Research News Roundup: July 9, 2026

Journal: Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, 2026, doi.org/10.1016/ j.josat.2026.210062

Authors: Zoe Lindenfeld, Noa Krawczyk, Erin A. Taylor, Denis Agniel, & Jonathan H. Cantor

Abstract:

Introduction: State regulations governing opioid treatment programs (OTPs) vary widely in their restrictiveness, yet how state policies relate to the availability of services offered within OTPs remains understudied. In this study, we compare the availability of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) options, psychosocial services, and housing supports across OTPs operating in states with different levels of OTP policy restrictions.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 1501 opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in the United States. Exposures included 11 state-level OTP policies that impose legal or administrative barriers to opening or operating OTPs or to patients’ receipt of care (e.g., pharmacy licensure requirements, zoning restrictions, government identification requirements, and administrative discharge for positive drug screenings). Data on OTP service offerings—including buprenorphine, naltrexone, all three medications for opioid use disorder, mental health services, contingency management, trauma-informed counseling, and housing services—and organizational characteristics were obtained from the 2023 Mental Health and Addiction Treatment Tracking Repository, a national longitudinal database of licensed substance use disorder treatment facilities. These data were linked to a previously developed state policy typology using latent class analysis, which categorized states as having low or high OTP restrictiveness. Regression models adjusted for state- and organizational-level characteristics and accounted for clustering within states.

Results: In descriptive analyses, OTPs in highly restrictive states were significantly less likely (p < 0.05) to offer all three MOUDs and behavioral health services, including mental health services, trauma-informed counseling, and contingency management, compared with OTPs in low-restrictiveness states. In adjusted Poisson regression models, facilities in highly restrictive states were significantly less likely to offer naltrexone (ARR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.54–0.97) and all three MOUDs (ARR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53–0.92).

Conclusions: Given that OTPs are the only facilities in which methadone can be legally dispensed, these facilities are a critical point of access for individuals in need of evidence-based OUD treatment. However, our findings suggest that states that place additional restrictions on OTPs also offer less services within their OTPs.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.

Journal: Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.josat.2026.210059

Authors: Ateev Mehrotra, Alisa B. Busch, Protima Advani, Eleena Koep, Oluwayomi Akintola, Lori Uscher-Pines, … & Haiden A. Huskamp

Abstract:

Introduction: Few patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive medications for OUD (MOUD), such as buprenorphine. Given that many patients, particularly those in rural communities, do not live near a clinician who prescribes MOUD, telemedicine could increase MOUD access. Some clinicians have adopted a virtual-only model of care delivery, which in theory could reach anyone. However, clinicians and policymakers are concerned about the quality of the virtual-only model.

Methods: We identified adults with commercial or Medicare Advantage coverage via UnitedHealthCare who started buprenorphine for OUD between September 2019 and December 2023. We compared the care provided by virtual-only vs. traditional clinicians.

Results: There were 17,538 buprenorphine inductions during the study period, of which 568 (3.2%) were conducted by a virtual-only clinician. There were few substantive differences in who used virtual-only care. For example, patients initiating buprenorphine with virtual-only vs. traditional clinicians were equally likely to live in urban areas (82.6% vs. 80.4%, p = 0.53). Patients initiating buprenorphine with virtual-only clinicians had more visits in the 6 months after the initiation (8.5 vs. 5.7 visits, p < 0.01), were more likely to be on buprenorphine at 6 months (59.0% vs. 52.9%, p < 0.01), but had fewer days of continuous buprenorphine treatment (70.7 vs. 81.9, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: Our results can inform ongoing debates about the strengths and weaknesses of virtual-only OUD care.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.

Journal: Journal 0f Traumatic Stress, 2026, doi: 10.1002/jts.70100

Authors: Heidi M. Zinzow, Lauren Smalls, Irene Pericot-Valverde, Meghan Shank, Madelyn Brancato, Greyson Chapman, … & Alain H. Litwin

Abstract:

High rates of interpersonal violence exposure and trauma-related mental health concerns among women in substance use treatment underscore the need for violence prevention services in these settings. Peer support specialists can play a crucial role in increasing access to trauma-focused services and overcoming barriers, such as stigma and mistrust in formal systems. We tested the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a peer-delivered sexual and intimate partner violence prevention program for women in substance use treatment (THRIVE: The Healthy Relationships and Interpersonal Violence Education program). We conducted a single-arm trial with 90 women recruited from outpatient and residential substance use treatment centers. Self-report surveys assessed risk and protective factors and violence exposure over four assessment points from baseline (T1) to 3-month follow-up (T4). Exit interviews and survey data examined feasibility and acceptability outcomes. Results from linear mixed models indicated that participants improved on knowledge of consent (MT1 = 4.37, MT4 = 4.52), p = .004, and resources (MT1 = 2.09, MT4 = 2.63), p < .001; increased sexual self-efficacy (MT1 = 4.90, MT4 = 5.29), p < .001; and decreased risky dating (MT1 = 3.37, MT4 = 2.87), p < .001, and physical and psychological intimate partner violence victimization (T1: 73.9%, T4: 42.0%), p < .001. Participants reported high satisfaction and acceptability and highlighted the strengths of peers as facilitators. In sum, THRIVE offers promise as an effective, scalable violence prevention program.

To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.