IMPORTANCE Treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine decreases opioid use and prevents morbidity and mortality. Emergency departments (EDs) are an important setting for buprenorphine initiation for patients with untreated OUD; however, readiness varies among ED clinicians. OBJECTIVE To characterize barriers and facilitators of readiness to initiate buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD in the ED and identify opportunities to promote readiness across multiple clinician types.

Objective To assess the type and quality of the studies evaluating the effects of electronic media-based interventions on health and safety behavior change. Data Sources Studies were identified from searches in MEDLINE (1950 to September 2010) a and PsycINFO (1967 to September 2010). Study Selection Included were published studies of interventions that used electronic media and focused on health/safety behavior change in children aged 18 years or younger. Intervention Electronic media-based intervention. Main Outcome Measure Health or safety behavior change. Results Nineteen studies met criteria and focused on at least one behavior change outcome. Of these studies, 7 employed interventions related to physical activity and/or nutrition, 6 focused on asthma, 3 focused on safety behaviors, 2 focused on sexual risk behaviors, and 1 targeted diabetes. Seventeen studies reported at least one statistically significant effect on behavior change outcomes, including an increase in fruit, juice, or vegetable consumption, an increase in physical activity, improved asthma self-management, acquisition of street and fire safety skills, and sexual abstinence. Only five of the 19 studies were rated as being of excellent quality. Conclusions Our systematic review suggests that interventions using electronic media can improve health/safety behaviors in young people. However, there is a need for higher quality, rigorous interventions that promote behavior change.

BACKGROUND: Among health care providers, prescription of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been low. Little is known specifically about primary care physicians (PCPs) with regard to PrEP awareness and adoption (i.e., prescription or referral), and factors associated with adoption. OBJECTIVE: To assess PrEP awareness, PrEP adoption, and factors associated with adoption among PCPs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey conducted in April and May 2015. RESPONDENTS: Members of a national professional organization for academic primary care physicians (n = 266). MAIN MEASURES: PrEP awareness, PrEP adoption (ever prescribed or referred a patient for PrEP [yes/no]), provider and practice characteristics, and self-rated knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs associated with adoption. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 8.6 % (266/2093). Ninety-three percent of respondents reported prior awareness of PrEP. Of these, 34.9 % reported PrEP adoption. In multivariable analysis of provider and practice characteristics, compared with non-adopters, adopters were more likely to provide care to more than 50 HIV-positive patients (vs. 0, aOR = 6.82, 95 % CI 2.06-22.52). Compared with non-adopters, adopters were also more likely to report excellent, very good, or good selfrated PrEP knowledge (15.1 %, 33.7 %, 30.2 % vs. 2.5 %, 18.1 %, 23.8 %, respectively; p < 0.001) and to perceive PrEP as extremely safe (35.1 % vs. 10.7 %; p = 0.002). Compared with non-adopters, adopters were less likely to perceive PrEP as being moderately likely to increase risk behaviors ("risk compensation") (12.8 % vs. 28.8 %, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: While most respondents were aware of PrEP, only one-third of PrEP-aware PCPs reported adoption. Adopters were more likely to have experience providing HIV care and to perceive PrEP as extremely safe, and were less likely to perceive PrEP use as leading to risk compensation. To enhance PCP adoption of PrEP, educational efforts targeting PCPs without HIV care experience should be considered, as well as training those with HIV care experience to be PrEP "clinical champions". Concerns about safety and risk compensation must also be addressed.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are increasingly prescribed, but there are limited data on opioid receipt by HIV status. OBJECTIVES: To describe patterns of opioid receipt by HIV status and the relationship between HIV status and receiving any, high-dose, and long-term opioids. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the Veterans Aging Cohort Study. PARTICIPANTS: HIV-infected (HIV+) patients receiving Veterans Health Administration care, and uninfected matched controls. MAIN MEASURES: Pain-related diagnoses were determined using ICD-9 codes. Any opioid receipt was defined as at least one opioid prescription; high-dose was defined as an average daily dose ≥120 mg of morphine equivalents; long-term opioids was defined as ≥90 consecutive days, allowing a 30 day refill gap. Multivariable models were used to assess the relationship between HIV infection and the three outcomes. KEY RESULTS: Among the HIV+ (n = 23,651) and uninfected (n=55,097) patients, 31 % of HIV+ and 28 % of uninfected (p<0.001) received opioids. Among patients receiving opioids, HIV+ patients were more likely to have an acute pain diagnosis (7 % vs. 4 %), but less likely to have a chronic pain diagnosis (53 % vs. 69 %). HIV+ patients received a higher mean daily morphine equivalent dose than uninfected patients (41 mg vs. 37 mg, p=0.001) and were more likely to receive high-dose opioids (6 % vs. 5 %, p<0.001). HIV+ patients received fewer days of opioids than uninfected patients (median 44 vs. 60, p<0.001), and were less likely to receive long-term opioids (31 % vs. 34 %, p< 0.001). In multivariable analysis, HIV+ status was associated with receipt of any opioids (AOR 1.40, 95 % CI 1.35, 1.46) and high-dose opioids (AOR 1.22, 95 % CI 1.07, 1.39), but not long-term opioids (AOR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.88, 1.01). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with HIV infection are more likely to be prescribed opioids than uninfected individuals, and there is a variable association with pain diagnoses. Efforts to standardize approaches to pain management may be warranted in this highly complex and vulnerable patient population.

IMPORTANCE Methadone access may be uniquely vulnerable to disruption during COVID-19, and even short delays in access are associated with decreased medication initiation and increased illicit opioid use and overdose death. Relative to Canada, US methadone provision is more restricted and limited to specialized opioid treatment programs. OBJECTIVE To compare timely access to methadone initiation in the US and Canada during COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2020. Participating clinics provided methadone for opioid use disorder in 14 US states and territories and 3 Canadian provinces with the highest opioid overdose death rates. Statistical analysis was performed from July 2020 to January 2021. EXPOSURES Nation and type of health insurance (US Medicaid and US self-pay vs Canadian provincial). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Proportion of clinics accepting new patients and days to first appointment. RESULTS Among 268 of 298 US clinics contacted as a patient with Medicaid (90%), 271 of 301 US clinics contacted as a self-pay patient (90%), and 237 of 288 Canadian clinics contacted as a patient with provincial insurance (82%), new patients were accepted for methadone at 231 clinics (86%) during US Medicaid contacts, 230 clinics (85%) during US self-pay contacts, and at 210 clinics (89%)during Canadian contacts. Among clinics not accepting new patients, at least 44% of 27 clinics reported that the COVID-19 pandemic was the reason. The mean wait for first appointment was greater among US Medicaid contacts (3.5 days [95% CI, 2.9-4.2 days]) and US self-pay contacts (4.1 days [95% CI, 3.4-4.8 days]) than Canadian contacts (1.9 days [95% CI, 1.7-2.1 days]) (P < .001).Open-access model (walk-in hours for new patients without an appointment) utilization was reported by 57 Medicaid (30%), 57 self-pay (30%), and 115 Canadian (59%) contacts offering an appointment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cross-sectional study of 2 nations, more than 1 in 10 methadone clinics were not accepting new patients. Canadian clinics offered more timely methadone access than US opioid treatment programs. These results suggest that the methadone access shortage was exacerbated by COVID-19 and that changes to the US opioid treatment program model are needed to improve the timeliness of access. Increased open-access model adoption may increase timely access.