Dataset Information

Mixed-methods study to examine the response of opioid addiction treatment programmes to COVID-19: a study protocol

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic is forcing changes to clinical practice within traditional addiction treatment programmes, including the increased use of telehealth, reduced restrictions on methadone administration (eg, increased availability of take-home doses and decreased requirements for in-person visits), reduced reliance on group counselling and less urine drug screening. This paper describes the protocol for a mixed-methods study analysing organisational-level factors that are associated with changes in clinic-level practice changes and treatment retention.

Methods and analysis

We will employ an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design to study the treatment practices for opioid use disorder (OUD) patients in New York State (NYS). For the quantitative aim, we will use the Client Data System and Medicaid claims data to examine the variation in clinical practices (ie, changes in telehealth, pharmacotherapy, group vs individual counselling and urine drug screening) and retention in treatment for OUD patients across 580 outpatient clinics in NYS during the pandemic. Clinics will be categorised into quartiles based on composite rankings by calculating cross-clinic Z scores for the clinical practice change and treatment retention variables. We will apply the random-effects modelling to estimate change by clinic by introducing a fixed-effect variable for each clinic, adjusting for key individual and geographic characteristics and estimate the changes in the clinical practice changes and treatment retention. We will then employ qualitative methods and interview 200 key informants (ie, programme director, clinical supervisor, counsellor and medical director) to develop an understanding of the quantitative findings by examining organisational characteristics of programmes (n=25) representative of those that rank in the top quartile of clinical practice measures as well as programmes that performed worst on these measures (n=25).

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of NYU Langone Health (#i21-00573). Study findings will be disseminated through national and international conferences, reports and peer-reviewed publications.

SUBMITTER: Choi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9301498 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThere is growing awareness that cancer services need to address patients' well-being as well as treating their cancer. We developed systematic approaches to (1) monitoring patients' symptoms including depression using a 'Symptom Monitoring Service' and (2) providing treatment for those with major depression using a programme called 'Depression Care for People with Cancer'. Used together, these two programmes were found to be highly effective and cost-effective in clinical trials. The overall aims of this project are to: (1) study the process of introducing these programmes into routine clinical care in a large cancer service, (2) identify the challenges associated with implementation and how these are overcome, (3) determine their effectiveness in a routine non-research setting and (4) describe patients' and clinicians' experience of the programmes.Methods and analysisThis is a mixed-methods longitudinal implementation study. We will study the process of implementation in three phases (April 2016-December 2018): 'Pre-implementation' (setting up of the new programmes), 'Early Implementation' (implementation of the programmes in a small number of clinics) and 'Implementation and Maintenance' (implementation in the majority of clinics). We will use the following methods of data collection: (1) contemporaneous logs of the implementation process, (2) interviews with healthcare professionals and managers, (3) interviews with patients and (4) routinely collected clinical data.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed by a joint committee of Oxford University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust Research and Development Department and the University of Oxford's Clinical Trials and Research Governance Department and judged to be service evaluation, not requiring ethics committee approval. The findings of this study will guide the scaling up implementation of the programmes across the UK and will enable us to construct an implementation toolkit. We will disseminate our findings in publications and at relevant national and international conferences.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of keeping up to date on routine vaccinations. Throughout the pandemic, many routine vaccine programmes in Canada were paused or cancelled, including school-based immunisation programmes (SBIP). This resulted in decreased coverage for many vaccine-preventable diseases. While the effects of the pandemic on SBIP have been described in other provinces, its effects in the Maritime region (ie, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island) have yet to be understood. We aim to determine how these programmes were affected by COVID-19 and associated public health measures in the Canadian Maritimes by (1) identifying and describing usual and interim catch-up programmes; (2) exploring stakeholders' perceptions of SBIP through interviews; and (3) designing recommendations with stakeholders to address gaps in SBIP and vaccine coverage.Methods and analysisA sequential, explanatory mixed methods study design will be used to address the objectives during the study period (September 2022-December 2023). First, an environmental scan will describe changes to SBIP and vaccine coverage over a period of five school years (2018/2019-2022/2023). Findings will inform semistructured interviews (n=65) with key stakeholders (eg, health officials, healthcare providers, school officials and parents and adolescents) to explore perceptions of SBIP and changes in parental vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic. These data will be integrated to design recommendations to support SBIP during two stakeholder engagement meetings. Analysis will be guided by the behaviour change wheel, a series of complementary tools and frameworks to simplify behaviour diagnosis and analysis in public health research.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for this study has been obtained from Dalhousie University's Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (Ref: 2022-6395). Informed consent will be obtained from participants prior to participating in an interview or stakeholder engagement meeting. Study findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, publications and infographics.

Project description:IntroductionDeterminants and drivers for emergencies, such as political instability, weak health systems, climate change and forcibly displaced populations, are increasing the severity, complexity and frequency of public health emergencies. As emergencies become more complex, it is increasingly important that the required skillset of the emergency response workforce is clearly defined. To enable essential epidemiological activities to be implemented and managed during an emergency, a workforce is required with the right mix of skills, knowledge, experience and local context awareness. This study aims to provide local and international responders with an opportunity to actively contribute to the development of new thinking around emergency response roles and required competencies. In this study, we will develop recommendations using a broad range of evidence to address identified lessons and challenges so that future major emergency responses are culturally and contextually appropriate, and less reliant on long-term international deployments.Method and analysisWe will conduct a mixed-methods study using an exploratory sequential study design. The integration of four data sources, including key informant interviews, a scoping literature review, survey and semistructured interviews will allow the research questions to be examined in a flexible, semistructured way, from a range of perspectives. The study is unequally weighted, with a qualitative emphasis. We will analyse all activities as individual components, and then together in an integrated analysis. Thematic analysis will be conducted in NVivo V.11 and quantitative analysis will be conducted in Stata V.15.Ethics and disseminationAll activities have been approved by the Science and Medical Delegated Ethics Review Committee at the Australian National University (protocol numbers 2018-521, 2018-641, 2019-068). Findings will be disseminated through international and local deployment partners, peer-reviewed publication, presentation at international conferences and through social media such as Twitter and Facebook.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the disproportionate and long-standing health disparities experienced by Black communities. Although it is acknowledged that social determinants of health (SDOH) rather than biological factors likely contribute to this disparity, few studies using rigorous analytic approaches in large, information-rich community-based data sets are dedicated to understanding the underlying drivers of these racial disparities.ObjectiveThe overall aim of our study is to elucidate the mechanisms by which racial disparities in severe COVID-19 outcomes arise, using both quantitative and qualitative methods.MethodsIn this protocol, we outline a convergent parallel mixed methods approach to identifying, quantifying, and contextualizing factors that contribute to the dramatic disparity in COVID-19 severity (ie, hospitalization, mortality) in Black versus white COVID-19 patients within the integrated health care system of Kaiser Permanente Georgia (KPGA). Toward this end, we will generate two quantitative cohorts of KPGA members with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between January 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021: (1) an electronic medical record (EMR) cohort including routinely captured data on diagnoses, medications, and laboratory values, and a subset of patients hospitalized at Emory Healthcare to capture additional in-hospital data; and (2) a survey cohort, where participants will answer a range of questions related to demographics (eg, race, education), usual health behaviors (eg, physical activity, smoking), impact of COVID-19 (eg, job loss, caregiving responsibilities), and medical mistrust. Key outcomes of interest for these two cohorts include hospitalization, mortality, intensive care unit admission, hospital readmission, and long COVID-19. Finally, we will conduct qualitative semistructured interviews to capture perceptions of and experiences of being hospitalized with COVID-19 as well as related interactions with KPGA health care providers. We will analyze and interpret the quantitative and qualitative data separately, and then integrate the qualitative and quantitative findings using a triangulation design approach.ResultsThis study has been funded by a Woodruff Health Sciences grant from December 2020 to December 2022. As of August 31, 2022, 31,500 KPGA members diagnosed with COVID-19 have been included in the EMR cohort, including 3028 who were hospitalized at Emory Healthcare, and 482 KPGA members completed the survey. In addition, 20 KPGA members (10 Black and 10 white) have been interviewed about their experiences navigating care with COVID-19. Quantitative and qualitative data cleaning and coding have been completed. Data analysis is underway with results anticipated to be published in December 2022.ConclusionsResults from this mixed methods pilot study in a diverse integrated care setting in the southeastern United States will provide insights into the mechanisms underpinning racial disparities in COVID-19 complications. The quantitative and qualitative data will provide important context to generate hypotheses around the mechanisms for racial disparities in COVID-19, and may help to inform the development of multilevel strategies to reduce the burden of racial disparities in COVID-19 and its ongoing sequelae. Incorporating contextual information, elucidated from qualitative interviews, will increase the efficacy, adoption, and sustainability of such strategies.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR1-10.2196/38914.

Project description:IntroductionThe use of remote monitoring technology to manage the care of patients with COVID-19 has been implemented to help reduce the burden placed on healthcare systems during the pandemic and protect the well-being of both staff and patients. Remote monitoring allows patients to record their signs and symptoms remotely (eg, while self-isolating at home) rather than requiring hospitalisation. Healthcare staff can, therefore, continually monitor their symptoms and be notified when the patient is showing signs of clinical deterioration. However, given the recency of the COVID-19 outbreak, there is a lack of research regarding the acceptance of remote monitoring interventions to manage COVID-19. This study will aim to evaluate the use of remote monitoring for managing COVID-19 cases from the perspective of both the patient and healthcare staff.Methods and analysisDischarged patients from a large urban teaching hospital in Ireland, who have undergone remote monitoring for COVID-19, will be recruited to take part in a cross-sectional study consisting of a quantitative survey and a qualitative interview. A mixed methods design will be used to understand the experiences of remote monitoring from the perspective of the patient. Healthcare staff who have been involved in the provision of remote monitoring of patients with COVID-19 will be recruited to take part in a qualitative interview to understand their experiences with the process. Structural equation modelling will be used to examine the acceptance of the remote monitoring technology. Latent class analysis will be used to identify COVID-19 symptom profiles. Interview data will be examined using thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the ethical review boards at University College Dublin and the National Research Ethics Committee for COVID-19-related Research. Findings will be disseminated via publications in scientific journals, policy briefs, short reports and social media.

Project description:Problematic substance use and addiction is a growing crisis in the United States. As a result, identifying factors that effectively promote addiction recovery is, currently, of particular societal importance. Informed by evidence that-while addiction can be perpetuated by stress-related impulsivity and decreased self-regulation-perceived social support is protective against addiction, we test a model for addiction recovery as a form of posttraumatic growth (PTG), focused specifically on close relationships and personal strength-two domains of PTG. In an initial study, we found that perceived social support and impulsivity predicted number of relapses in individuals in a substance use disorder recovery program. Using experience sampling, we then observed that experiencing a stressful event predicted impulsive behavior. However, experiencing closeness with others-a domain of PTG-was directly associated with perceived social support, and both predicted positive emotional states, which were, in turn, inversely associated with experiencing a stressful event. Further, when experiencing a stressful event, personal strength-also a domain of PTG-was inversely associated with impulsive behavior and was predicted by both perceived social support and positive emotional states. Finally, in a follow-up experiment, we found that an ecological momentary intervention targeting perceived social support decreased impulsivity and increased self-regulation-an aspect of personal strength-in a dose-dependent fashion. Taken together, our findings: (1) support a PTG model for recovery; (2) provide evidence for processes by which close supportive relationships are protective against addiction and relapse; and (3) indicate that self-regulation is responsive to a short in-the-moment perceived social support intervention. We suggest that these findings support the theory that addiction is a social disease in the sense that close personal interactions and supportive relationships: (a) buffer against stress-related impulsivity, thereby protecting against addiction and relapse; and (b) increase personal strength, thereby decreasing the probability of impulsive-including addictive-behavior and promoting recovery.