Virtual Primary Care for People with Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review of Current Strategies, Benefits, and Challenges

Shawna Narayan, Ellie Gooderham, Sarah Spencer, Rita McCracken, Lindsay Hedden
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.06.23296679

ABSTRACT

Background There is a pressing need to understand the implications of the rapid adoption of virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder. Potential impacts, including disruptions to opiate agonist therapies, and the prospect of improved service accessibility remain underexplored. This scoping review synthesizes current literature on virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder, with a specific focus on benefits, challenges, and strategies.

Methods We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological approach for scoping reviews and reported our findings consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We conducted searches on MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, and Embase using our developed search strategy with no date restrictions. We incorporated all study types that included the three concepts (i.e., virtual care; primary care; people with opioid use disorder). We excluded research on minors, asynchronous virtual modalities, and care not provided in a primary care setting. We used Covidence to screen and extract data, pulling information on study characteristics, health system features, patient outcomes, and challenges and benefits of virtual primary care. We conducted inductive content analysis and calculated descriptive statistics. We appraised the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies tool and categorized findings using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science.

Results Our search identified 1474 studies. We removed 536 duplicates, leaving 936 studies for title and abstract screening. After a double review process, we retained 28 studies for extraction. Most studies described virtual primary care delivered via phone (n=18, 64.3%) rather than video. While increased healthcare accessibility was a significant benefit (n=13, 46.4%) to the adoption of virtual visits, issues around access to technology and digital literacy stood out as the main challenge (n=12, 42.9%).

Conclusions The available studies highlight the potential for enhancing accessibility and continuous access care for people with opioid use disorder using virtual modalities. Future research and policies must focus on bridging gaps to ensure virtual primary care does not exacerbate or entrench health inequities.

INTRODUCTION

The opioid crisis remains a significant public health challenge [1], highlighted by the rising number of deaths globally [2–4]. In North America, illicit drug poisoning deaths can be attributed to a contaminated drug supply saturated with synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl [5]. Simultaneously, opioid use disorder (OUD) is on the rise [6], with 21.4 million cases worldwide in 2019 [7]. Effective medications for opioid use disorder, such as opioid agonist therapies (OAT), have shown potential in reducing illicit drug poisoning deaths [8, 9]. Given that primary care services are often at the forefront of diagnosing and treating OUD, evidence shows that accessible primary care services can help achieve better health outcomes for people with opioid use disorder (PWOUD) [10, 11].

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new barriers to traditional approaches to OUD treatment, including in-person primary care services, due to the need for social distancing and reduced in-person interactions [12, 13]. In response to COVID-19 public health measures, healthcare systems implemented remote care solutions, transforming the delivery of healthcare services [14] and accelerating the adoption and utilization of virtual healthcare [15–17]. During this same period, much of the progress that had been made to address the opioid crisis was reversed [18–20]; illicit drug poisoning deaths increased as a result of limited health services [21], poisoned supply [22], and solitary drug use [23]. In the context of these challenges, and as a result of pandemic-related public health measures, virtual care emerged as a potential solution to address the unique needs of PWOUD by providing essential healthcare services remotely [24].

The widespread shift to virtual care facilitated continuous access to care during the pandemic. This shift may have been helpful for individuals with OUD [25, 26], many of whom experience barriers to health care due to intersecting effects of criminalization, discrimination, and social marginalization [13]. Virtual care allows clinicians to deliver essential healthcare services to PWOUD [27, 28], offering improved accessibility [29] and the ability to deliver OAT [30], while reducing barriers related to transportation, mobility limitations, and stigma [31]. However, virtual visits may limit clinicians’ ability to fully assess patients’ physical and emotional wellbeing [27] and may introduce technological barriers for those with limited internet access and low digital literacy [32, 33]. Additionally, virtual care may not be suitable for all aspects of OUD treatment as some interventions, such as injectable OAT [34], require regular in-person management [27].

Given that virtual platforms have become increasingly common for primary care – a trend that is expected to persist beyond the pandemic [35] – understanding the benefits and limitations of virtual care interventions is essential for shaping future healthcare delivery models and optimizing the care provided to patients with social and clinical complexities. This scoping review aims to synthesize the current knowledge landscape, research gaps, and offer insights into the potential of virtual primary care for PWOUD.

METHODS

Overall study design

This review informs a mixed-methods study investigating changes to primary care access and patient outcomes following the rapid introduction of virtual care for PWOUD in British Columbia, Canada [36]. We conducted the review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer Manual [37, 38] and the framework suggested by Arksey and O’Malley [39]. We registered our protocol on the Open Science Framework [40] and report our findings using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [41] and the PRISMA for Abstracts Checklist [42] (see supplementary materials). Manuscript editing was supported through a large language model (i.e., ChatGPT [43]) to improve clarity and conciseness [44]. Authors reviewed generated text to ensure original meaning.

Eligibility criteria

We established our eligibility criteria a priori. We included all study types (abstracts, viewpoints, observational studies, qualitative data, systematic reviews, etc.) with a focus on the three concepts (i.e., virtual care; primary care; PWOUD). We considered all studies that described the use of any form of synchronous virtual visits, such as telephone calls and video conferencing for the purpose of providing primary care services (i.e., prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment) for PWOUD; this is not exclusive to providing OAT. We included adult populations with opioid use disorder and did not restrict based on the presence or absence of other comorbidities. No geographical restrictions were implemented; however, we restricted the search to studies published in English.

We excluded any study that did not include all three concepts (virtual care; primary care; PWOUD). We defined primary care as “the provision of integrated, accessible health care services by physicians and their health care teams who are accountable for addressing a large majority of personal health care needs, developing a sustained partnership with patients, and practicing in the context of family and community” [45]. Therefore, primary care settings are those where patients could receive comprehensive care (i.e., treatment for any type of health care issue) [46], including physician’s offices, community health centers, and specific outpatient clinics. We included some settings that may not traditionally be considered primary care – such as certain opioid treatment programs, syringe service programs, or veterans’ health association programs and clinics – when there was evidence that the setting also attended to health care issues beyond OUD [47–49]. We did exclude, however, psychiatric clinics, addiction clinics, some opioid treatment programs, and syringe services programs where these solely focused on treating OUD or did not report providing other comprehensive care. Other exclusions included studies taking place in prisons or hospitals; studies with participants under the age of 18; studies that described asynchronous virtual visits (e.g., text messaging, mobile applications); studies that did not specify the practice settings or the type of virtual modality. Additionally, studies that reported on substance use disorders but did not present data specific to OUD were excluded.

Search Strategy

We developed search strategies [50–54] by combining MesH terms (e.g., Analgesics, Opioids; Telemedicine; Primary Health Care) and free-text keywords (e.g., Methadone, Virtual, ‘Family Doctor’) using Boolean (e.g., AND, OR, NOT), truncation and wildcard operators. Librarians from the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University verified the strategies. From 6 December 2022 to 8 December 2022, one reviewer (SN) systematically searched MEDLINE® (Ovid) [51], CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost) [53], EMBASE (Ovid) [52], and the Web of Science Core Collection [50] with no end date. From May to June 2023, we searched grey literature using the Canada Commons database [54], Google Scholar, Trip, Greymatters, and select organization websites (i.e., Canada Health Infoway, BC Centre on Substance Use, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse). Following the search and extraction, the bibliographies of included studies were systematically checked for additional references [55].

Screening

One reviewer (SN) identified and removed all duplicates using Covidence [56], a systematic review software, after which two reviewers (SN and EG) screened the identified studies in a two-stage screening process (title/abstract screening and full-text screening). We achieved a 75% minimum agreement in a pilot test of our screening and reviewed any conflicts. During screening, some studies did not have well-defined care settings, leaving raters to apply inclusion criteria differently. Furthermore, the studies spanned a range of methodologies and outcomes, introducing additional challenges in achieving consistent ratings. We reconciled discrepancies at both stages through discussion with the research team and recorded the reasons for study exclusion at each step.

Data extraction and analysis

We (EG, LH, RM and SN) created a data extraction chart (see supplementary materials) to capture relevant information (i.e., setting, benefits, challenges, virtual modality, patient population) in Covidence. To ensure its efficacy, we first piloted this chart on a small sample of studies. Based on insights from this pilot, we refined the chart to better capture the nuances of health service features specific to primary care settings. This revised chart became the cornerstone for the subsequent data extraction from the studies. In parallel, EG and SN conducted quality appraisals of the studies using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool [57]. No study that reached data extraction was excluded due to their QuADS score. Following data extraction and quality appraisal, SN and EG reviewed the data to reach a consensus. We transferred the harmonized data to Microsoft Excel to conduct inductive content analysis, which led us to identify patterns, which we subsequently organized into themes.

For theme categorization, we utilized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science (CFIR) [58], a widely recognized meta-theoretical model previously applied in other virtual care reviews [59–61]. The CFIR is comprised of five major domains (Figure 1):

  1. Innovation: the change being implemented. In the context of our scoping review, we equate this with synchronous virtual visits in primary care.

  2. Outer Setting: the context in which the Inner Setting exists. For this review, the outer setting is the state, including laws, policies, and institutions which inform the provision and influence access to primary care.

  3. Inner Setting: the more immediate context where the innovation is applied. While virtual care was implemented throughout the healthcare system, we are specifically interested in how it has been applied and experienced in primary care.

  4. Individuals: the actors involved in the provision and experience of the given innovation. Within the primary care milieu, there are two principal actors. ‘Innovation Receivers’ – in this study, PWOUD – and ‘Innovation Deliverers’ – clinicians offering virtual primary care.

  5. Implementation Process: the methods and strategies employed to implement the innovation. This includes facilitators and barriers that influence implementation of virtual care.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Consolidated Framework of Implementation Science Domains

We discuss facilitators and barriers to the Implementation Process (Domain 5) within each of the other four domains.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 1474 studies from our searches of Embase (OVID) (n=780), Web of Science Core Collection (n=283), Ovid MEDLINE (n=263), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost) (n=142) databases and through citation searching (n=6). After removing 536 duplicates, we title and abstract screened 936 studies, retaining 155 studies for full-text review. After a double-review process, we identified 28 papers for data extraction and quality assessment. A PRISMA flow diagram details the exclusions (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. PRISMA diagram

Study Characteristics

The majority of studies were based in the United States and were published after the emergence of COVID-19 (Table 1). Only four studies were conducted prior to the pandemic [62–65], emphasizing the paucity of research on virtual primary care for PWOUD conducted before 2020. Original research constituted the largest group of studies (n=11, 39.3%), employing various study designs. Most studies represented either quantitative (n=15, 53.6%) or qualitative (n=4, 14.3%) designs, while one was mixed methods. Other studies reported findings as commentaries (n=7, 25.0%) or economic evaluations (n=1, 3.6%).

View this table:
Table 1. Study Characteristics

The key objectives and results identified in each study are summarized in Table 2. Nineteen (67.9%) studies identified incorporating virtual care as part of their primary study purpose or design, while the remaining studies included virtual care as an ancillary component of their research (n=9, 32.1%). Studies commonly reported the introduction of virtual modalities due to COVID-19 (n=17, 60.7%), with a few of these papers also examining changes to or increases in existing virtual modality use in response to the pandemic (n=6, 21.4%). Outcomes included reports of shifts in health service utilization, such as changes to appointment modalities (n=16, 55.2%), frequency or demand (n=4, 14.3%), and differences in prescription duration (n=4, 14.3%). Four (14.3%) studies specify participants’ gender [65, 68, 76, 79], while four (14.3%) specify participants’ sex [64, 67, 70, 75]. Two (7.1%) studies do not clarify whether they are reporting sex or gender [62, 110], and the remaining papers (n=18, 64.3%) do not mention either category. Benefits and challenges of utilizing virtual primary care for PWOUD are grouped within the CFIR domains below and in Table 3.

View this table:
Table 2. Study objectives and virtual primary care specific results
View this table:
Table 3. Benefits and challenges of virtual primary care for PWOUD by CFIR domains and constructs

Innovation: Virtual Care

Primary care (including but not limited to OAT initiation and management) was often delivered through telephone appointments (n=18, 64.3%), with fewer papers focusing on video modalities (n=14, 50.0%) or not specifying the type of synchronous virtual visits (n=9, 32.1%) (Table 4). Some studies emphasized the importance of providing multiple modality options such as virtual and in-person appointments (i.e., hybrid) (n=7, 25.0%).

View this table:
Table 4. Primary care setting, care provided, and care modality

Where studies described primary care prescription of OAT, most referred to provision generally, without specific mention of the stage or length of care (n=16, 57.1%). Others described OAT initiation (n=13, 46.4%) and/or follow-up and stabilization (n=9, 32.1%) for management of OUD. Outside of providing OAT, mental health care was the most commonly provided treatment (n=14, 50.0%), followed by treatments for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (n=6, 21.4%) [66]. Additionally, harm reduction services were provided (such as syringe exchange and naloxone distribution [67]), although to a lesser extent (n=3, 10.7%). Few studies (n=6, 21.4%) described other primary care needs (e.g., vaccinations [68], diabetes [69]), and lacked specific details on the care provided (e.g., was listed as ‘other health needs’ [65] or ‘other clinics’ [64]).

Outer Setting: State

The most common facilitator described by included studies was regulatory changes (n=11, 39.3%) to support the delivery of virtual primary care for OUD, such as the waiver of the Ryan Haight Act in the United States which allowed clinicians to prescribe buprenorphine without the previously required first in-person appointment [70]. Another common facilitator was COVID-19 public health measures (n=4, 14.3%). Due to the increased COVID-19 risk to patients and clinicians associated with in-person appointments, PWOUD could utilize virtual primary care to adhere to social distancing measures and reduce their COVID-19 exposure risks [71].

Regulatory barriers were less commonly described (n=7, 25.0%) but included uncertainty in the permanence of the COVID-19 regulatory changes [72] and limited flexibility in providing methadone via virtual modalities [67]. Billing structures were described as both facilitators and challenges. For example, new billing structures or fee codes introduced during COVID-19 (n=5, 17.9%) facilitated virtual care delivery. However, some clinicians experienced challenges with billing (n=5, 17.9%), stating that payment models did not equally compensate virtual and in-person care [73] or that virtual engagement was not included as a billable service [65]. Modifications to insurance policies (n=4, 14.3%) yielded diverse perspectives with sufficient reimbursement for virtual services contingent upon policy provisions.

Inner Setting: Primary Care

Several studies described clinical resources (n=6, 21.4%) as essential factors facilitating virtual primary care implementation, ensuring clinicians and patients could navigate virtual appointments. Such guidelines (n=6, 21.4%) ranged from documents produced by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to guide clinics through policy changes to providing OAT virtually [74] or individual clinic protocols for virtual delivery of OUD treatment [75]. Other resources included the provision of communication devices to clinicians and patients (n=5, 17.9%), and training or education for patients to prepare for their virtual appointments (n=5, 17.9%). Four studies (14.3%) noted that certain primary care clinics are better positioned to adopt virtual primary care. For example, clinics in urban or community-based settings [76] or larger clinics [70] are more likely to offer virtual OAT induction, although the reasoning behind these differences is not explained in the research.

Challenges affecting implementation at the clinic level included the need for more administrative support for physicians (n=4, 14.3%) and a lack of guidelines and resources (n=4, 14.3%) to support clinicians in providing evidence-based care (e.g., lack of protocols for virtual primary care [77]). Studies also highlighted the challenges associated with specific clinical settings (n=4, 14.3%), noting that accessing OUD care without an in-person examination was more difficult in solo-based primary care practices versus specialty substance use facilities, opioid treatment programs, community clinics, and veteran health administrations [76].

Furthermore, primary care practices in rural settings were less likely to provide virtual primary care services, possibly due to the lower demand for virtual services as COVID-19 risk was lower compared to urban areas [76]. A few studies described low demand for virtual care in general (n=3, 10.7%), both by patients and clinicians [76, 78, 79], resulting in slower uptake in some clinics.

Individual Characteristics (Recipient): PWOUD

The most common benefit for patients was the high accessibility of virtual care (n=13, 46.4%), particularly for rural patients (n=6, 21.4%). This advantage was linked with other benefits, such as alleviating travel challenges (n=10, 35.7%) and flexibility of appointments (n=4, 14.3%). Factors like confidence in virtual care (n=2, 7.1%), its perceived convenience and efficiency (n=2, 7.1%), improved continuity of care (n=3, 10.7%), and the ability of virtual modalities to address patients’ stigma concerns (n=4, 14.3%) also emerged as pivotal factors. Additionally, a younger age demographic (n=1, 6.9%) and cost savings (n=2, 7.1%) positively influenced patients’ engagement with virtual primary care.

The gap between people who can easily use and access technology and those who cannot (i.e., “the digital divide”) remains the primary obstacle to the uptake of virtual care for PWOUD (n=12, 42.9%). This is compounded by a lack of technological knowledge or equipment (n=6, 21.4%), mistrust of virtual care (n=3, 10.7%), and absence of a private or secure space for appointments (n=2, 7.1%). Moreover, specific patient attributes intersected with virtual primary care adoption due to structural barriers of the healthcare system, such as being an older adult (n=1, 3.6%) and patients who experience racialization (n=3, 10.7%).

Individual Characteristics (Provider): Clinicians

Clinicians identified several benefits of virtual care, particularly for patients who demonstrate stability (n=5, 17.9%) and can attend appointments consistently (n=5, 17.9%). Prioritizing continuity of care (n=3, 10.7%) also emerged as a strength. Furthermore, prior experience with OAT or using virtual modalities (n=3, 10.7%), and possessing a genuine interest in delivering virtual primary care (n=2, 7.1%) facilitated its adoption.

Conversely, apprehension about liability or heightened risks associated with offering virtual primary care for PWOUD (n=10, 35.7%) were seen as challenges among clinicians. Concerns also emerged over the adequacy of phone-based appointments relative to video (n=3, 10.7%), challenges of fostering a therapeutic relationship through virtual visits (n=3, 10.7%), and the belief that in-person care was necessary for patients (n=2, 7.1%). These sentiments resonated with clinicians’ preference for in-person care (n=3, 10.7%). Additional challenges included insufficient guidance for clinicians (n=3, 10.7%), such as evidence-based protocols [77], as well as limited technological understanding and inadequate equipment (n=3, 10.7%).

Quality Appraisal

Over a quarter of the studies (n=8, 28.6%) received high scores through the QuADS tool, most of which were original research. In contrast, commentaries (n=5, 17.9%) and conference abstracts (n=5, 17.9%) predominantly received lower scores. Scores produced by our quality assessment using the QuADS tool are grouped by study type rather than an overall ranking (Table 5).

View this table:
Table 5. Quality appraisal

DISCUSSION

In reviewing 28 studies on the experiences of PWOUD and their primary care clinicians with virtual primary care, we sought to explore the current state of the literature, identify research gaps, and provide insights into the potential benefits and challenges of virtual approaches. The CFIR constructs were instrumental in our investigation, guiding us in identifying the organizational, structural, and individual-level factors that influence the implementation and ongoing use of virtual primary care for PWOUD. Our findings underscore that, with careful consideration of the implementation factors at all levels, virtual primary care holds promise as a feasible, acceptable, and effective option for PWOUD as complements to in-person primary care, aligning with research in other settings [80–82].

Notably, our review highlights that research related to virtual primary care for treating OUD is limited, and even more so for the broad range of primary care needs of PWOUD beyond OAT, despite the rapid increase in availability resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, despite the growing demand for research that distinguishes between experiences associated with sex and gender [83, 84], many of the studies we reviewed appear to conflate these two distinct experiences (e.g., reporting participant gender as female or male) or did not report any sex or gender-based analyses. Additionally, across the studies we reviewed, the heterogeneous research methods complicate data comparison and aggregation. Most studies were conducted in the United States, which can limit or challenge generalizability to other health system contexts. For example, regulations and billing, part of CFIR’s Outer Setting, differ dramatically across settings [85–87]. While qualified physicians in both countries can prescribe buprenorphine, the United States previously required a waiver under the Drug Addiction Treatment Act, whereas there is no such requirement in Canada [88]. Similarly, methadone maintenance treatment requires access to specialized clinics (i.e., opioid treatment programs) in the United States [89] but, in Canada, it can be prescribed in various healthcare settings [90].

PWOUD are known to frequently experience co-morbid conditions (e.g., HIV/AIDS, HCV, HBV [91]), infections (e.g., endocarditis, septic arthritis [92]), and other frequent/episodic healthcare needs (e.g., wound care [93]) that require timely and ongoing primary care. Notably, the extant literature focuses on treatment for OUD, and the studies we included did not routinely report how or if these conditions were recognized or treated. This remains a core knowledge gap. Future research on virtual primary care interventions for PWOUD would benefit from a more comprehensive description of the patients included and the range of care provided.

Relying on virtual modalities to increase access to healthcare was a common finding [94]. Virtual visits remove the necessity for physical travel to medical appointments and reduce associated costs (e.g., transit/gas, taking time off work, childcare). By offering the convenience of accessing care from a smartphone or other communications devices, virtual care can also support continuous access to and retention on OAT [95]. Patient lifestyle and stability play a significant role in driving their utilization of virtual care. Individuals with childcare responsibilities [77, 96], limited flexibility during work hours [73, 96], and those who are more stable on OAT [73, 97–99] may find virtual care well-suited to meeting their care needs, while minimizing disruption to their day-to-day lives.

The digital divide emerged as a central theme in multiple studies. Furthermore, clinicians’ belief that virtual primary care was unsuitable for some patients, deemed too risky due to patients’ health status, or associated with high liability also hindered its adoption, aligning with concerns found in other (i.e., non-primary care) clinical settings [100, 101]. With the challenges associated with patient stability and social determinants of health (e.g., digital technology access, longevity of OAT treatment, housing), providing care to PWOUD using solely virtual modalities may unintentionally limit equitable health care access. However, clinicians who believe virtual primary care is unsuitable for unstable patients may be ignoring patient preferences [74]. While virtual primary care for less stable patients is a nuanced topic and needs concerted research efforts and practice approaches, evidence is emerging that virtual primary care can provide a safe supplement to in-person visits for unstable or new patients [72, 97, 102]. To enhance the effectiveness of virtual primary care for this population, offering diverse appointment types can accommodate patient preferences, socio-economic factors, and health circumstances, fostering patient autonomy and promoting patient-centred care.

Virtual primary care for PWOUD is promising and feasible. However, this review also highlights that there may be disparities based on patient age [64, 77], language [77], race/ethnicity [64, 70, 77], sex [64], and those who experience the digital divide [66, 67, 70–75, 77–79, 99], due to rurality, socioeconomic status, or limited access to technology. These disparities pose challenges for implementing and accessing virtual care [103]. Without deliberate efforts to address these access barriers, virtual primary care could perpetuate inequities and worsen existing disparities in OAT access [104–106].

Limitations

There are several limitations in this scoping review. Scoping reviews inherently possess limitations in terms of depth of analysis and generalizability [39], and the possibility of missing studies needs to be acknowledged. This is attributable to multiple factors; among them is our stringent inclusion criteria, which not only resulted in excluding studies with unclear or inadequately described settings but also affected our inter-rater reliability score. Furthermore, our definition of virtual visits excluded asynchronous forms, and we did not consider care settings providing only OAT. This criterion was in place to align with our broader research project [36] and to maintain a manageable review size. Additionally, studies published in languages other than English were not captured. There is also a variance in the quality of the included studies. Some included studies received low QuADS scores due to limitations in study information (i.e., conference abstracts with restricted word counts). Nonetheless, this scoping review presents novel results as the first of its kind covering virtual primary care for PWOUD. Our methodologically rigorous approach and the quality appraisal of the included studies make this review a valuable contribution to the literature, given the sparse research in this field.

Conclusion

This scoping review highlights the promise of virtual primary care as a feasible, acceptable, and effective option for PWOUD, particularly in enhancing accessibility and continuous access to care. However, addressing the digital divide and mitigating disparities based on demographic and socioeconomic factors will be critical in realizing the full potential of virtual care. Future research and policy initiatives should prioritize efforts to bridge these gaps, ensuring that virtual primary care becomes an inclusive and equitable platform for delivering comprehensive care to and for PWOUD.

Author contributions

Contributions to the paper are described using the CRediT taxonomy [113]. SN: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing (original draft), writing (review and editing), visualization. EG: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing (original draft), writing (review and editing), visualization. SS: Conceptualization, writing (review and editing), visualization. RM: Conceptualization, methodology, writing (review and editing), supervision, funding acquisition. LH: Conceptualization, methodology, writing (review and editing), supervision, funding acquisition. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study is funded by a grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (VR41 72756).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not required.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the study team investigators for their valuable contributions and commitment to the project: Advancing Virtual Primary Care for People with Opioid Use Disorder.

Abbreviations

OUD
Opioid Use Disorder
OAT
Opioid Agonist Treatment
PWOUD
People with Opioid Use Disorder
QuADS
Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies
CFIR
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science Research
HIV/AIDS
Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
HCV
Hepatitis C Virus
HBV
Hepatitis B Virus
STBBI
Sexually Transmitted and Blood Borne Infections

REFERENCES

  1. [1].↵
    N. Vadivelu, A.M. Kai, V. Kodumudi, J. Sramcik, A.D. Kaye, The opioid crisis: a comprehensive overview, Current pain and headache reports 22 (2018) 1–6.
    OpenUrl
  2. [2].↵
    Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses, Opioid-and Stimulant-related Harms in Canada, 2023. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/.
  3. [3].
    F.B. Ahmad, L.M. Rossen, P. Sutton, Provisional drug overdose death counts, National center for health statistics 12 (2021)
  4. [4].↵
    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2022, UN2022.
  5. [5].↵
    M. Zoorob, Fentanyl shock: the changing geography of overdose in the United States, International Journal of Drug Policy 70 (2019) 40–46.
    OpenUrl
  6. [6].↵
    C. Shoff, T.-C. Yang, B.A. Shaw, Trends in opioid use disorder among older adults: analyzing medicare data, 2013–2018, American journal of preventive medicine 60(6) (2021) 850–855.
    OpenUrl
  7. [7].↵
    Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), Global prevalence of opioid use disorders, all ages, all sexes, 2019, 2020. https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/. (Accessed August 2 2023).
  8. [8].↵
    T. Santo, Jr., B. Clark, M. Hickman, J. Grebely, G. Campbell, L. Sordo, A. Chen, L.T. Tran, C. Bharat, P. Padmanathan, G. Cousins, J. Dupouy, E. Kelty, R. Muga, B. Nosyk, J. Min, R. Pavarin, M. Farrell, L. Degenhardt, Association of Opioid Agonist Treatment With All-Cause Mortality and Specific Causes of Death Among People With Opioid Dependence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, JAMA Psychiatry 78(9) (2021) 979–993. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.0976.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. [9].↵
    R.P. Schwartz, J. Gryczynski, K.E. O’Grady, J.M. Sharfstein, G. Warren, Y. Olsen, S.G. Mitchell, J.H. Jaffe, Opioid Agonist Treatments and Heroin Overdose Deaths in Baltimore, Maryland, 1995–2009, American Journal of Public Health 103(5) (2013) 917–922. doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.301049.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. [10].↵
    P. O’Connor, A. Oliveto, J. Shi, E. Triffleman, K. Carroll, T. Kosten, B. Rounsaville, J. Pakes, R. Schottenfeld, A randomized trial of buprenorphine maintenance for heroin dependence in a primary care clinic for substance users versus a methadone clinic, The American journal of medicine 105(2) (1998) 100–105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. [11].↵
    K. Ahamad, K. Hayashi, P. Nguyen, S. Dobrer, T. Kerr, C.G. Schütz, J.S. Montaner, E. Wood, Effect of low-threshold methadone maintenance therapy for people who inject drugs on HIV incidence in Vancouver, BC, Canada: an observational cohort study, The lancet HIV 2(10) (2015) e445–e450.
    OpenUrl
  12. [12].↵
    M. Tyndall, Safer opioid distribution in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, International Journal of Drug Policy 83 (2020) 102880.
    OpenUrl
  13. [13].↵
    L. MacKinnon, M.E. Socías, G. Bardwell, COVID-19 and overdose prevention: Challenges and opportunities for clinical practice in housing settings, Journal of substance abuse treatment 119 (2020) 108153.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. [14].↵
    P. Webster, Virtual health care in the era of COVID-19, The lancet 395(10231) (2020) 1180–1181.
    OpenUrl
  15. [15].↵
    H.G. Richard, E.G. Michael, C.W. Fangyun, F. Eliot, K. Alexander, K. Tara, Shifts in office and virtual primary care during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada, Canadian Medical Association Journal 193(6) (2021) E200. doi:10.1503/cmaj.202303.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. [16].
    H.T. Mohammed, L. Hyseni, V. Bui, B. Gerritsen, K. Fuller, J. Sung, M. Alarakhia, Exploring the use and challenges of implementing virtual visits during COVID-19 in primary care and lessons for sustained use, PloS one 16(6) (2021) e0253665.
    OpenUrl
  17. [17].↵
    M. Breton, N. Deville-Stoetzel, I. Gaboury, M.A. Smithman, J. Kaczorowski, M.T. Lussier, J. Haggerty, A. Motulsky, P. Nugus, G. Layani, G. Paré, G. Evoy, M. Arsenault, J.S. Paquette, J. Quinty, M. Authier, N. Mokraoui, M. Luc, M.E. Lavoie, Telehealth in Primary Healthcare: A Portrait of its Rapid Implementation during the COVID-19 Pandemic, Healthc Policy 17(1) (2021) 73–90. doi:10.12927/hcpol.2021.26576.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. [18].↵
    C. DiGennaro, G.-G.P. Garcia, E.J. Stringfellow, S. Wakeman, M.S. Jalali, Changes in characteristics of drug overdose death trends during the COVID-19 pandemic, International Journal of Drug Policy 98 (2021) 103392. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103392.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. [19].
    M. Rezaeiahari, B.J. Fairman, Impact of COVID-19 on the characteristics of opioid overdose deaths in Arkansas, International Journal of Drug Policy 109 (2022) 103836. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103836.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. [20].↵
    J. Vieson, A.B. Yeh, Q. Lan, J.E. Sprague, During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Opioid Overdose Deaths Revert to Previous Record Levels in Ohio, J Addict Med 16(2) (2022) e118–e122. doi:10.1097/adm.0000000000000874.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. [21].↵
    M. Mason, P. Arukumar, J. Feinglass, The Pandemic Stay-at-Home Order and Opioid-Involved Overdose Fatalities, JAMA 325(24) (2021) 2495–2496. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6700.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. [22].↵
    J.K. Niles, J. Gudin, J. Radcliff, H.W. Kaufman, The Opioid Epidemic Within the COVID-19 Pandemic: Drug Testing in 2020, Population Health Management 24(S1) (2020) S-43–S-51. doi:10.1089/pop.2020.0230.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. [23].↵
    C. Russell, F. Ali, F. Nafeh, J. Rehm, S. LeBlanc, T. Elton-Marshall, Identifying the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on service access for people who use drugs (PWUD): A national qualitative study, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 129 (2021) 108374. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108374.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. [24].↵
    N. Krawczyk, A. Fawole, J. Yang, B. Tofighi, Early innovations in opioid use disorder treatment and harm reduction during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review, Addiction Science & Clinical Practice 16(1) (2021) 68. doi:10.1186/s13722-021-00275-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. [25].↵
    J.R. Langabeer II., A. Yatsco, T. Champagne-Langabeer, Telehealth sustains patient engagement in OUD treatment during COVID-19, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 122 (2021) 108215.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. [26].↵
    R. Rollston, W. Gallogly, L. Hoffman, E. Tewari, S. Powers, B. Clear, Collaborative, patient-centred care model that provides tech-enabled treatment of opioid use disorder via telehealth, BMJ Innovations 8(2) (2022)
  27. [27].↵
    E. Li, R. Tsopra, G. Jimenez, A. Serafini, G. Gusso, H. Lingner, M.J. Fernandez, G. Irving, D. Petek, R. Hoffman, General practitioners’ perceptions of using virtual primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international cross-sectional survey study, PLOS Digital Health 1(5) (2022) e0000029.
    OpenUrl
  28. [28].↵
    S.-H. Kim, O. Tesmer, Employing telehealth strategies for opioid addiction during COVID-19: implications for social work health care, Social Work in Health Care 60(6-7) (2021) 499–508.
    OpenUrl
  29. [29].↵
    C.S. Kruse, K. Lee, J.B. Watson, L.G. Lobo, A.G. Stoppelmoor, S.E. Oyibo, Measures of Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Quality of Telemedicine in the Management of Alcohol Abuse, Addiction, and Rehabilitation: Systematic Review, J Med Internet Res 22(1) (2020) e13252. doi:10.2196/13252.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. [30].↵
    H. Mahmoud, H. Naal, E. Whaibeh, A. Smith, Telehealth-Based Delivery of Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: a Critical Review of Recent Developments, Curr Psychiatry Rep 24(9) (2022) 375–386. doi:10.1007/s11920-022-01346-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. [31].↵
    K.L. Stringer, K.J. Langdon, M. McKenzie, B. Brockmann, P. Marotta, Leveraging COVID-19 to sustain regulatory flexibility in the treatment of opioid use disorder, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 123 (2021) 108263.
    OpenUrl
  32. [32].↵
    A. Wong, R. Bhyat, S. Srivastava, L.B. Lomax, R. Appireddy, Patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: use of virtual care, Journal of medical Internet research 23(1) (2021) e20621.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. [33].↵
    M. Rashid, Virtual inequity: do virtual visits risk leaving some people behind?, Canadian Family Physician (2023)
  34. [34].↵
    T. Magel, E. Matzinger, S. Blawatt, S. Harrison, S. MacDonald, S. Amara, R. Metcalfe, N. Bansback, D. Byres, M. Schechter, E. Oviedo-Joekes, How injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) care could be improved? service providers and stakeholders’ perspectives, Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy (2023) 1–12. doi:10.1080/09687637.2023.2176287.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. [35].↵
    W. Glauser, Virtual care is here to stay, but major challenges remain, Canadian Medical Association. Journal 192(30) (2020) E868–E869.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  36. [36].↵
    L. Hedden, R.K. McCracken, S. Spencer, S. Narayan, E. Gooderham, P. Bach, J. Boyd, C. Chakanyuka, K. Hayashi, J. Klimas, M. Law, K. McGrail, B. Nosyk, S. Peterson, C. Sutherland, L. Ti, S. Yung, F. Cameron, R. Fernandez, A. Giesler, N. Strydom, Advancing virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder (VPC OUD): a mixed-methods study protocol, BMJ Open 12(9) (2022) e067608. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067608.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. [37].↵
    M.D. Peters, C.M. Godfrey, H. Khalil, P. McInerney, D. Parker, C.B. Soares, Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews, JBI Evidence Implementation 13(3) (2015) 141–146.
    OpenUrl
  38. [38].↵
    M. Peters, C. Godfrey, P. McInerney, C. Baldini Soares, H. Khalil, D. Parker, Chapter 11: scoping reviews, Joanna Briggs institute reviewer manual, The Joanna Briggs Institute (2017)
  39. [39].↵
    H. Arksey, L. O’Malley, Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework, International journal of social research methodology 8(1) (2005) 19–32.
    OpenUrl
  40. [40].↵
    E. Gooderham, Narayan, S., McCracken, R., & Hedden, L., People with opioid use disorder and the use of video and telemedicine in primary care: a scoping review protocol., 2022. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/Y7QUG. (Accessed Aug 2 2023).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. [41].↵
    A.C. Tricco, E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K.K. O’Brien, H. Colquhoun, D. Levac, D. Moher, M.D. Peters, T. Horsley, L. Weeks, PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation, Annals of internal medicine 169(7) (2018) 467–473.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. [42].↵
    E.M. Beller, P.P. Glasziou, D.G. Altman, S. Hopewell, H. Bastian, I. Chalmers, P.C. Gøtzsche, T. Lasserson, D. Tovey, P.f.A. Group, PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts, PLoS medicine 10(4) (2013) e1001419.
    OpenUrl
  43. [43].↵
    Open AI, ChatGPT, Open AI, 2023.
  44. [44].↵
    J. Huang, M. Tan, The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles, Am J Cancer Res 13(4) (2023) 1148–1154.
    OpenUrl
  45. [45].↵
    American Academy of Family Physicians, Primary Care, 2023. https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/primary-care.html. (Accessed August 22 2023).
  46. [46].↵
    M.S. Donaldson, K.D. Yordy, K.N. Lohr, N.A. Vanselow, Primary care: America’s health in a new era, (1996)
  47. [47].↵
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Certification of Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs), 2023. https://www.samhsa.gov/medications-substance-use-disorders/become-accredited-opioid-treatment-program. (Accessed August 22 2023).
  48. [48].
    U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Programs for Veterans, 2022. https://www.va.gov/health/programs/index.asp. (Accessed August 22 2023).
  49. [49].↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Syringe Services Programs (SSPs), 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/index.html. (Accessed August 22 2023).
  50. [50].↵
    S. Narayan, E. Gooderham, S. Spencer, R. McCracken, L. Hedden, Virtual Primary Care for People with Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review of Current Strategies, Benefits, and Challenges (Web of Science Core Collection), CABI2023.
  51. [51].↵
    S. Narayan, E. Gooderham, S. Spencer, R. McCracken, L. Hedden, Virtual Primary Care for People with Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review of Current Strategies, Benefits, and Challenges (Medline, Ovid), CABI2023.
  52. [52].↵
    S. Narayan, E. Gooderham, S. Spencer, R. McCracken, L. Hedden, Virtual Primary Care for People with Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review of Current Strategies, Benefits, and Challenges (Embase, Ovid), CABI2023.
  53. [53].↵
    S. Narayan, E. Gooderham, S. Spencer, R. McCracken, L. Hedden, Virtual Primary Care for People with Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review of Current Strategies, Benefits, and Challenges (CINAHL), CABI2023.
  54. [54].↵
    S. Narayan, E. Gooderham, S. Spencer, R. McCracken, L. Hedden, Virtual Primary Care for People with Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review of Current Strategies, Benefits, and Challenges (Canada Commons), CABI2023.
  55. [55].↵
    T. Horsley, O. Dingwall, M. Sampson, Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011(8) (2011) Mr000026. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000026.pub2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. [56].↵
    Covidence, Better systematic review management. https://www.covidence.org. (Accessed Sept 8 2023).
  57. [57].↵
    R. Harrison, B. Jones, P. Gardner, R. Lawton, Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed-or multi-method studies, BMC health services research 21(1) (2021) 1–20.
    OpenUrl
  58. [58].↵
    L.J. Damschroder, C.M. Reardon, M.A.O. Widerquist, J. Lowery, The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback, Implementation Science 17(1) (2022) 75. doi:10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. [59].↵
    A. Xyrichis, K. Iliopoulou, N.J. Mackintosh, S. Bench, M. Terblanche, J. Philippou, J. Sandall, Healthcare stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2(2) (2021) Cd012876. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012876.pub2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. [60].
    J. Ross, F. Stevenson, R. Lau, E. Murray, Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update), Implementation science 11(1) (2016) 1–12.
    OpenUrl
  61. [61].↵
    P. Rangachari, S.S. Mushiana, K. Herbert, A scoping review of applications of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to telehealth service implementation initiatives, BMC Health Services Research 22(1) (2022) 1450. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08871-w.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. [62].↵
    J.D. Lee, E. Grossman, D. DiRocco, M.N. Gourevitch, Home Buprenorphine/Naloxone Induction in Primary Care, J GEN INTERN MED 24(2) (2009) 226–232. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0866-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. [63].
    K. Akoto, Comparison of office versus telemedicine video visits in suboxone maintenance, Journal of Addiction Medicine 11(3) (2017) E19. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000319.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. [64].↵
    L.A. Lin, J.C. Fortney, A.S.B. Bohnert, L.N. Coughlin, L. Zhang, J.D. Piette, Comparing telemedicine to in-person buprenorphine treatment in U.S. veterans with opioid use disorder, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 133 (2022) 108492. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108492.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. [65].↵
    N. Beharie, M. Kaplan-Dobbs, A. Urmanche, D. Paone, A. Harocopos, “I didn’t feel like a number”: The impact of nurse care managers on the provision of buprenorphine treatment in primary care settings, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 132 (2022) 108633. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108633.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. [66].↵
    J. Griffin, J. Waldman, M. Dankanich, Engaging people experiencing homelessness in community health worker-facilitated tele health services in response to covid-19, J GEN INTERN MED 36(SUPPL 1) (2021) S387. doi:10.1007/s11606-021-06830-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. [67].↵
    A. Sivakumar, L. Madden, E. DiDomizio, A. Eller, M. Villanueva, F.L. Altice, Treatment of Hepatitis C virus among people who inject drugs at a syringe service program during the COVID-19 response: The potential role of telehealth, medications for opioid use disorder and minimal demands on patients, International Journal of Drug Policy 101 (2022) 103570. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103570.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. [68].↵
    C.N. Behrends, X. Lu, G.J. Corry, P. LaKosky, S.M. Prohaska, S.N. Glick, S.N. Kapadia, D.C. Perlman, B.R. Schackman, D.C. Des Jarlais, Harm reduction and health services provided by syringe services programs in 2019 and subsequent impact of COVID-19 on services in 2020, Drug and alcohol dependence 232 (2022) 109323. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109323.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. [69].↵
    M.A. Incze, D. Chen, P. Galyean, E. Kimball, S.L. Zickmund, Examining the Primary Care Experience of People with Opioid Use Disorder, J GEN INTERN MED 37(Supplement 2) (2022) S144. doi:10.1007/s11606-022-07653-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. [70].↵
    S.Y. Patel, E.G. Ortiz, B.A. Barsky, H.A. Huskamp, A.B. Busch, A. Mehrotra, Patient and Clinician Characteristics Associated with Use of Telemedicine for Buprenorphine Induction Among Medicare Beneficiaries, Journal of General Internal Medicine 37(14) (2022) 3758–3761. doi:10.1007/s11606-022-07633-y.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. [71].↵
    L. Uscher-Pines, J. Sousa, P. Raja, A. Mehrotra, M. Barnett, H.A. Huskamp, Treatment of opioid use disorder during COVID-19: Experiences of clinicians transitioning to telemedicine, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 118 (2020) 108124. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108124.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. [72].↵
    H.A. Huskamp, L. Riedel, L. Uscher-Pines, A.B. Busch, M.L. Barnett, P. Raja, A. Mehrotra, Initiating Opioid Use Disorder Medication via Telemedicine During COVID-19: Implications for Proposed Reforms to the Ryan Haight Act, Journal of General Internal Medicine 37(1) (2022) 162–167. doi:10.1007/s11606-021-07174-w.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. [73].↵
    J. Calandra, S. Shukla, R. Grandy, Addressing equity and access to care: How an academic family medicine practice manages human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis C, and substance use disorders in rural Appalachia, J Am Coll Clin Pharm 5(8) (2022) 921–927. doi:10.1002/jac5.1670.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. [74].↵
    Y.I. Hser, L.J. Mooney, Integrating Telemedicine for Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder in Rural Primary Care: Beyond the COVID Pandemic, The Journal of Rural Health 37(1) (2021) 246–248. doi:10.1111/jrh.12489.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. [75].↵
    D.T. O’Gurek, Designing and Evaluating COVID-19 Protocols for an Office-Based Opioid Treatment Program in an Urban Underserved Setting, J Am Board Fam Med 34(Supplement) (2021) S136–S140. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2021.S1.200207.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. [76].↵
    C.M. Jones, M.M. Diallo, M. Vythilingam, J.G. Schier, M. Eisenstat, W.M. Compton, Characteristics and correlates of U.S. clinicians prescribing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder treatment using expanded authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 225 (2021) 108783. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108783.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. [77].↵
    L. Wang, J. Weiss, E. Bogel Ryan, J. Waldman, S. Rubin, J.L. Griffin, Telemedicine increases access to buprenorphine initiation during the COVID-19 pandemic, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 124(108272) (2021) doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108272.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. [78].↵
    Y.-I. Hser, A.J. Ober, A.R. Dopp, C. Lin, K.P. Osterhage, S.E. Clingan, L.J. Mooney, M.E. Curtis, L.A. Marsch, B. McLeman, E. Hichborn, L.S. Lester, L.-M. Baldwin, Y. Liu, P. Jacobs, A.J. Saxon, Is telemedicine the answer to rural expansion of medication treatment for opioid use disorder? Early experiences in the feasibility study phase of a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network Trial, Addiction science & clinical practice 16(1) (2021) 24. doi:10.1186/s13722-021-00233-x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. [79].↵
    C. Snell-Rood, R.A. Pollini, C. Willging, Barriers to Integrated Medication-Assisted Treatment for Rural Patients With Co-occurring Disorders: The Gap in Managing Addiction, PS 72(8) (2021) 935–942. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.202000312.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. [80].↵
    S.L. Connolly, A.L. Gifford, C.J. Miller, M.S. Bauer, L.S. Lehmann, M.E. Charness, Provider Perceptions of Virtual Care During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Multispecialty Survey Study, Med Care 59(7) (2021) 646–652. doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000001562.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. [81].
    S. Singh, G.G. Fletcher, X. Yao, J. Sussman, Virtual Care in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review, Current Oncology 28(5) (2021) 3488–3506.
    OpenUrl
  82. [82].↵
    N.Z. Bulkes, K. Davis, B. Kay, B.C. Riemann, Comparing efficacy of telehealth to in-person mental health care in intensive-treatment-seeking adults, J Psychiatr Res 145 (2022) 347–352. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.11.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. [83].↵
    S. Day, R. Mason, S. Lagosky, P.A. Rochon, Integrating and evaluating sex and gender in health research, Health Research Policy and Systems 14(1) (2016) 75. doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0147-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  84. [84].↵
    J. Gahagan, K. Gray, A. Whynacht, Sex and gender matter in health research: addressing health inequities in health research reporting, International Journal for Equity in Health 14(1) (2015) 12. doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0144-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. [85].↵
    V. Panwala, P. Joudrey, M. Kowalski, P. Bach, O. Amram, Changes to methadone maintenance therapy in the United States, Canada, and Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review, J Subst Use Addict Treat 152 (2023) 209086. doi:10.1016/j.josat.2023.209086.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. [86].
    G. Ridic, S. Gleason, O. Ridic, Comparisons of health care systems in the United States, Germany and Canada, Mater Sociomed 24(2) (2012) 112–20. doi:10.5455/msm.2012.24.112-120.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. [87].↵
    H. Jin, B.D.L. Marshall, L. Degenhardt, J. Strang, M. Hickman, D.A. Fiellin, R. Ali, J. Bruneau, S. Larney, Global opioid agonist treatment: a review of clinical practices by country, Addiction 115(12) (2020) 2243–2254. doi:10.1111/add.15087.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. [88].↵
    K.C. Priest, L. Gorfinkel, J. Klimas, A.A. Jones, N. Fairbairn, D. McCarty, Comparing Canadian and United States opioid agonist therapy policies, Int J Drug Policy 74 (2019) 257–265. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.01.020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. [89].↵
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Methadone Take-Home Flexibilities Extension Guidance, 2023. https://www.samhsa.gov/medications-substance-use-disorders/statutes-regulations-guidelines/methadone-guidance. (Accessed September 15 2023).
  90. [90].↵
    R.A. Kleinman, T.D. Brothers, M. Danilewitz, A. Bahji, Office-based Methadone Prescribing for Opioid Use Disorder: The Canadian Model, J Addict Med 16(5) (2022) 499–504. doi:10.1097/adm.0000000000000950.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. [91].↵
    L. Degenhardt, A. Peacock, S. Colledge, J. Leung, J. Grebely, P. Vickerman, J. Stone, E.B. Cunningham, A. Trickey, K. Dumchev, M. Lynskey, P. Griffiths, R.P. Mattick, M. Hickman, S. Larney, Global prevalence of injecting drug use and sociodemographic characteristics and prevalence of HIV, HBV, and HCV in people who inject drugs: a multistage systematic review, Lancet Glob Health 5(12) (2017) e1192–e1207. doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30375-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. [92].↵
    F.L. Altice, A. Kamarulzaman, V.V. Soriano, M. Schechter, G.H. Friedland, Treatment of medical, psychiatric, and substance-use comorbidities in people infected with HIV who use drugs, Lancet 376(9738) (2010) 367–87. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60829-x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  93. [93].↵
    M.E. Smith, N. Robinowitz, P. Chaulk, K.E. Johnson, High rates of abscesses and chronic wounds in community-recruited injection drug users and associated risk factors, Journal of addiction medicine 9(2) (2015) 87.
    OpenUrl
  94. [94].↵
    D.E. Sugarman, A.B. Busch, R.K. McHugh, O.J. Bogunovic, C.D. Trinh, R.D. Weiss, S.F. Greenfield, Patients’ perceptions of telehealth services for outpatient treatment of substance use disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, Am J Addict 30(5) (2021) 445–452. doi:10.1111/ajad.13207.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  95. [95].↵
    J.K. Eibl, G. Gauthier, D. Pellegrini, J. Daiter, M. Varenbut, J.C. Hogenbirk, D.C. Marsh, The effectiveness of telemedicine-delivered opioid agonist therapy in a supervised clinical setting, Drug and alcohol dependence 176 (2017) 133–138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. [96].↵
    N. Sahu, P.-H. Chen, N.a. Shimoni, Telehealth to improve continuity for patients receiving buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder, Annals of family medicine 20(20 Suppl 1) (2022) doi:10.1370/afm.20.s1.2936.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. [97].↵
    L. Riedel, L. Uscher-Pines, A. Mehrotra, A.B. Busch, M.L. Barnett, P. Raja, H.A. Huskamp, Use of telemedicine for opioid use disorder treatment - Perceptions and experiences of opioid use disorder clinicians, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 228 (2021) 108999. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108999.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  98. [98].
    L. Caton, H. Cheng, H.C. Garneau, T. Fisher, B. Harris-Mills, B. Hurley, S. Newman, M.P. McGovern, COVID-19 Adaptations in the Care of Patients with Opioid Use Disorder: a Survey of California Primary Care Clinics, J GEN INTERN MED 36(4) (2021) 998–1005. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-06436-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  99. [99].↵
    C.G. Wilson, M. Ramage, E.B. Fagan, A Primary Care Response to COVID-19 for Patients with an Opioid Use Disorder, The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association 37(1) (2021) 169–171. doi:10.1111/jrh.12438.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  100. [100].↵
    M.J. McClellan, D. Florell, J. Palmer, C. Kidder, Clinician Telehealth Attitudes in a Rural Community Mental Health Center Setting, Journal of rural mental health 44(1) (2020) 62–73. doi:10.1037/rmh0000127.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  101. [101].↵
    S.V. Aronowitz, E. Engel-Rebitzer, A. Dolan, K. Oyekanmi, D. Mandell, Z. Meisel, E. South, M. Lowenstein, Telehealth for opioid use disorder treatment in low-barrier clinic settings: an exploration of clinician and staff perspectives, Harm Reduction Journal 18(1) (2021) 119. doi:10.1186/s12954-021-00572-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  102. [102].↵
    K.E. Cowan, A.J. McKean, M.T. Gentry, D.M. Hilty, Barriers to Use of Telepsychiatry: Clinicians as Gatekeepers, Mayo Clinic Proceedings 94(12) (2019) 2510–2523. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.04.018.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. [103].↵
    M.N. Poulsen, W. Santoro, R. Scotti, C. Henderson, M. Ruddy, A. Colistra, Implementation of Telemedicine Delivery of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Pennsylvania Treatment Programs During COVID-19, J Addict Med 17(2) (2023) e110–e118. doi:10.1097/adm.0000000000001079.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  104. [104].↵
    P.A. Lagisetty, R. Ross, A. Bohnert, M. Clay, D.T. Maust, Buprenorphine treatment divide by race/ethnicity and payment, JAMA psychiatry 76(9) (2019) 979–981.
    OpenUrl
  105. [105].
    M.J.N. Tiako, Addressing racial & socioeconomic disparities in access to medications for opioid use disorder amid COVID-19, Journal of substance abuse treatment 122 (2021) 108214.
    OpenUrl
  106. [106].↵
    W. Barbosa, K. Zhou, E. Waddell, T. Myers, E.R. Dorsey, Improving access to care: telemedicine across medical domains, Annual review of public health 42 (2021) 463–481.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  107. [107].
    D. Crowley, I. Delargy, A national model of remote care for assessing and providing opioid agonist treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a report, Harm reduction journal 17(1) (2020) 49. doi:10.1186/s12954-020-00394-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  108. [108].
    D. Hodgkin, C. Horgan, G. Bart, Financial sustainability of payment models for office-based opioid treatment in outpatient clinics, Addiction science & clinical practice 16(1) (2021) 45. doi:10.1186/s13722-021-00253-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  109. [109].
    P. Leo, N. Gastala, J. Fleurimont, S. Messmer, P. Maes, J. Richardson, C. Neeb, N. Stackhouse, S. Koruba, D.P. Watson, A Community Partnership to Improve Access to Buprenorphine in a Homeless Population, Annals of Family Medicine 19(1) (2021) 85–85. doi:10.1370/afm.2636.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  110. [110].↵
    N.K. Taylor, A. Saharan, B. Grady, N. Aboelata, C. Brown-Johnson, S.M. Asch, J.G. Shaw, Assessing perceptions of MOUD during COVID-19 in a black and homeless population, Journal of Addiction Medicine 15(5) (2021) E4–E5. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000902.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  111. [111].
    R.A. Thompson, A.L. Kizewski, D. Johnson, E. Fletcher, G.L. Clancy, T. Bunn, Assessing barriers to serving patients with substance use disorders: A Kentucky pilot, Journal of Addiction Medicine 15(5) (2021) E4–E5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  112. [112].
    T. Prevoznik, in: D.C. Division (Ed.) Drug Enforcement Administration, Springfield, Virginia, 2020.
  113. [113].↵
    A. Brand, L. Allen, M. Altman, M. Hlava, J. Scott, Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit, Learned Publishing 28(2) (2015) 151–155.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted October 06, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Virtual Primary Care for People with Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review of Current Strategies, Benefits, and Challenges
Shawna Narayan, Ellie Gooderham, Sarah Spencer, Rita McCracken, Lindsay Hedden
medRxiv 2023.10.06.23296679; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.06.23296679
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area