Co-occurrence of chronic pain and clinically significant symptoms of anxiety and/or depression is regularly noted in the literature. Yet, little is known empirically about population prevalence of co-occurring symptoms, nor whether people with co-occurring symptoms constitute a distinct subpopulation within US adults living with chronic pain or US adults living with anxiety and/or depression symptoms (A/D). To address this gap, this study analyzes data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, a representative annual survey of self-reported health status and treatment use in the United States (n = 31,997). Approximately 12 million US adults, or 4.9% of the adult population, have co-occurring chronic pain and A/D symptoms. Unremitted A/D symptoms co-occurred in 23.9% of US adults with chronic pain, compared with an A/D prevalence of 4.9% among those without chronic pain. Conversely, chronic pain co-occurred in the majority (55.6%) of US adults with unremitted A/D symptoms, compared with a chronic pain prevalence of 17.1% among those without A/D symptoms. The likelihood of experiencing functional limitations in daily life was highest among those experiencing co-occurring symptoms, compared with those experiencing chronic pain alone or A/D symptoms alone. Among those with co-occurring symptoms, 69.4% reported that work was limited due to a health problem, 43.7% reported difficulty doing errands alone, and 55.7% reported difficulty participating in social activities. These data point to the need for targeted investment in improving functional outcomes for the nearly 1 in 20 US adults living with co-occurring chronic pain and clinically significant A/D symptoms.

Previous research suggests that individuals with mental health needs and chronic pain may be less likely to use mental health treatment compared with those with mental health needs only. Yet, few studies have investigated the existence of population-level differences in mental health treatment use. We analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey (n = 31,997) to address this question. We found that chronic pain was associated with end-to-end disparities in the mental health journeys of U.S. adults: (1) Those living with chronic pain are overrepresented among U.S. adults with mental health needs; (2) among U.S. adults with mental health needs, those living with chronic pain had a lower prevalence of mental health treatment use; (3) among U.S. adults who used mental health treatment, those living with chronic pain had a higher prevalence of screening positive for unremitted anxiety or depression; (4) among U.S. adults living with both chronic pain and mental health needs, suboptimal mental health experiences were more common than otherwise—just 44.4% of those living with mental health needs and co-occurring chronic pain reported use of mental health treatment and screened negative for unremitted anxiety and depression, compared with 71.5% among those with mental health needs only. Overall, our results suggest that U.S. adults with chronic pain constitute an underrecognized majority of those living with unremitted anxiety/depression symptoms and that the U.S. healthcare system is not yet adequately equipped to educate, screen, navigate to care, and successfully address their unmet mental health needs.

Objective: There is a lack of consensus on whether e-cigarettes facilitate or threaten existing tobacco prevention strategies. This uncertainty is reflected in organizations' conflicting e-cigarette position statements. We conducted a scoping review of position statements in published and gray literature to map the range and frequency of e-cigarette use recommendations. Methods: We collected 81 statements from international health organizations. Two coders independently performed qualitative content analysis to categorize e-cigarette recommendations. We explored differences based on organization type, geography, and the year recommendations were published. Results: We identified 5 recommendation types: encourage smokers to use ecigarettes as a cessation aid or as an alternative source of nicotine (N = 5); support individuals who use e-cigarettes to quit smoking (N = 20); avoid using until more research is available (N = 19); restrict access based on available evidence (N = 30); and prohibit e-cigarette marketing and sale (N = 7). Conclusion: Organizations presented diverse e-cigarette use recommendations. The variation related to organizations' differing tobacco prevention priorities and level of confidence in current e-cigarette research. These differences may create confusion. Additional research can examine whether this variability influences stakeholders' attitudes or behavior.

The United States is experiencing a crisis of opioid misuse and overdose. To understand the underlying factors, researchers have begun looking upstream to identify social and structural determinants. However, no study has yet aggregated these into a comprehensive ecology of opioid overdose. We scoped 68 literature sources and compiled a master list of opioid misuse and overdose conditions. We grouped the conditions and used the Social Ecological Model to organize them into a diagram. We reviewed the diagram with nine subject matter experts (SMEs) who provided feedback on its content, design, and usefulness. From a literature search and SME interviews, we identified 80 unique conditions of opioid overdose and grouped them into 16 categories. In the final diagram, we incorporated 40 SME-recommended changes. In commenting on the diagram’s usefulness, SMEs explained that the diagram could improve intervention planning by demonstrating the complexity of opioid overdose and highlighting structural factors. However, care is required to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and legibility. Multiple design formats may be useful, depending on the communication purpose and audience. This ecological diagram offers a visual perspective of the conditions of opioid overdose.

This study examined the impact of federal regulatory changes on methadone and buprenorphine treatment during COVID-19 in Arizona. A cohort study of methadone and buprenorphine providers from September 14, 2021 to April 15, 2022 measured the proportion of 6 treatment accommodations implemented at 3 time periods: before COVID-19, during Arizona's COVID-19 shutdown, and at the time of the survey completion. Accommodations included (1) telehealth, (2) telehealth buprenorphine induction, (3) increased multiday dosing, (4) license reciprocity, (5) home medications delivery, and (6) off-site dispensing. A multilevel model assessed the association of treatment setting, rurality, and treatment with accommodation implementation time. Over half (62.2%) of the 74-provider sample practiced in healthcare settings not primarily focused on addiction treatment, 19% practiced in methadone clinics, and 19% practiced in treatment clinics not offering methadone. Almost half (43%) were unaware of the regulatory changes allowing treatment accommodation. Telehealth was most frequently reported, increasing from 30% before COVID-19 to 80% at the time of the survey. Multiday dosing was the only accommodation substantially retracted after COVID-19 shutdown: from 41% to 23% at the time of the survey. Providers with higher patient limits were 2.5–3.2 times as likely to implement telehealth services, 4.4 times as likely to implement buprenorphine induction through telehealth, and 15.2–20.9 times as likely to implement license reciprocity as providers with lower patient limits. Providers of methadone implemented 12% more accommodations and maintained a higher average proportion of implemented accommodations during the COVID-19 shutdown period but were more likely to reduce the proportion of implemented accommodations (a 17-percentage point gap by the time of the survey). Federal regulatory changes are not sufficient to produce a substantive or sustained impact on provider accommodations, especially in methadone medical treatment settings. Practice change interventions specific to treatment settings should be implemented and studied for their impact.

IntroductionQuitlines are standard care for smoking cessation; however, retaining clients in services is a problem. Little is known about factors that may predict dropout.AimsTo examine predictors of retention while in-program and at follow-up for clients enrolling in a state quitline.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of quitline enrolled clients from 2011 to 2017 (N = 49,347). Client retention in-program was categorized as (a) low adherence to treatment (receiving zero coaching calls), moderate (1–2 calls), and high adherence (3+ calls). Dropout at follow-up included participants who were not reached for the 7-month follow-up.ResultsMore than half the sample dropped out during treatment; 61% were not reached for follow-up. Women (odds ratio (OR) = 1.21; 95% confidence interval (CI) = [1.16, 127]) and those with high levels of nicotine dependence (OR = 1.03; 95% CI = [1.02, 1.04]) were more likely to have moderate adherence to treatment (1–2 coaching calls). Dropout at follow-up was more likely among clients who used nicotine replacement therapy (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = [1.09, 1.19]) and less likely among those who had high treatment adherence (OR = 0.41; 95% CI = [0.39, 0.42]).ConclusionGiven the relapsing nature of tobacco use and the harms related to tobacco use, quitlines can improve their impact by offering tailored services to enhance client engagement and retention in-treatment and at follow-up.