The International journal on drug policy · 2025
Identifying and responding to policy-related barriers, facilitators, and misunderstandings in the HEALing communities study: A community-driven approach.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Silwal Anita, Bohler Robert, Hunt Timothy, Olvera Ramona G, Lofwall Michelle R, Cook Christopher D, Marks Katherine R, Bridden Carly, Freeman Patricia R, Nouvong Monica, Fanucchi Laura C, El-Bassel Nabila, Frazier Lisa A, Walsh Sharon L, Talbert Jeffery C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-Term®) Communities Study (HCS) aimed to reduce opioid-involved overdose deaths across four states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio) via community-engaged implementation of three evidence-based practices (EBPs): (1) opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution, (2) medication for opioid use disorder expansion/linkage/retention, and (3) safer opioid prescribing and dispensing practices. A policy workgroup (PWG) was convened and developed a procedure to identify and address policies potentially impacting EBP implementation.
METHODS: A five-step method was developed to identify, track, and respond to relevant policies at three of the research sites (Kentucky, Massachusetts, and New York) in collaboration with community partners and stakeholders. Policies possibly impacting EBPs were reported, reviewed, and documented, including any actions taken to address the policy issue. Policies were discussed with local, state, and federal level stakeholders in attempts to resolve barriers, clarify misunderstandings, and disseminate facilitators.
RESULTS: A total of 87 (Kentucky = 37; Massachusetts = 19; New York = 31) policies were identified and addressed; 42 were identified as barriers, 24 as facilitators, and 21 as misunderstandings. PWG efforts resolved over 73 % (n = 31) of policy barriers, clarified 90 % (n = 19) of policy misunderstandings, and disseminated 100 % (n = 24) of policy facilitators.
CONCLUSIONS: A community-driven approach in policy surveillance identified, addressed, and disseminated several different types of policy issues that could impact implementation of EBPs for opioid-involved overdose prevention. Many policy barriers persisted during the HCS study, which may have adversely affected study outcomes.
METHODS: A five-step method was developed to identify, track, and respond to relevant policies at three of the research sites (Kentucky, Massachusetts, and New York) in collaboration with community partners and stakeholders. Policies possibly impacting EBPs were reported, reviewed, and documented, including any actions taken to address the policy issue. Policies were discussed with local, state, and federal level stakeholders in attempts to resolve barriers, clarify misunderstandings, and disseminate facilitators.
RESULTS: A total of 87 (Kentucky = 37; Massachusetts = 19; New York = 31) policies were identified and addressed; 42 were identified as barriers, 24 as facilitators, and 21 as misunderstandings. PWG efforts resolved over 73 % (n = 31) of policy barriers, clarified 90 % (n = 19) of policy misunderstandings, and disseminated 100 % (n = 24) of policy facilitators.
CONCLUSIONS: A community-driven approach in policy surveillance identified, addressed, and disseminated several different types of policy issues that could impact implementation of EBPs for opioid-involved overdose prevention. Many policy barriers persisted during the HCS study, which may have adversely affected study outcomes.