: Aaron D Fox; Jeronimo Maradiaga; Linda Weiss; Jennifer Sanchez; Joanna L Starrels; Chinazo O Cunningham Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2015-01-16
Authors: Amanda R Liberman; Daniel J Bromberg; Lyuba Azbel; Julia Rozanova; Lynn Madden; Jaimie P Meyer; Frederick L Altice Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2021-04-07