Research News Roundup: November 9, 2023

Journal: JAMA Network Open, 2023, doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.40859

Authors: John Erhabor, Ellen Boakye, Olufunmilayo Obisesan, Albert D. Osei, Erfan Tasdighi, Hassan Mirbolouk, Andrew P. DeFilippis, … Michael J Blaha

Abstract:

Importance: After the initial disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unclear how patterns of e-cigarette use in the US have changed.

Objective: To examine recent patterns in current and daily e-cigarette use among US adults in 2021.

Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) database. The BRFSS is the largest national telephone-based survey of randomly sampled adults in the US. Adults aged 18 years or older, residing in 49 US states (all except Florida), the District of Columbia, and 3 US territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands), were included in the data set. Data analysis was performed in January 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was age-adjusted prevalence of current and daily e-cigarette use overall and by participant characteristics, state, and territory. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted, applying weights to account for population representation.

Results: This study included 414 755 BRFSS participants with information on e-cigarette use. More than half of participants were women (51.3%). In terms of race and ethnicity, 0.9% of participants were American Indian or Alaska Native, 5.8% were Asian, 11.5% were Black, 17.3% were Hispanic, 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 62.2% were White, 1.4% were of multiple races or ethnicities, and 0.6% were of other race or ethnicity. Individuals aged 18 to 24 years comprised 12.4% of the study population. The age-standardized prevalence of current e-cigarette use was 6.9% (95% CI, 6.7%-7.1%), with almost half of participants using e-cigarettes daily (3.2% [95% CI, 3.1%-3.4%]). Among individuals aged 18 to 24 years, there was a consistently higher prevalence of e-cigarette use, with more than 18.6% reporting current use and more than 9.0% reporting daily use. Overall, among individuals reporting current e-cigarette use, 42.2% (95% CI, 40.7%-43.7%) indicated former combustible cigarette use, 37.1% (95% CI, 35.6%-38.6%) indicated current combustible cigarette use, and 20.7% (95% CI, 19.7%-21.8%) indicated never using combustible cigarettes. Although relatively older adults (aged ≥25 years) who reported current e-cigarette use were more likely to report former or current combustible cigarette use, younger adults (aged 18-24 years) were more likely to report never using combustible cigarettes. Notably, the proportion of individuals who reported current e-cigarette use and never using combustible cigarettes was higher in the group aged 18 to 20 years (71.5% [95% CI, 66.8%-75.7%]) compared with those aged 21 to 24 years (53.0% [95% CI, 49.8%-56.1%]).

Conclusion and Relevance: These findings suggest that e-cigarette use remained common during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among young adults aged 18 to 24 years (18.3% prevalence). Notably, 71.5% of individuals aged 18 to 20 years who reported current e-cigarette use had never used combustible cigarettes. These results underscore the rationale for the implementation and enforcement of public health policies tailored to young adults.

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

Journal: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s13722-023-00422-w

Authors: Noa Krawczyk, Bianca D. Rivera, Ji E. Chang, Margaux Grivel, Yu-Heng Chen, Suhas Nagappala, Honora Englander, & Jennifer McNeely

Abstract:

Background: Acute-care interventions that identify patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), initiate treatment, and link patients to community-based services, have proliferated in recent years. Yet, much is unknown about the specific strategies being used to support continuity of care from emergency department (ED) or inpatient hospital settings to community-based SUD treatment. In this scoping review, we synthesize the existing literature on patient transition interventions, and form an initial typology of reported strategies.

Methods: We searched Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO for peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2021 that studied interventions linking patients with SUD from ED or inpatient hospital settings to community-based SUD services. Eligible articles measured at least one post-discharge treatment outcome and included a description of the strategy used to promote linkage to community care. Detailed information was extracted on the components of the transition strategies and a thematic coding process was used to categorize strategies into a typology based on shared characteristics. Facilitators and barriers to transitions of care were synthesized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Results: Forty-five articles met inclusion criteria. 62% included ED interventions and 44% inpatient interventions. The majority focused on patients with opioid (71%) or alcohol (31%) use disorder. The transition strategies reported across studies were heterogeneous and often not well described. An initial typology of ten transition strategies, including five pre- and five post-discharge transition strategies is proposed. The most common strategy was scheduling an appointment with a community-based treatment provider prior to discharge. A range of facilitators and barriers were described, which can inform efforts to improve hospital-to-community transitions of care.

Conclusions: Strategies to support transitions from acute-care to community-based SUD services, although critical for ensuring continuity of care, vary greatly across interventions and are inconsistently measured and described. More research is needed to classify SUD care transition strategies, understand their components, and explore which lead to the best patient outcomes.

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

Journal: BMJ Global Health, 2023, doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012055

Authors: Adam D. Koon, & Robert Marten

Abstract:

Health taxes are increasingly positioned as effective policy instruments for curbing non-communicable disease, improving health and raising government revenues. Their allure has caused many health advocates to look beyond tobacco and alcohol to other harmful products such as sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), salty foods, fatty foods and fossil fuels. These efforts, however, directly conflict with commercial actors’ interests. Both pro-tax health advocates and anti-tax industry representatives seek to frame health tax policy in favourable ways. Yet, little is known about which types of frames resonate in which settings, or how they deploy morals and values in their attempts to persuade. To fill this gap, we conducted a scoping review on framing health taxes using six databases in 2022. A total of 40 peer-reviewed empirical research articles, from 2006 to 2022, were identified from 20 different countries. Most research was conducted in high-income countries, published in the last 4 years and increasingly focused on excise taxes for SSBs. Studies captured multiple actors constructing context-specific frames, often tied to broader economic, health and administrative considerations. Actors also engaged in a range of political activities in addition to framing. We found some evidence that anti-tax framing strategies potentially incorporated a broader array of morals and social values. More in-country comparative research, particularly from low/middle-income countries, is needed to understand the politics of framing health taxes. We argue that these insights can improve efforts to advance health taxes by constraining corporate power, improving population level health and promoting greater social harmony.

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

Journal: JAMA Network Open, 2023, doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36914

Authors: Lindsey R. Hammerslag, Aimee Mack, Redonna K. Chandler, Laura C. Fanucchi, Daniel J. Feaster, Marc R. LaRochelle, Michelle R. Lofwall, … Jeffery C. Talbert

Abstract:

Importance: Early COVID-19 mitigation strategies placed an additional burden on individuals seeking care for opioid use disorder (OUD). Telemedicine provided a way to initiate and maintain transmucosal buprenorphine treatment of OUD.

Objective: To examine associations between transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment modality (telemedicine vs traditional) during the COVID-19 public health emergency and the health outcomes of treatment retention and opioid-related nonfatal overdose.

Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicaid claims and enrollment data from November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, for individuals aged 18 to 64 years from Kentucky and Ohio. Data were collected and analyzed in June 2022, with data updated during revision in August 2023.

Exposures: The primary exposure of interest was the modality of the transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment initiation. Relevant patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics were included in regression models.

Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 2 main outcomes of interest: retention in treatment after initiation and opioid-related nonfatal overdose after initiation. For outcomes measured after initiation, a 90-day follow-up period was used. The main analysis used a new-user study design; transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment initiation was defined as initiation after more than a 60-day gap in buprenorphine treatment. In addition, uptake of telemedicine for buprenorphine was examined, overall and within patients initiating treatment, across quarters in 2020.

Results: This study included 41 266 individuals in Kentucky (21 269 women [51.5%]; mean [SD] age, 37.9 [9.0] years) and 50 648 individuals in Ohio (26 425 women [52.2%]; mean [SD] age, 37.1 [9.3] years) who received buprenorphine in 2020, with 18 250 and 24 741 people initiating buprenorphine in Kentucky and Ohio, respectively. Telemedicine buprenorphine initiations increased sharply at the beginning of 2020. Compared with nontelemedicine initiation, telemedicine initiation was associated with better odds of 90-day retention with buprenorphine in both states (Kentucky: adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.01-1.27]; Ohio: adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.06-1.32]) in a regression analysis adjusting for patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics. Telemedicine initiation was not associated with opioid-related nonfatal overdose (Kentucky: adjusted odds ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.56-1.40]; Ohio: adjusted odds ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.83-1.41]).

Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicaid enrollees receiving buprenorphine for OUD, telemedicine buprenorphine initiation was associated with retention in treatment early during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings add to the literature demonstrating positive outcomes associated with the use of telemedicine for treatment of OUD.

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