No abstract

Background: The opioid crisis is one of the most pressing public health issues facing Ohio, with an impact uneven-ly distributed across the state. This work examined geographical barriers to substance abuse treatment in southwestern Ohio through examining geographical areas with limited access to substance abuse treatment services and identifying substance abuse treatment deserts. Methods: The study domain included the 13 counties in the Ohio Mental Health and Addiction Service's Cincinnati region. Publicly available substance use disorders treatment data were collected from government agency resources, pharmaceutical websites, and web searches. Substance abuse treatment deserts were defined as areas in the 13-county study area that were not within a 15-minute drive from a treatment center. Results: We found large portions of the study region that were considered a substance abuse treatment desert for methadone and naltrexone/buprenorphine clinics, behavioral health treatment centers, and both medicated assisted treatment (MAT) and behavioral health treatment combined. Out of the 2 017 337 total persons living in the 13-county study area, 17% (n = 342 872) live in a desert for all MAT and behavioral treatment. Similarly, 19.7% (n = 396 581) live in a desert for naltrexone/buprenorphine treatment, 60.9% (n = 1 227 560) live in a desert for methadone treatment, and 19.7% (n = 396 581) live in a desert for behavioral health treatment. Conclusion: We successfully defined substance abuse treatment deserts in southwestern Ohio, which will be useful for future research to determine its association with opioid-related health outcomes. This resource is publicly available online (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4011051).

Background: While much of the literature has focused on examining barriers to substance use disorders (SUD) treatment with individuals with SUD, there is a dearth of research from the perspective of treatment providers and law enforcement, 2 groups who witness the challenges for addressing SUD. Methods: Using content analysis, this qualitative study explored the perspectives of individuals with SUD, treatment providers, and law enforcement on recommendations about SUD treatment and prevention. Data from 12 focus groups with individuals with SUD were analyzed and triangulated with interviews from treatment providers and law enforcement. Cross case analysis was utilized to identify common categories. Results: The categories identified included education, judicial system, psychosocial barriers, resources, stigma, stages of change, and treatment. Results indicated all groups had similar ideas on how to address SUD. Participants provided recommendations in each category for addressing SUD. Conclusion: Individuals with SUD, treatment providers, and law enforcement officers are affected by complex issues of SUD on micro, mezzo, and macro levels. Public health professionals can help to facilitate changes by advocating for prevention and intervention methods to be implemented to address SUD.