Â鶹´«Ă˝×ĘÔ´

ABSTRACT |ĚýRapidly rising drug overdose rates in the United States during the past three decades underscore the critical need to prevent overdose deaths and reduce the development of opioid and related substance use disorders (SUDs). Traditional public health models of prevention emphasize the biological and physical risks of SUDs, often neglecting to consider the broader environmental and social factors that influence health and well-being. Taking a socioecological approach, the authors aim to illustrate the complex interplay among individual, interpersonal, societal, and structural factors that contribute to the development of SUD and overdose risk. The authors propose evidence-informed strategies and interventions across primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of prevention. By doing so, the authors hope to encourage policymakers, funders, service providers, and community leaders to broaden their approaches to SUD prevention and consider how they can create and advocate for a health-promoting environment by addressing the social and structural factors that drive rising SUD and overdose trends.

Introduction

Clinical medicine and public health have long held dueling perspectives of illness. Leading public health thinkers have consistently connected socioeconomic factors to illness, while some traditional clinical medicine professionals have held views restricted to the somatic parameters and “the organic elements . . . of human malfunction” (Jones-Eversley and Dean, 2018; Engel, 1977). The biomedical model described in the latter half of the previous sentence forms the basis of classical Western medical training, in which illness can be reduced to a biological or physiological physical element. Rudolf Virchow (1848), considered the father of modern pathology, stated that “medicine is a social science” and understood that disease operates at the cellular level. He also recognized the social conditions that facilitated the spread of disease, yet this acknowledgment had minimal influence in the evolution of the biomedical model.

In many ways, the American health care system still struggles with the same dilemma today: reimbursement structures incentivize delivery of high acuity care and surgical procedures and rarely pay for care coordination, case management, or other services known to impact long-term health outcomes. But there is an increasingly urgent need, made more salient during the co-occurring COVID-19 and overdose epidemics, to resolve the philosophical debate over clinical medicine’s scope of responsibility for identifying, treating, and preventing substance use disorder (SUD). While the importance of understanding the social and economic conditions of patients is a common component of medical training, the application of this notion to people who use drugs (PWUD) is less common (Yoast et al., 2008). Furthermore, training on the importance of patient socioeconomic conditions may not translate to an understanding of how medical professionals can play an active role in addressing them, through prevention, treatment, or policy advocacy.

Effectively addressing SUDs and their associated social determinants of health requires a collaborative, cross-sector approach involving not only health care systems and professionals, but also schools, social service organizations, and local communities. By working together, partners can have a greater impact and yield more significant outcomes. They can realize collective impact by fostering strategic partnerships to invest in and implement prevention programs and by improving both the capacity to treat SUDs and the awareness of available supportive service (Health and Human Services Office of the Surgeon General, 2016).

The urgency of such collaborative strategies has been underscored in an era marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has heightened society’s awareness of nonbiomedical influences on health. The pandemic has exacerbated risk factors for increased substance use and SUD, disrupting employment, housing, health care access, and social connection, and heightening fear, anxiety, financial stress, and grief—particularly among those with preexisting structural vulnerabilities (Collins et al., 2022). Pandemic-related stressors have been tied to escalation of the ongoing overdose epidemic and increases in substance use (Ghose, Forati, and Mantsch, 2022). For example, caregiving responsibilities, stress, depression, and anxiety were associated with increased substance use during the pandemic (Schmidt et al., 2021). After a historic 30 percent year-to-year increase in overdose fatalities from 2019 to 2020, estimates suggest that the United States again experienced a 15 percent increase in overdose fatalities in 2021, with a record-breaking 109,179 deaths—75 percent of which were related to opioids (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). Overdose fatalities remained steady in 2022, with provisional data indicating 109,680 deaths (Ahmad et al., 2023).

Among those in the United States who died of overdose, the racial inequity that existed before the pandemic was amplified by the heavier economic, social, and health burdens carried by non-Hispanic Black individuals during the pandemic. This group had the greatest annual increase in drug-related overdose deaths in 2020 (Mistler et al., 2021; SAMHSA, 2020a). While rates of drug overdose death have consistently been higher among the White versus Black population, Black people have seen a 3.6-fold increase in overdose deaths since 2015, compared to the 1.7-fold increase among White individuals. In 2021, the age-adjusted drug death rates of Black (44 per 100,000) and American Indian/Alaskan Native (56 per 100,000) people were significantly higher than the rate for White people (36.8 per 100,000; National Center for Health Statistics, n.d.). To mitigate the worsening overdose crisis, the broader health and human services system must consider the structural and social determinants behind these growing disparities.

To make this case, this paper first explores the historical events that have informed the current US biomedical paradigm for SUD prevention, using the example of opioid use disorder (OUD), and the problems that have, in part, resulted from this approach. The authors then discuss how a socioecological framework—which considers the complex interplay among individual, interpersonal, societal, and structural factors—can offer a more comprehensive and effective means of understanding SUD prevention. The paper concludes with an exercise in which the authors apply a socioecological lens to the traditional public health model of OUD prevention, elucidating evidence-informed strategies and interventions across primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of prevention that aim not only to prevent disease but also to promote overall health and well-being.

The authors recognize the pivotal role the socioecological approach has played in shaping responses to various health conditions, including mental health conditions (Akers et al., 2023; National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 2017). However, despite its proven merits, the socioecological approach remains underused and its integration into the field of SUD prevention has been limited. Therefore, the primary purpose of this paper is to articulate the application of this approach and underscore its significance within the overarching context of SUD prevention. Further, this paper seeks to catalyze the expansion and uptake of this approach, empowering stakeholders to identify strategies that align with their circumstances and available resources.

From Moralization to Medicalization

The United States has a long history of politicizing, moralizing, and racializing drug use, a history that existed for nearly a century before President Richard Nixon formally declared the “war on drugs” in the 1970s (Rosino and Hughey, 2018). Political rhetoric preceding legislation that restricted or criminalized the possession of opium, cocaine, and cannabis featured statements that stoked fears of lost virtues and moral hygiene, and often cited unsubstantiated claims of the victimization of White women at the hands of people of certain races and ethnicities. For example, prior to the enactment of the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, proponents of racial prejudice warned Congress, claiming that “[m]ost of the attacks upon [W]hite women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain” (Nunn, 2002). Congress passed the act, which regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates, and spurred federal agencies to prohibit physicians from prescribing opioids to persons with addiction, effectively initiating the criminalization of SUD in the United States at the federal level (Courtwright, 2015; Kleber, 2008).

Contrary to popular belief, the process of “scheduling”—which categorizes drugs based on their potential for abuse— as controlled substances was not informed by a systematic examination of relative drug risk, but rather by geopolitical and commercial interests and xenophobic ideologies that marginalized certain racial and ethnic populations (Daniels et al., 2021). For instance, the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, which laid the foundation for the current US drug scheduling system, emerged amid a broader cultural and political shift during the Nixon administration. Strategically aiming to neutralize the 1960s counterculture, the Nixon administration “knew [they] couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or [B]lack, but by getting the public to associate hippies with marijuana and [B]lacks with heroin, and then with criminalizing both heavily, [they] could disrupt those communities” (Baum, 2016).

In the ensuing years, US drug policy has consistently prioritized addressing the perceived moral outrage against drug use through tough-on-crime policies and a seemingly unrestricted cascade of federal dollars invested in drug interdiction (Shepard and Blackley, 2004). However, rather than serving as an effective public health strategy, this punitive approach has only served to perpetuate stigmatizing attitudes by erroneously associating drug use with social deviance and criminality (Dineen and Pendo, 2021). Prevention strategies have often relied on harsh criminal legal actions and fear-based educational campaigns, ostensibly to send a warning to individuals who might sell or use drugs. Nevertheless, research suggests that compulsory detention, other harsh criminal penalties, and youth-focused scare tactics have had little impact on reducing drug supply or curbing demand (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2015; Global Commission on Drug Policy, 2011; Degenhardt et al., 2010).

To counter the prevailing erroneous theories of addiction as a moral failing, the medical community put forth the brain disease model, which expressed addiction in scientific terms, namely explaining that SUD resulted from a brain system that had been dysregulated by drug use (Heilig et al., 2021; Leshner, 1997). However, the mechanistic view of drugs “hijacking” the brain was not in conflict with the interdiction paradigm that similarly targeted drugs as the source of growing social ills. The mechanistic causal narrative continued to focus on regulating drugs and the drug supply instead of interrogating the social factors that drove the demand for drugs (El-Sabawi, 2019; Office of the Surgeon General, 2016; Institute of Medicine et al., 1994; Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992). In more recent years, and in response to greater attention to racial disparities in the criminal legal system, advocates within the medical community have called for reform of the criminal legal response to SUD and targeted broader social change, including increased access to housing, education, and health care (AMA, 2022; AMA, 2021; ASAM, 2021a; ASAM, 2021b; AMA, 2020).

From Medicalization to a Socioecological Approach

Prescriptive biomedical views of SUD prevention have led to simplistic problem statements and unidimensional solutions. For example, the United States experienced an excessive focus on increased opioid prescribing as a response to the opioid overdose crisis, often at the expense of supportive strategies (Dasgupta, Beletsky, and Ciccarone, 2018). The increase in prescribing stemmed from a complex interplay between predatory marketing of opioids and the need to address the undertreatment of chronic pain in the 1990s and early 2000s (DeWeerdt, 2019). However, the disproportionate emphasis on pharmaceuticals in the public narrative obscured other important drivers of the crisis, while fostering a defensive dynamic between patients and prescribers.

Key factors—such as the high prevalence of illicitly manufactured opioids, the counterproductive role of prohibition policies in creating an increasingly toxic drug supply, and evolving trends in substance use—have been largely overlooked. This reductionist view diverted attention from the myriad of contextual factors related to the onset and progression of SUD (Herzberg et al., 2016; Wailoo, 2014). A case in point is the rigid misapplication of prescribing limits outlined in the 2016 “CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain,” which contributed to many patients with pain who benefited from opioid therapy being nonconsensually tapered or denied further treatment (Kroenke et al., 2019; Dowell, Haegerich, and Chou, 2016). Consequently, some individuals resorted to seeking illicit alternatives for pain relief, paradoxically exacerbating the very issue that the guideline sought to address (Coffin et al., 2020).

The focus on reducing opioid prescriptions may have the veneer of a less punitive and more medical approach to preventing SUD but is still a supply-side narrative (El-Sabawi, 2019). Moreover, a purely biomedical focus for preventing SUD offers limited insight into the structural and systemic factors driving racial and ethnic disparities in overdose deaths.

Service providers and policymakers should consider how they can create a health-promoting environment regardless of whether an individual has ever used drugs, is diagnosed with SUD, or engages in high-risk substance use. Indeed, the health care industry depends on the biomedical model, with a focus on diagnosis, precise and prescriptive treatment, and decision-chart resolutions (Fricton et al., 2015). However, expanding the broader health care system’s understanding of prevention beyond the body’s mechanistic functions is critical to stemming the nation’s ongoing rise in overdoses and future substance use epidemics.

While it is now socially acceptable in many circles to state that addiction is not a moral failing—an advancement that goes against a long history of socially accepted condemnation of PWUD—the debate has now shifted to whether addiction is a brain disease, a chronic disease, or not a disease at all (Volkow and Boyle, 2018; Racine, Sattler, and Escande, 2017; Szalavitz, 2016; ASAM, n.d.). The conversation needs to be elevated beyond individual positions on the matter to include structural and societal factors. Here, the authors seek not to discredit the biomedical view but merely to provide support for more inclusive problem statements and solutions.

A Socioecological Theoretical Framework for SUD Prevention

A socioecological framework for SUD prevention recognizes the complex interactions between people and their environments at the individual, interpersonal, and macro levels (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2015; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Social epidemiologists have established causal mechanisms to support the application of a socioecological framework to health broadly and to clarify how structural and social determinants of health create socially patterned distributions of disease (Berkman, Kawachi, and Glymour, 2015; Krieger, Dorling, and McCartney, 2012; Glass and McAtee, 2006; Link and Phelan, 1995). Social epidemiologic research supports the assertion that the context in which individuals make health-related choices serves as a barrier to or facilitates health (Galea, Nandi, and Vlahov, 2004; DuBois, 2003). Race, often treated in biomedical perspectives as biologically defined (Ioannidis, Powe, and Yancy, 2021), is recognized as a socially constructed factor that isĚýnotĚýbiologically determined but does create differences in biological outcomes (Krieger, Dorling, and McCartney, 2012; Roberts, 2012).

Figure 1Ěýillustrates the nested levels of factors considered in a socioecological framework, which have been highly simplified for the purpose of organizing the current argument. Macro-level factors, such as policies and practices, can have direct impacts on individuals’ health by subjecting them to stigma, trauma, and discrimination stemming from these broader influences. These experiences then physically manifest via stress response mechanisms (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2015; Geller et al., 2014). Additionally, macro-level factors shape the interpersonal structures in communities, influencing individuals’ access to resources and opportunities, and their health-related behaviors and beliefs. Importantly, the interplay among levels is interdependent and multidirectional, with influences at one level often facilitated or inhibited by elements at another level.

Understanding this interplay, social epidemiology recognizes that people make places and places make people (Macintyre and Ellaway, 2003). Due to the complex feedback loops and interactions between people and their environments (e.g., people may not buy healthy foods because stores do not carry healthy foods, and stores may not carry healthy foods because of a perception that people will not buy them), reductionist views of health can be antithetical to the socioecological perspective. While not the focus of this current work, the authors recognize that this complex person-environment interaction can occur across the life course and is intergenerational (Latimore et al., in press).

The application of a socioecological framework to SUD is not new (American Institutes for Research, 2022; Park et al., 2020; Jalali et al., 2020; Galea, Nandi, and Vlahov, 2004), but the addiction field has been slow to adopt the framework in practice. Macro-level risk factors such as restrictive drug policies and stigma isolate people with SUD from social and economic resources, such as services associated with SUD prevention, treatment, recovery, and harm reduction. These resources influence health at the individual level through physiological, psychosocial, and health behavior pathways. Similarly, racial disparities in SUD result from the experience of race in society and the distribution of economic and social resources that affect health. For the remainder of the paper, the authors focus on OUD, because of its relative contribution to the current overdose epidemic and the availability of resources targeted to OUD. However, the authors recognize the evolving nature of drug trends, the need for attention to other SUDs, and the applicability of this theoretical approach and related strategies to related SUDs.

Applying a Socioecological Framework for a More Nuanced View of OUD and Public Health Prevention

In the biomedical model of health and health care, prevention interventions have traditionally been classified according to three distinct levels: primary, secondary, and tertiary (Leavell and Clark, 1965). Primary prevention strategies aim to mitigate risk factors and prevent health conditions from ever developing. Secondary prevention interventions seek to identify a health condition as early as possible to halt or slow its progression. Tertiary prevention approaches strive to minimize acute negative consequences, like death, among those who have the disease.

In the context of OUD, a primary prevention approach under the traditional biomedical model aims to avoid the onset of OUD by, for example, educating clinicians and patients on alternative modalities and non-opioid medications for effective pain management to reduce exposure to prescribed opioids. Similarly, screening and referring patients to be prescribed medications for OUD constitute one approach to achieving the secondary prevention goal of identifying, diagnosing, and treating OUD as early as possible. Lastly, providing naloxone to those using opioids is an example of tertiary prevention, as naloxone can reduce the risk of opioid overdose and death among individuals with OUD.

While the primary, secondary, and tertiary classification can be useful for partitioning types of responses, its typical application to a biomedical model focuses on a clinical response and does not include efforts to address structural determinants of health and the complex interactions among the human body, the environment, and an individual’s life circumstances included in the socioecological perspective.

For example, negative stereotypes persist about people with OUD that do not exist for people with other chronic conditions; the latter are met with relatively clear pathways to additional testing, treatment, and support. Comparatively, upon discovery of their nonprescribed opioid use, too often individuals face judgement or blame and are left without connections to appropriate, evidence-based care (Tsai et al., 2019). Such counterproductive interactions with health care professionals and the health care system deter individuals from seeking help at critical moments before and after the development of OUD and associated negative health and social consequences. Widespread recognition that OUD is a treatable condition, and that stigmatizing language has negative impacts on people with OUD, is critical for reducing the continuous rise in overdoses.

The primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention classification is somewhat ill-fitting for the nonlinear nature of addiction and other chronic health conditions, particularly if the treatment approach does not consider the social and environment factors impacting disease and health. OUD is a medical diagnosis defined by a pattern of opioid use that leads to problems or distress (e.g., physical, mental, interpersonal, and financial; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Most people who are exposed to opioids do not develop OUD. Of the estimated 10.1 million individuals 12 years or older who reported problematic use of opioids in 2019, 1.6 million metĚýThe Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision,Ěýcriteria for OUD (SAMHSA, 2020b). Among individuals prescribed opioids long term for chronic pain, between 8 percent and 12 percent will develop an addiction to opioids, although nuance exists in the reported estimates (Dowell, Haegerich, and Chou, 2016; Volkow and McLellan, 2016; Vowles et al., 2015). Individuals can move in and out of the “diagnosed” and “high-risk” categories as they reduce their drug use and no longer meet the criteria for OUD. Among those with an OUD diagnosis, the extent to which they participate in drug use behaviors that place them at high risk for overdose can fluctuate.

The definitions ofĚýrecoveryĚý˛ą˛Ô»ĺĚýremissionĚýare hotly debated topics that involve differing schools of thought (Office of the Surgeon General, 2016). While there is general agreement that recovery involves achieving a state of improved well-being, varying perspectives exist on the nature of addiction, the goals of treatment, the necessity of treatment, and the possibility of complete remission. At one end of the spectrum, proponents argue that long-term abstinence is the primary criterion for recovery. Conversely, alternative schools of thought adopt a more inclusive approach to recovery, recognizing that complete abstinence may not be immediately feasible or desirable for everyone. Instead, they emphasize harm reduction approaches and focus on positive behavior changes and improved well-being as indicators of recovery.

Socioecological Levels of Prevention for OUD

To address the limitations of the classical prevention categorizations, the authors have recast OUD prevention with a socioecological framework that recognizes the nonlinear interconnectivity between people and their environments. Hood et al. (2016) estimate that individual health behavior accounts for about one-third of health outcomes; the remaining two-thirds of health factors can be broadly defined as social determinants and include social and economic factors (47 percent), the physical environment (3 percent), and access to quality health care (16 percent). These social determinants can be broken into two categories: risk factors and protective factors. Protective factors—such as community safety, supportive relationships, financial stability, and access to care—are associated with positive health outcomes. Conversely, unsafe living conditions, food insecurity, poverty, and social isolation are associated with negative health outcomes.

Risk and protective factors exist within the contexts in which a person interacts and exists. Combining the socioecological framing of risk and protective factors with the classical framing of prevention (Figures 2, 3,Ěý˛ą˛Ô»ĺĚý4) is a start to identifying individual, interpersonal, and macro-level strategies that can promote or deter health for those at different stages of the prevention continuum.

Primary Prevention of OUD Using a Socioecological Model

Primary prevention using a socioecological framework seeks to prevent the onset of disease and acknowledges that an individual’s risk of developing OUD is shaped by a combination of intersecting biopsychosocial and environmental risk and protective factors, as outlined inĚýFigure 2.ĚýEvidence-based primary prevention interventions address both biopsychosocial and environmental risk and protective factors at the individual, interpersonal, and macro levels to prevent the onset of OUD (Office of the Surgeon General, 2016).

An example could involve adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and positive childhood experiences (PCEs), which both play crucial roles in shaping a person’s life trajectory. ACEs—which encompass negative, stressful, and traumatizing events that occur before the age of 18—are strongly associated with increased risk of developing OUD over the life span (Guarino et al., 2021). On the other hand, PCEs, such as supportive relationship and safe environments, can act as protective factors against the harmful effects of ACEs (Bethell et al., 2019). Factors that contribute to ACEs include the lack of a consistent caring adult during childhood and/or growing up with food insecurity, while factors that promote PCEs involve creating and sustaining safe, stable, and nurturing relationships and environments in which children and families can thrive (CDC, 2022; CDC, 2019). Recognizing the prevalence of ACEs and their strong association with opioid use and related behavioral health outcomes, it is crucial to prioritize prevention of ACEs. Further research is needed to describe the cultivation of PCEs and impact on incidence of OUD. (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019).

Applying the socioecological lens to primary prevention provides targets at the individual, interpersonal, and macro levels for preventing the onset of OUD (Figure 2). Examples of interventions at each of these levels include the following:

Individual: Mentoring and Out-of-School Programs

Research demonstrates that school completion, stable career employment, and quality relationships are associated with reduced high-risk substance use patterns, including opioid use, leading into young adulthood (Merrin et al., 2020). Mentoring and out-of-school programs—such as Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (n.d.), After School Matters (n.d.), and Powerful Voices (n.d.)—support the growth and development of youth and adolescents by addressing the need for positive adult contact and offering skills development opportunities, resources, and platforms. The enhanced support helps to increase confidence and foster professional values, such as leadership, teamwork, and respect, all of which have been shown to reduce problematic drug use among youth (Erdem and Kaufman, 2020; CDC, 2019).

Interpersonal: Family Support Programs

Data support the assertion that close family relationships can ameliorate the impact that trauma, stress, and adversity have on an individual’s physical health over their life span (Chen, Brody, and Miller, 2017; Brody et al., 2016). Culturally relevant and asset-based family support programs, such as the Strong African American Families Program (University of Georgia, Center for Family Research, n.d.), help to foster positive family environments and improve supportive parenting practices, including positive racial socialization, communication, and consistent discipline, thereby enhancing parents’ and caregivers’ efforts to help youth develop positive goals as well as skills to resist involvement in risk behaviors, like early initiation of opioid or other drug use (Brody et al. 2006).

Macro: Federal and State Policies and/or Investments That Support Resource-Limited Families

The harmful effects of economic hardship and financial instability on child health and development are well documented (Sandstrom and Huerta, 2013). Research shows that when families can meet their basic needs—such as food, housing, and health care—parents and caregivers can better provide the critical emotional and material support that children need to grow into healthy, productive adults (Masten, Lombardi, and Fisher, 2021). Policies and investments in social programs—including livable minimum wage requirements, child care subsidies, and federal tax credits—can be important levers to reduce the strain on low-income families to meet their basic needs, thereby reducing socioeconomic risks for parents and their children, which in turn decreases the risk of developing OUD (Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer, 2021; Milligan and Stabile, n.d.).

For additional examples of socioecological primary prevention interventions for OUD, please refer toĚýTable A-1.

Secondary Prevention of OUD Using a Socioecological Model

Secondary prevention interventions using a socioecological framework focus on biopsychosocial and environmental strategies that target early identification of OUD and support for those with OUD. As illustrated inĚýFigure 3, several risk factors impede and/or challenge the success of screening and treatment referral, including stigma, discrimination, and insufficient provider competency and/or knowledge, all of which can influence an individual’s engagement in their health and human services.

Applying the socioecological lens to secondary prevention provides targets at the individual, interpersonal, and macro levels for supporting those in the early or mild stages of OUD. Examples of interventions at each of these levels include the following:

Individual: Access to Trauma-Informed Care

Based on a large population-based survey, an estimated 50 percent to 60 percent of adults in the United States have experienced some type of traumatic event at least once in their lives (Husarewycz et al., 2014). Given the strong link between exposure to trauma and OUD, receiving trauma-informed care—which includes considering a person’s traumatic experiences when providing care and adopting policies, procedures, and practices that avoid retraumatization and support healing and recovery—can help to improve patient engagement, OUD treatment adherence, and health outcomes (SAMHSA, 2014a).

Interpersonal: Training in Structural and Cultural Competency

Culturally and linguistically diverse populations face greater challenges to accessing OUD treatment (Gainsbury, 2016). Consequently, it is vital that health and treatment providers create a more inclusive care environment by developing a greater awareness and understanding of the cultural, structural, and linguistic factors that may help their patients feel more comfortable in accessing care. Training and education programs for health professionals that focus on developing cultural and structural competencies—such as the National Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services Standards (Office of Minority Health, n.d.) can help to improve patient engagement in services, therapeutic relationships between patients and providers, and treatment retention and outcomes to advance health equity (Jones and Branco, 2021; SAMHSA, 2014b).

Macro: Comprehensive, Interprofessional Addiction Curricula and Training Programs

OUD touches nearly every aspect of the health care system. Individuals who experience a nonfatal opioid overdose are likely to interact with at least one health professional in the six months preceding their overdose (Wagner et al., 2015). Given this context, it is critical that all health professionals have the requisite knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes to effectively identify and support those with problematic substance use. Adoption of interprofessional curricula and training programs, such as those outlined in the National Academy of Medicine’s 3Cs Framework for Pain and Unhealthy Substance Use (Holmboe et al., 2022), provide the opportunity to better prepare health professionals across the care continuum to identify and meet the complex and varied needs of patients with unhealthy substance use behaviors. (SeeĚýTable A-2Ěýfor additional examples of secondary prevention interventions using the socioecological framework.)

Tertiary Prevention of OUD Using a Socioecological Model

Tertiary prevention strategies seek to mitigate the negative consequences and worsening of symptoms among those with OUD through a wide range of services and supports. These could include treatment and recovery services, self-help, and mutual aid groups, as well as harm reductions services to support individuals who are active in their substance use. Tertiary prevention strategies do not stop new cases of OUD from emerging, yet they do significantly reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality and improve overall well-being. Many of the interventions at this stage are typically categorized as harm reduction; however, it is worth noting that harm reduction includes a spectrum of interventions, including strategies across the primary and secondary levels of prevention.

The socioecological model acknowledges that more can be done to address and prevent collateral consequences and comorbidities associated with OUD, including incarceration and spread of infectious diseases (seeĚýFigure 4).

Applying the socioecological lens to tertiary prevention provides targets at the individual, interpersonal, and macro levels for preventing severe consequences among those with OUD, such as overdose death and infectious diseases like HIV and hepatitis C (HCV) related to injection drug use. Examples of interventions at each of these levels include the following:

Individual: Low-Barrier Access to Harm Reduction Services and Supplies

Harm reduction services, which include interventions such as the distribution of sterile syringes and naloxone, have been proven to be effective at preventing morbidity and mortality associated with injection drug use. However, a significant number of PWUD do not have access to these services, a gap that frequently stems from geographical limitations (e.g., for those residing in rural areas) and the enduring stigma associated with the receipt of such services (Harm Reduction International, 2020). Innovative, remote harm-reduction platforms like NEXT Distro have emerged to address these obstacles, leveraging the reach and convenience of digital technologies (e.g., internet, text messaging, and e-mail) to mail essential harm reduction supplies directly to those in need (NEXT Distro, n.d.). These platforms not only dismantle geographical and stigma-related access barriers but also provide comprehensive harm reduction resources and support (Barnett et al., 2021; Yang, Favaro, and Meacham, 2021). With an emphasis on anonymity and privacy, these services expand accessibility, offering a practical, transformative solution for PWUD.

Interpersonal: Education on Safer Injection Practices

Higher risk of HIV and HCV infections, abscesses, cellulitis, and other skin infections is associated with certain drug injection practices (CDC, n.d.). Promoting safer injection practices among PWUD through education and training—like that of the National Harm Reduction Coalition’sĚýGetting Off Right: A Safety Manual for Injection Drug UsersĚý(National Harm Reduction Coalition, 2020)—empowers individuals to minimize potential harms associated with injection drug use (Roux et al., 2021).

Macro: Syringe Service Programs

Nearly 30 years of research strongly support the conclusion that syringe service programs (SSPs) play an important role in promoting community safety and reducing the transmission of HIV, HCV, and other blood-borne infections commonly associated with injection drug use (Javed et al., 2020). Policies that remove barriers to the development of SSPs are critical to increasing access to this evidence-based prevention practice. (An example is Florida’s Infectious Disease Elimination Act [IDEA] of 2016, which permitted county commissions to authorize SSPs through grants and donations from private resources and funds, enabling the University of Miami to open the state’s first and only SSP: IDEA Exchange [IDEA Exchange, n.d.]). These programs are instrumental in ensuring that high-risk individuals have access to the full range of services made available by SSPs, including access to and disposal of sterile syringes and injection equipment, vaccination, testing, and links to infectious disease care and OUD treatment. (Table A-3Ěýincludes additional examples of
tertiary prevention interventions.)

Interconnected and Multidirectional Levels of Influences

The above examples highlight the complex interplay among the three levels of prevention and the socioecological levels of influence, wherein multidirectional interactions among levels means that factors at one level are often facilitated or restricted by factors at another. For example, individual-level factors—such as individual behaviors, psychological state, and physiological mechanisms—are both supported and limited by interpersonal factors like social support, sense of community cohesion, and access to person-centered care. However, these interpersonal factors do not exist in isolation; they are influenced and shaped by macro-level factors, such as drug control policies, fragmented and unaccountable treatment delivery systems, concentrated poverty, and stigmatizing cultural narratives about people with OUD. Thus, each level is not only dependent on but also instrumental in shaping the dynamics of the others, thereby creating a complex web of interconnected influences.

Additional examples of socioecological primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions that further illustrate this dynamic are provided inĚýTables A-1, A-2,Ěý˛ą˛Ô»ĺĚýA-3. The interventions included in the tables have been limited to those with promising evidence to reduce the risks associated with precursors of OUD, OUD incidence, OUD morbidity, and OUD-related mortality; however, their inclusion does not suggest, and should not be taken as, an endorsement by the National Academy of Medicine or any of the authors’ organizations.

The goal of this exercise is neither to provide an exhaustive list of all possible interventions, nor to grade the available evidence for various interventions. Instead, the focus is specifically to provide a socioecological public health prevention framework to support a holistic vision for OUD policy, research, and service delivery solutions. Additionally, the socioecological foundation of this framework will foster adaptable and effective solutions that are responsive to the underlying needs of those who are most affected by OUD.

The outlined interventions and strategies can serve as a starting point and inspiration for stakeholders interested in addressing OUD and other related SUDs. By offering examples that make a socioecological approach to OUD prevention practical, the authors hope to provide tangible strategies that can be applied to other SUDs more broadly and that will encourage and empower practitioners, policymakers, funders, service providers, and community leaders to take action through relational dynamics, institutional practices, policy, and advocacy. The tables do not prioritize specific interventions, since each advocate operates within a unique context. Therefore, when determining which strategies and interventions to adopt, advocates should consider their target population and sphere of influence, and the resources they have at their disposal.

Conclusion

Given the severity of the impact of overdose deaths on the nation and the dramatically increasing rates of OUD and other related SUDs in the United States over the past 20 years, it is critical that a public health framework is applied when considering policy, research, and service delivery solutions. This approach is particularly important in light of the structural and systemic factors driving the growing racial and ethnic disparities in SUD treatment and care (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2021). This discussion paper applies principles of social epidemiology to a traditional public health prevention framework and elucidates contextual and structural points of intervention.

The authors hope to expand the purview of action and responsibility beyond the individual, encourage an expanded lens for those who ascribe only to the biomedical approach to health and well-being, and promote an evergreen focus on SUD prevention that elevates the conversation beyond any particular drug. Leveraging a socioecological approach empowers leaders to champion prevention strategies that address health equity and amend the nation’s historically unjust practices, some of which persist today. With health equity in mind, the authors encourage US leaders to sharpen their attention toward macro-level solutions for prevention; these hold the greatest potential for sustainably improving health for all citizens across a broad set of health outcomes.

While there are a variety of evidence-based and promising practices related to SUD and overdose prevention, there remain significant gaps in researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding. Public funds addressing overdose trends should ensure individual-, interpersonal-, and macro-level investments across the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention spectrum and support continued research on intended and unintended health outcomes of all funded interventions.

The nation can no longer solely target individuals for one of the greatest social ills of modern times (Reinarman and Levine, 1997). Rather, it must embrace a more comprehensive, multitiered approach that also considers the interpersonal, societal, and structural factors in which individuals interact. This view will ensure that the health care system not only treats the symptoms of disease but also concentrates on the underlying drivers that have fueled the unrelenting rise in incidence of SUD and overdose. In turn, this broader focus on prevention and treatment can also contribute significantly to promoting overall health and well being. Addressing these underlying determinants of health has the potential to enhance not only addiction outcomes but also broader societal health outcomes, fostering healthier, more resilient communities.

ĚýĚý

Sources

1. Merrin, G. J., M. E. Ames, C. Sturgess, and B. J. Leadbeater. 2020. Disruption of transitions in high-risk substance use from adolescence to young adulthood: school, employment, and romantic relationship factors.ĚýSubstance Use & MisuseĚý55(7):1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2020.1729200.
2. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2019.ĚýPreventing Adverse Childhood Experiences: Leveraging the Best Available Evidence.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingACES.pdf (accessed April 28, 2022).
3. Nurse-Family Partnership. n.d.ĚýEvidence of Effectiveness.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/about/proven-results/evidence-of-effectiveness/ (accessed April 11, 2022).
4. Center for the Study of Social Policy. n.d.ĚýThe Research Behind Strengthening Families.ĚýAvailable at: https://cssp.org/our-work/projects/the-research-behind-strengthening-families/ (accessed April 11, 2022).
5. Brody, G. H., G. E. Miller, T. Yu, S. R. H. Beach, and E. Chen. 2016. Supportive family environments ameliorate the link between racial discrimination and epigenetic aging: A replication across two longitudinal cohorts.ĚýPsychological ScienceĚý27(4):530–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615626703.
6. Chen, E., G. H. Brody, and G. E. Miller. 2017. Childhood close family relationships and health.ĚýAmerican PsychologistĚý72(6):555–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000067.
7. Amaro, H., M. Sanchez, T. Bautista, and R. Cox. 2021. Social vulnerabilities for substance use: Stressors, socially toxic environments, and discrimination and racism.ĚýNeuropharmacologyĚý188:108518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108518.
8. McCabe, S. E., W. B. Bostwick, T. L. Hughes, B. T. West, and C. J. Boyd. 2010. The relationship between discrimination and substance use disorders among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States.ĚýAmerican Journal of Public HealthĚý100(10):1946–1952. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2009.163147.
9. CDC. 2019.ĚýPreventing Adverse Childhood Experiences: Leveraging the Best Available Evidence.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingACES.pdf (accessed April 28, 2022).
10. Wilcox, H. C., S. G. Kellam, C. H. Brown, J. M. Poduska, N. S. Ialongo, W. Wang, and J. C. Anthony. 2008. The impact of two universal randomized first- and second-grade classroom interventions on young adult suicide ideation and attempts.ĚýDrug and Alcohol DependenceĚý95:S60–S73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.005.
11. Kellam, S. G., C. H. Brown, J. M. Poduska, N. S. Ialongo, W. Wang, P. Toyinbo, H. Petras, C. Ford, A. Windham, and H. C. Wilcox. 2008. Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes.ĚýDrug and Alcohol DependenceĚý95:S5–S28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.004.
12. Botvin, G. J., K. W. Griffin, and T. D. Nichols. 2006. Preventing youth violence and delinquency through a universal school-based prevention approach.ĚýPrevention ScienceĚý7(4):403–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-006-0057-y.
13. Poleshuck, E., K. Possemato, E. M. Johnson, A. J. Cohen, C. T. Fogarty, and J. S. Funderburk. 2022. Leveraging integrated primary care to address patients’ and families’ unmet social needs: aligning practice with Â鶹´«Ă˝×ĘÔ´, Engineering and Medicine recommendations.ĚýThe Journal of the American Board of Family MedicineĚý35(1):185. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2022.01.210287.
14. Eismann, E. A., J. Theuerling, S. Maguire, E. A. Hente, and R. A. Shapiro. 2018. Integration of the Safe Environment for Every Kid (SEEK) model across primary care settings.ĚýClinical PediatricsĚý58(2):166–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922818809481.
15. Project Cal-Well. 2021.ĚýProject Cal-Well: 2020-21 Evaluation Highlights.ĚýSan Francisco, CA: UCSF School Health Evaluation and Research Team. Available at: https://schoolhealthresearch.ucsf.edu/sites/g/files/tkssra8116/f/wysiwyg/Project%20Cal-Well%202020-21%20California%20Evaluation%20Highlights.pdf (accessed August 22, 2023).
16. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. 2021.ĚýState of South Dakota Project AWARE 2021 Annual Evaluation Report.ĚýChapel Hill, NC. Available at: https://doe.sd.gov/publications/documents/SD-AWARE-21.pdf (accessed April 11, 2022).
17. Georgia Department of Education. n.d.ĚýSupporting student wellness and resilience by all means possible.ĚýGeorgia Project AWARE Digest S2019. Available at: https://cld.gsu.edu/files/2020/11/Georgia-Project-Aware-Digest-Sp19.pdf (accessed August 22, 2023).
18. Winkelman, T. N. A., and V. W. Chang. 2018. Medicaid expansion, mental health, and access to care among childless adults with and without chronic conditions.ĚýJournal of General Internal MedicineĚý33(3):376–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4217-5.
19. Maclean, J. C., and B. Saloner. 2019.ĚýThe effect of public insurance expansions on substance use disorder treatment: evidence from the Affordable Care Act.ĚýJournal of Policy Analysis and Management 38(2):366–393.
20. Cooper, D., Z. Mokhiber, and B. Zipperer. 2021.ĚýRaising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would lift the pay of 32 million workers.ĚýWashington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Available at: https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-by-2025-would-lift-the-pay-of-32-million-workers/ (accessed April 11, 2022).
21. Milligan, K., and M. Stabile. n.d.ĚýDo child tax benefits affect the well-being of children? Evidence from Canadian child benefit expansions.ĚýVancouver and Toronto, Canada. Available at: https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/pep/pep01.pdf (accessed April 11, 2022).
22. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019.ĚýA roadmap to reducing childhood poverty.ĚýWashington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25246.
23. Lin, D. H., C. M. Jones, W. M. Compton, J. Heyward, J. L. Losby, I. B. Murimi, G. T. Baldwin, J. M. Ballreich, D. A. Thomas, M. Bicket, L. Porter, J. C. Tierce, and G. C. Alexander. 2018. Prescription drug coverage for treatment of low back pain among US Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and commercial insurers.ĚýJAMA Network OpenĚý1(2):e180235. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0235.
24. Johnson, T. P., S. A. Freels, J. A. Parsons, and J. B. Vangeest. 1997. Substance abuse and homelessness: social selection or social adaptation?ĚýAddictionĚý92(4):437–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb03375.x.
25. Johnson, G., and C. Chamberlain. 2008. Homelessness and substance abuse: which comes first?ĚýAustralian Social WorkĚý61(4):342–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/03124070802428191.
26. Evans, W. N., J. X. Sullivan, and M. Wallskog. 2016. The impact of homelessness prevention programs on homelessness.ĚýScienceĚý353(6300):694–699. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.aag0833.
27. Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness. 2015.ĚýEarly analysis of CAN diversion data.ĚýHartford, CT. Available at: https://cceh.org/early-analysis-of-can-diversion-data/ (accessed April 12, 2022).

NOTES:ĚýSome interventions address both risks and protective factors; other interventions may address only one.

The interventions included in the table have been limited to those with promising evidence to reduce the risks associated with precursors of SUD, SUD incidence, SUD morbidity, or SUD-related mortality; however, their inclusion does not suggest, and should not be taken as, an endorsement by the National Academy of Medicine or any of the authors’ organizations. Additionally, it should be noted that this table does not encompass an exhaustive list of all primary level interventions.

The selection process involved a thorough review of existing scientific literature, including published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and program evaluations. In determining the inclusion of interventions, the authors considered various factors, such as the strength of evidence supporting the program’s effectiveness, the quality of research studies conducted on the intervention, the consistency of positive outcomes across multiple studies, and the intervention’s relevance to the prevention of OUD and its associated risks.

ĚýĚýĚýĚý

Sources

28.Ěý ĚýSAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). 2014.ĚýTrauma-informed care in behavioral health services.ĚýHHS publication no. (SMA) 13-4801. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/sma14-4816.pdf (accessed April 12, 2022).
29.Ěý ĚýPew Charitable Trusts. 2020.ĚýCare coordination strategies for patients can improve substance use disorder outcomes: models that show promise focus on access to lifesaving medications.ĚýPhiladelphia, PA. Available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/04/carecoordinationbrief.pdf (accessed April 12, 2022).
30.Ěý ĚýSevak, P., C. N. Stepanczuk, K. W. V. Bradley, T. Day, G. Peterson, B. Gilman, L. Blue, K. Kranker, K. Stewart, and L. Moreno. 2018. Effects of a community-based care management model for super-utilizers.ĚýThe American Journal of Managed CareĚý24(11):e365–e370.
31.Ěý ĚýCenter for Substance Abuse Treatment. 2009.ĚýWhat are peer recovery support services?ĚýHHS publication no. (SMA) 09-4454. Rockville, MD. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/product/What-Are-Peer-Recovery-Support-Services-/SMA09-4454 (accessed July 27, 2022).
32.Ěý ĚýU.S. Department of Health and Human Services. n.d. National CLAS Standards. Washington, DC. Available at: https://thinkculturalhealth.hhs.gov/clas/standards (accessed April 12, 2022).
33.Ěý ĚýSAMHSA. 2014.ĚýImproving cultural competence. Treatment Improvement Protocol Series No. 59.ĚýHHS publication no. (SMA) 14-4849. Rockville, MD. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/sma14-4849.pdf (accessed April 12, 2022).
34.Ěý ĚýNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019.ĚýMedications for Opioid Use Disorder Save Lives.ĚýWashington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25310.
35.Ěý ĚýSAMHSA. 2021.ĚýMedications for opioid use disorder: for healthcare and addiction professionals, policymakers, patients, and families.ĚýRockville, MD. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/SAMHSA_Digital_Download/PEP21-02-01-002.pdf (accessed April 12, 2022).
36.Ěý ĚýWyant, B. E., S. S. Karon, and S. G. Pfefferle. 2019.ĚýHousing options for recovery for individuals with opioid use disorder: a literature review.ĚýWashington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/housing-options-recovery-individuals-opioid-use-disorder-literature-review (accessed April 12, 2022).
37.Ěý ĚýKelleher, K. J., R. Famelia, T. Yilmazer, A. Mallory, J. Ford, L. J. Chavez, and N. Slesnick. 2021. Prevention of opioid use disorder: The Â鶹´«Ă˝×ĘÔ´ (Housing, Opportunities, Motivation and Engagement) feasibility study.ĚýHarm Reduction JournalĚý18(1):112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00560-x.
38.Ěý ĚýCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services. n.d.ĚýThe Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).ĚýAvailable at: https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Other-Insurance-Protections/mhpaea_factsheet (accessed April 12, 2022).
39.Ěý ĚýDouglas, M., G. Wrenn, S. Bent-Weber, L. Tonti, G. Carneal, T. Keeton, J. Grillo, S. Rachel, D. Lloyd, E. Byrd, B. Miller, A. Lang, R. Manderscheid, and J. Parks. 2018.ĚýEvaluating state mental health and addiction parity statutes: a technical report.ĚýThe Kennedy Forum. Available at: https://wellbeingtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/evaluating-state-mental-health-report-wbt-for-web.pdf (accessed April 12, 2022).
40.Ěý ĚýU.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2021.ĚýFAQs about mental health and substance use disorder parity implementation and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 part 45.ĚýWashington, DC. Available at: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/aca-part-45.pdf (accessed April 12, 2022).
41.Ěý ĚýKaiser Family Foundation. 2022.ĚýMedicaid waiver tracker: approved and pending section 1115 waivers by state.ĚýSan Francisco, CA. Available at: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-waiver-tracker-approved-and-pending-section-1115-waivers-by-state/ (accessed April 12, 2022).
42.Ěý ĚýCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services. n.d.ĚýSection 1115 demonstrations: substance use disorders, serious mental illness, and serious emotional disturbance.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/section-1115-demonstrations/1115-substance-use-disorder-demonstrations/section-1115-demonstrations-substance-use-disorders-serious-mental-illness-and-serious-emotional-disturbance/index.html (accessed April 12, 2022).
43.Ěý ĚýChappell, K., E. Holmboe, L. Poulin, S. Singer, E. Finkelman, and A. Salman, editors. 2021. Educating Together, Improving Together: Harmonizing Interprofessional Approaches to Address the Opioid Epidemic.ĚýNAM Special Publication.ĚýWashington, DC: National Academy of Medicine.
44.Ěý ĚýSagi, M. R., G. Aurobind, P. Chand, A. Ashfak, C. Karthick, N. Kubenthiran, P. Murthy, M. Komaromy, and S. Arora. 2018. Innovative telementoring for addiction management for remote primary care physicians: a feasibility study.ĚýIndian Journal of PsychiatryĚý60(4):461–466. https://doi.org/10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_211_18.
45.Ěý ĚýEnglander, H., A. Patten, R. Lockard, M. Muller, and J. Gregg. 2021. Spreading addictions care across Oregon’s rural and community hospitals: mixed-methods evaluation of an interprofessional telementoring echo program.ĚýJournal of General Internal MedicineĚý36(1):100–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06175-5.
46.Ěý ĚýPuckett, H. M., J. S. Bossaller, and L. R. Sheets. 2021. The impact of project ECHO on physician preparedness to treat opioid use disorder: a systematic review.ĚýAddiction Science & Clinical PracticeĚý16(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-021-00215-z.
47.Ěý ĚýWatkins, K. E., A. J. Ober, K. Lamp, M. Lind, C. Setodji, K. C. Osilla, S. B. Hunter, C. M. McCullough, K. Becker, P. O. Iyiewuare, A. Diamant, K. Heinzerling, and H. A. Pincus. 2017. Collaborative care for opioid and alcohol use disorders in primary care: the Summit randomized clinical trial.ĚýJAMA Internal MedicineĚý177(10):1480–1488. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3947.
48.Ěý ĚýBrooklyn, J. R., and S. C. Sigmon. 2017. Vermont hub-and-spoke model of care for opioid use disorder: development, implementation, and impact.ĚýJournal of Addiction MedicineĚý11(4):286–292. https://doi.org/10.1097/adm.0000000000000310.
49.Ěý ĚýSAMHSA. 2021.ĚýSubstance use disorders recovery with a focus on employment and education.ĚýHHS publication no. PEP21-PL-Guide-6. Rockville, MD. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/SAMHSA_Digital_Download/pep21-pl-guide-6.pdf (accessed April 11, 2022).
50.Ěý ĚýSAMHSA. 2021.ĚýUse of medication-assisted treatment in emergency departments.ĚýHHS publication no. PEP21-PL-Guide-5. Rockville, MD. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/SAMHSA_Digital_Download/pep21-pl-guide-5.pdf (accessed April 12, 2022).
51.Ěý ĚýPurtle, J., l. T. Gebrekristos, D. Keene, P. Schlesinger, L. Niccolai, and K. M. Blankenship. 2020. Quantifying the restrictiveness of local housing authority policies toward people with criminal justice histories: United States, 2009–2018.ĚýAmerican Journal of Public HealthĚý110(S1):S137–S144. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2019.305437.

NOTES:ĚýSome interventions address both risks and protective factors; other interventions may address only one.

The interventions included in the table have been limited to those with promising evidence to reduce the risks associated with precursors of SUD, SUD incidence, SUD morbidity, or SUD-related mortality. In some cases the interventions are specific to harms related to opioid use/opioid use disorder, and this is clearly described in the table. However, their inclusion does not suggest, and should not be taken as, an endorsement by the National Academy of Medicine or any of the authors’ organizations. Additionally, it should be noted that this table does not encompass an exhaustive list of all secondary level interventions.

The selection process involved a thorough review of existing scientific literature, including published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and program evaluations. In determining the inclusion of interventions, the authors considered various factors, such as the strength of evidence supporting the program’s effectiveness, the quality of research studies conducted on the intervention, the consistency of positive outcomes across multiple studies, and the intervention’s relevance to the prevention of OUD and its associated risks.

ĚýĚýĚýĚý

Sources

52.Ěý ĚýHarm Reduction International. 2020.ĚýThe global state of harm reduction: 2020, 7th Edition.ĚýLondon, UK: Harm Reduction International. Available at: https://hri.global/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Global_State_HRI_2020_BOOK_FA_Web-1.pdf (accessed July 12, 2023).
53.Ěý ĚýTorres-Leguizamon, M., J. Favaro, D. Coello, E. G. Reynaud, T. Nefau, and C. Duplessy. 2023. Remote harm reduction services are key solutions to reduce the impact of COVID-19-like crises on people who use drugs: evidence from two independent structures in France and in the USA.ĚýHarm Reduction JournalĚý20:1. https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12954-023-00732-x.
54.Ěý ĚýHayes, B. T., J. Favaro, C. N. Behrends, D. Coello, A. Jakubowski, and A. D. Fox. 2022. NEXT: description, rationale, and evaluation of a novel internet-based mail-delivered syringe service program.ĚýJournal of Substance Use.Ěýhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14659891.2022.2144500.
55.Ěý ĚýRoux, P., C. Donadille, C. Magen, E. Schatz, R. Stranz, A. Curado, T. Tsiakou, L. Verdes, A. Aleksova, P. Carrieri. S. Mezaache. B. Charif Ali, and the Eurosider Study Group. 2021. Implementation and evaluation of an educational intervention for safer injection in people who inject drugs in Europe: a multi-country mixed-methods study.ĚýInternational Journal of Drug PolicyĚý87:102992. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102992.
56.Ěý ĚýEnteen, L., J. Bauer, R. McLean, E. Wheeler, E. Huriaux, A. H. Kral, and J. D. Bamberger. 2010. Overdose prevention and naloxone prescription for opioid users in San Francisco.ĚýJournal of Urban HealthĚý87(6):931–941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9495-8.
57.Ěý ĚýBehar, E., C. Rowe, G. M. Santos, N. Santos, and P. O. Coffin. 2017. Academic detailing pilot for naloxone prescribing among primary care providers in San Francisco.ĚýFamily MedicineĚý49(2):122–126. Available at: https://www.stfm.org/FamilyMedicine/Vol49Issue2/Behar122 (accessed July 12, 2023).
58.Ěý ĚýStack, E., C. Hildebran, G. Leichtling, E. N. Waddell, J. M. Leahy, E. Martin, and P. T. Korthuis. 2022. Peer recovery support services across the continuum: in community, hospital, corrections, and treatment and recovery agency settings—a narrative review.ĚýJournal of Addiction MedicineĚý16(1):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/adm.0000000000000810.
59.Ěý ĚýReif, S., L. Braude, Lyman D. R., R. H. Dougherty, A. S. Daniels, S. S. Ghose, O. Salim, and M. E. Delphin-Rittmon. 2014. Peer recovery support for individuals with substance use disorders: assessing the evidence.ĚýPsychiatric ServicesĚý65(7):853–861. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400047.
60.Ěý ĚýBardwell, G., T. Kerr, J. Boyd, and R. McNeil. 2018. Characterizing peer roles in an overdose crisis: preferences for peer workers in overdose response programs in emergency shelters.ĚýDrug and Alcohol DependenceĚý190:6–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.05.023.
61.Ěý ĚýWinograd, R. P., C. A. Wood, E. J. Stringfellow, N. Presnall, A. Duello, P. Horn, and T. Rudder. 2020. Implementation and evaluation of Missouri’s medication first treatment approach for opioid use disorder in publicly-funded substance use treatment programs.ĚýJournal of Substance Abuse TreatmentĚý108:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2019.06.015.
62.Ěý ĚýRegis, C., J. M. Gaeta, S. Mackin, T. P. Baggett, J. Quinlan, and E. M. Taveras. 2020. Community care in reach: mobilizing harm reduction and addiction treatment services for vulnerable populations.ĚýFrontiers in Public HealthĚý8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00501.
63.Ěý ĚýJaved, Z., K. Burk, S. Facente, L. Pegram, A. Ali, and A. Asher. 2020.ĚýSyringe services programs: a technical package of effective strategies and approaches for planning, design, and implementation.ĚýAtlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/105304 (accessed April 13, 2022).
64.Ěý ĚýUtah Drug Monitoring Initiative. 2021.ĚýFentanyl report.ĚýAvailable at: https://vipp.health.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/SIAC-2021-134-Utah-DMI-Fentanyl-Report.pdf (accessed August 22, 2023).
65.Ěý ĚýPeiper, N. C., S. D. Clarke, L. B. Vincent, D. Ciccarone, A. H. Kral, and J. E. Zibbell. 2019. Fentanyl test strips as an opioid overdose prevention strategy: findings from a syringe services program in the Southeastern United States.ĚýInternational Journal of Drug PolicyĚý63:122–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.08.007.
66.Ěý ĚýNational Harm Reduction Coalition. 2020.ĚýFentanyl test strip pilot.ĚýAvailable at: https://harmreduction.org/issues/fentanyl/fentanyl-test-strip-pilot/ (accessed April 13, 2022).
67.Ěý ĚýMaghsoudi, N., J. Tanguay, K. Scarfone, I. Rammohan, C. Ziegler, D. Werb, and A. I. Scheim. 2022. Drug checking services for people who use drugs: a systematic review.ĚýAddictionĚý117(3):532–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15734.
68.Ěý ĚýLewis, D. A., J. N. Park, L. Vail, M. Sine, C. Welsh, and S. G. Sherman. 2016. Evaluation of the overdose education and naloxone distribution program of the Baltimore Student Harm Reduction Coalition.ĚýAmerican Journal of Public HealthĚý106(7):1243–1246. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303141.
69.Ěý ĚýSmart, R., B. Pardo, and C. S. Davis. 2021. Systematic review of the emerging literature on the effectiveness of naloxone access Laws in the United States.ĚýAddictionĚý116(1):6–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15163.
70.Ěý ĚýHamilton, L., C. S. Davis, N. Kravitz-Wirtz, W. Ponicki, and M. Cerdá. 2021. Good Samaritan laws and overdose mortality in the United States in the fentanyl era.ĚýInternational Journal of Drug PolicyĚý97:1–7.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103294.
71.Ěý ĚýMcClellan, C., B. H. Lambdin, M. M. Ali, R. Mutter, C. S. Davis, E. Wheeler, M. Pemberton, and A. H. Kral. 2018. Opioid-overdose laws association with opioid use and overdose mortality.ĚýAddictive BehaviorsĚý86:90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.03.014.
72.Ěý ĚýMace, S., A. Siegler, K. Wu, A. Latimore, and H. Flynn. 2020.ĚýMedication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder in jails and prisons: a planning and implementation toolkit.ĚýNew York: National Council for Behavioral Health and Vital Strategies. Available at: https://www.vitalstrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/MAT_in_Jails_Prisons_Toolkit.pdf (accessed April 13, 2022).
73.Ěý ĚýPew Charitable Trusts. 2020.ĚýOpioid use disorder treatment in jails and prisons: medication provided to incarcerated populations save lives.ĚýPhiladelphia, PA: Available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/04/caseformedicationassistedtreatmentjailsprisons.pdf (accessed April 13, 2022).
74.Ěý ĚýGreen, T. C., J. Clarke, L. Brinkley-Rubinstein, B. D. L. Marshall, N. Alexander-Scott, R. Boss, and J. D. Rich. 2018. Postincarceration fatal overdoses after implementing medications for addiction treatment in a statewide correctional system.ĚýJAMA PsychiatryĚý75(4):405–407. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4614.
75.Ěý ĚýU.S. Department of Justice. 2022.ĚýJustice Department issues guidance on protections for people with opioid use disorder under the Americans with Disabilities Act.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-guidance-protections-people-opioid-use-disorder-under-americans (accessed June 13, 2022).
76.Ěý ĚýClifasefi, S., H. Lonczak, and S. Collins. 2017. Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program: within-subjects changes on housing, employment, and income/benefits outcomes and associations with recidivism.ĚýCrime & DelinquencyĚý63(4):429–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128716687550.
77.Ěý ĚýKrawczyk, N., C. E. Picher, K. A. Feder, and B. Saloner. 2017. Only one in twenty justice-referred adults in specialty treatment for opioid use receive methadone or buprenorphine.ĚýHealth AffairsĚý36(12):2046–2053. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0890.
78.Ěý ĚýAnderson, E., R. Shefner, R. Koppel, C. Megerian, and R. Frasso. 2022. Experiences with the Philadelphia Police Assisted Diversion Program: a qualitative study.ĚýInternational Journal of Drug PolicyĚý100:103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103521.
79.Ěý ĚýYatsco, A. J., R. D. Garza, T. Champagne-Langabeer, and J. R. Langabeer. 2020. Alternatives to arrest for illicit opioid use: a joint criminal justice and healthcare treatment collaboration.ĚýSubstance Abuse: Research and TreatmentĚý14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178221820953390.
80.Ěý ĚýBallard, A. M., R. Haardöerfer, N. Prood, C. Mbagwu, H. L. F. Cooper, and A. M. Young. 2021. Willingness to participate in at-home HIV testing among young adults who use opioids in rural Appalachia.ĚýAIDS and BehaviorĚý25(3):699–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-03034-6.
81.Ěý ĚýKral, A. H., B. H. Lambdin, L. D. Wenger, and P. J. Davidson. 2020. Evaluation of an unsanctioned safe consumption site in the United States.ĚýNew England Journal of MedicineĚý383(6):589–590. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2015435.
82.Ěý ĚýDrug Policy Alliance. 2015.ĚýApproaches to decriminalizing drug use & possession.ĚýNew York. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/DrugPolicyAlliance/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Approaches_to_Decriminalization_Feb2015_1.pdf (accessed April 13, 2022).

NOTES:ĚýSome interventions address both risks and protective factors; other interventions may address only one.

The interventions included in the table have been limited to those with promising evidence to reduce the risks associated with precursors of SUD, SUD incidence, SUD morbidity, or SUD-related mortality. In some cases the interventions are specific to harms related to opioid use/opioid use disorder, and this is clearly described in the table. However, their inclusion does not suggest, and should not be taken as, an endorsement by the National Academy of Medicine or any of the authors’ organizations. Additionally, it should be noted that this table does not encompass an exhaustive list of all tertiary level interventions.

The selection process involved a thorough review of existing scientific literature, including published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and program evaluations. In determining the inclusion of interventions, the authors considered various factors, such as the strength of evidence supporting the program’s effectiveness, the quality of research studies conducted on the intervention, the consistency of positive outcomes across multiple studies, and the intervention’s relevance to the prevention of OUD and its associated risks.

Join the conversation!

ĚýComprehensive SUD prevention hinges on understanding individual, interpersonal, and macro-level dynamics. Explore impactful strategies spanning primary to tertiary prevention with this new #NAMPerspectives:Ěý

ĚýAuthors of a new #NAMPerspectives identify evidence-informed strategies spanning primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention using a socioecological lens to underscore the need to fund, implement, and evaluate prevention efforts:Ěý

Download the graphics below and share on social media!Ěý

References

1. After School Matters. n.d.ĚýAfter School Matters empowers Chicago’s teens.ĚýAvailable at: https://afterschoolmatters.org/ (accessed September 7, 2022).
2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2015.ĚýModels and frameworks for the practice of community engagement.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/communityengagement/pce_models.html (accessed July 11, 2022).
3. Ahmad, F. B., J. A. Cisweski, L. M. Roseen, and P. Sutton. 2023.ĚýProvisional drug overdose death counts.ĚýHyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdosedata.htm (accessed June 6, 2023).
4. Akers, L., J. Tippins, S. Hauan, and M. Lynch-Smith. 2023.ĚýKey findings from an HHS convening on advancing primary prevention in human services (issue brief).ĚýWashington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/8228e700f6e369df9382ac8e0d3976c1/primaryprevention-
   convening-brief.pdf (accessed June 5, 2023).
5. American Institutes for Research. 2022.ĚýAIR CARES webinar series: social determinants of addiction.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.air.org/webinar-series-social-determinantsaddiction (accessed July 11, 2022).
6. AMA (American Medical Association). 2022.ĚýRacism as a public health threat H-65.952.ĚýAvailable at: https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/racism?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD.xml-H-65.952.xml (accessed September 12, 2022).
7. AMA. 2021.ĚýPolicing reform H-65.954.ĚýAvailable at: https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/Policing%20Reform%20H-65.954?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD.xml-H-65.954.xml (accessed September 12, 2022).
8. AMA. 2020.ĚýTreatment versus criminalization—physician role in drug addiction during pregnancy H-420.970.ĚýAvailable at: https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/criminal%20addiction?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD.xml-0-3713.xml (accessed September 12, 2022).
9. American Psychiatric Association. 2013.ĚýDiagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition, text revision.ĚýWashington, DC.
10. ASAM (American Society of Addiction Medicine). 2021a.ĚýAccess to medications for addiction treatment for persons under community correctional control.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.asam.org/advocacy/public-policy-statements/details/public-policy-statements/2021/08/09/accessto-medications-for-addiction-treatment-for-persons-undercommunity-correctional-control (accessed September 7, 2022).
11. ASAM. 2021b.ĚýPublic policy statement on advancing racial justice in addiction medicine.ĚýAvailable at: https://sitefinitystorage.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity-productionblobs/docs/default-source/public-policy-statements/asam-policy-statement-on-racial-justiced7a33a9472bc-604ca5b7ff000030b21a.pdf?sfvrsn=5a1f5ac2_0 (accessed April 28, 2022).
12. ASAM. n.d.ĚýDefinition of addiction.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.asam.org/quality-care/definition-of-addiction (accessed April 28, 2022).
13. Barnett, B. S., S. E. Wakeman, C. S. Davis, J. Favaro, and J. D. Rich. 2021. Expanding mail-based distribution of drug-related harm reduction supplies amid COVID-19 and beyond.ĚýAmerican Journal of Public HealthĚý111(6):1013–1017. https://doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2021.306228.
14. Baum, D. 2016. Legalize it all.ĚýHarper’s Magazine,ĚýApril 2016. Available at: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ (accessed May 17, 2023).
15. Berkman, L. F., I. Kawachi, and M. M. Glymour, eds. 2015.ĚýSocial epidemiology.ĚýOxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16. Bethell, C., J. Jones, N. Gombojav, J. Linkenbach, and R. Sege. 2019. Positive childhood experiences and adult mental and relational health in a statewide sample.ĚýJAMA PediatricsĚý173(11):e193007. https://doi.org/10.1001%2Fjamapediatrics.2019.3007.
17. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. n.d.ĚýHome.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.bbbs.org/ (accessed September 7, 2022).
18. Brody, G. H., S. M. Kogan, Y.-F. Chen, and V. M. Murry. 2006. Long-term effects of the Strong African American Families Program on youths’ conduct problems.ĚýJournal of Adolescent HealthĚý43(5):474–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.1.
19. Brody, G. H., G. E. Miller, T. Yu, S. R. H. Beach, and E. Chen. 2016. Supportive family environments ameliorate the link between racial discrimination and epigenetic aging: a replication across two longitudinal cohorts.ĚýPsychological ScienceĚý27(4):530–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615626703.
20. Brofenbrenner, U. 1979.ĚýThe ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design.ĚýCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. 2021.ĚýRacial/ethnic differences in substance use, substance use disorders, and substance use treatment utilization among people aged 12 or older (2015–2019).ĚýRockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/racialethnic-differences-substance-use (accessed March 1, 2023).
22. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2022.ĚýCreating positive childhood experiences.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/prevent-childabuse/index.html (accessed May 17, 2023).
23. CDC. 2021.ĚýU.S. overdose deaths in 2021 increased half as much as in 2020 – but are still up 15%.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/202205.htm (accessed June 13, 2021).
24. CDC. 2019.ĚýPreventing adverse childhood experiences: leveraging the best available evidence.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingACES.pdf (accessed October 7, 2022).
25. CDC. n.d.ĚýInfectious diseases, opioids and injection drug use.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.cdc.gov/pwid/opioiduse.html (accessed October 13, 2022).
26. Chen, E., G. H. Brody, and G. E. Miller. 2017. Childhood close family relationships and health.ĚýAmerican PsychologistĚý72(6):555–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000067.
27. Coffin, P. O., C. Rowe, N. Oman, K. Sinchek, G.-M. Santos, M. Faul, R. Bagnulo, D. Mohamed, and E. Vittinghoff. 2020. Illicit opioid use following changes in opioids prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain.ĚýPLOS ONEĚý15(5):e0232538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232538.
28. Collins, A. B., S. Edwards, R. McNeil, J. Goldman, B. D. Hallowell, R. P. Scagos, and B. D. L. Marshall. 2022. A rapid ethnographic study of risk negotiation during the COVID-19 pandemic among unstably housed people who use drugs in Rhode Island.ĚýInternational Journal of Drug PolicyĚý103(103626). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103626.
29. Cooper, D., Z. Mokhiber, and B. Zipperer. 2021.ĚýRaising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would lift the pay of 32 million workers.ĚýWashington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Available at: https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-by-2025-would-liftthe-pay-of-32-million-workers/ (accessed April 11, 2022).
30. Courtwright, D. T. 2015. Preventing and treating narcotic addiction—a century of federal drug control.ĚýNew England Journal of MedicineĚý373:2095–2097. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1508818.
31. Csete, J., A. Kamarulzaman, M. Kazatchkine, F. Altice, M. Balicki, J. Buxton, J. Cepeda, M. Comfort, E. Goosby, J. GoulĂŁo, C. Hart, T. Kerr, A. M. Lajous, S. Lewis, N. Martin, D. MejĂ­a, A. Camacho, D. Mathieson, I. Obot, A. Ogunrombi, S. Sherman, J. Stone, N. Vallath, P. Vickerman, T. ZábranskĂ˝, and C. Beyrer. 2016. Public health and international drug policy.ĚýThe LancetĚý387(10026):1427–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00619-X.
32. Daniels, C., A. Aluso, N. Burke-Shyne, K. Koram, S. Rajagopalan, I. Robinson, S. Shelly, S. Shirley-Beavan, and T. Tandon. 2021. Decolonizing drug policy.ĚýHarm Reduction JournalĚý18(120). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00564-7.
33. Dasgupta, N., L. Beletsky, and D. Ciccarone. 2018. Opioid crisis: no easy fix to its social and economic determinants.ĚýAmerican Journal of Public HealthĚý108(2):182–186. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304187.
34. Degenhardt, L., B. Mathers, P. Vickerman, T. Rhodes, C. Latkin, and M. Hickman. 2010. Prevention of HIV infection for people who inject drugs: why individual, structural, and combination approaches are needed.ĚýThe LancetĚý376(9737):285–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60742-8.
35. DeWeerdt, S. 2019. Tracing the US opioid crisis to its roots.ĚýNatureĚý573:S10–S13. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02686-2.
36. Dineen, K. K., and E. Pendo. 2021. Ending the war on people with substance use disorders in health care.ĚýThe American Journal of BioethicsĚý21(4):20–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2021.1891353.
37. Dowell, D., T. M. Haegerich, and R. Chou. 2016. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain—United States, 2016.ĚýMorbidity and Mortality Weekly ReportĚý65(1):1–49. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1.
38. DuBois, W. E. B. 2003. The health and physique of the Negro American.ĚýAmerican Journal of Public HealthĚý93(2):272–276. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.2.272.
39. El-Sabawi, T. 2019. The role of pressure groups and problem definition in crafting legislative solutions to the opioid crisis.ĚýNortheastern University Law ReviewĚý11(1):372-400. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3460109.
40. Engel, G. L. 1977. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine.ĚýScienceĚý196(4286):129–136. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460.
41. Erdem, G., and M. R. Kaufman. 2020.ĚýMentoring for preventing and reducing substance use and associated risks among youth.ĚýBoston, MA: National Mentoring Resource Center. Available at: https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Mentoring_for_Preventing_and_Reducing_Substance_Use_and_Associated_Risks_Among_Youth_Outcome_Review.pdf (accessed October 11, 2022).
42. Fricton, J., K. Anderson, A. Clavel, R. Fricton, K. Hathaway, W. Kang, B. Jaeger, W. Maixner, D. Pesut, J. Russell, M. B. Weisberg, and R. Whitebird. 2015. Preventing chronic pain: a human systems approach–results from a massive open online course.ĚýGlobal Advances in Health and MedicineĚý4(5):23–32. https://doi.org/10.7453/gahmj.2015.048.
43. Gainsbury, S. 2016. Cultural competence in the treatment of addictions: theory, practice and evidence.ĚýClinical Psychology & PsychotherapyĚý24(4):987–1001. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2062.
44. Galea, S., A. Nandi, and D. Vlahov. 2004. The social epidemiology of substance use.ĚýEpidemiologic ReviewĚý26(1):36–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxh007.
45. Geller, A., J. Fagan, T. Tyler, and B. G. Link. 2014. Aggressive policing and the mental health of young urban men.ĚýAmerican Journal of Public HealthĚý104(12):2321–2327. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.302046.
46. Ghose, R., A. M. Forati, and J. R. Mantsch. 2022. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid overdose deaths: a spatiotemporal analysis.ĚýJournal of Urban HealthĚý99(2):316–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-022-00610-0.
47. Glass, T. A., and M. J. McAtee. 2006. Behavioral science at the crossroads in public health: extending horizons, envisioning the future.ĚýSocial Science & MedicineĚý62(7):1650–1671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.044.
48. Global Commission on Drug Policy. 2011.ĚýWar on drugs: report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy.ĚýGeneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GCDP_WaronDrugs_EN.pdf (accessed April 28, 2022).
49. Guarino, H., P. Mateu-Gelabert, K. Quinn, S. Sirikantraporn, K. V. Ruggles, C. Syckes, E. Goodbody, L. Jessell, and S. R. Friedman. 2021. Adverse childhood experiences predict early initiation of opioid use behaviors.ĚýFrontiers in SociologyĚý6:620395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.620395.
50. Harm Reduction International. 2020.ĚýThe global state of harm reduction: 2020, 7th Edition.ĚýLondon, UK: Harm Reduction International. Available at: https://hri.global/wpcontent/uploads/2022/10/Global_State_HRI_2020_BOOK_FA_Web-1.pdf (accessed July 12, 2023).
51. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., K. Keyes, A. Hamilton, M. Uddin, and S. Galea. 2015. The collateral damage of mass incarceration: risk of psychiatric morbidity among nonincarcerated residents of high-incarceration neighborhoods.ĚýAmerican Journal of Public HealthĚý105(1):138–143. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.302184.
52. Hawkins, J. D., R. F. Catalano, and J. Y. Miller. 1992. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention.ĚýPsychological BulletinĚý112(1):64–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.64.
53. Heilig, M., J. MacKillop, D. Martinez, J. Rehm, L. Leggio, and L. J. M. J. Vanderschuren. 2021. Addiction as a brain disease revised: why it still matters, and the need for consilience.ĚýNeuropsychopharmacologyĚý46(10):1715–1723. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-00950-y.
54. Herzberg, D., H. Guarino, P. Mateu-Gelabert, and A. S. Bennett. 2016. Recurring epidemic of pharmaceutical drug abuse in America: time for an all-drug strategy.ĚýAmerican Journal of Public HealthĚý106(3):408–410. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302982.
55. Holmboe, E., S. Singer, K. Chappell, K. Assadi, A. Salman, and the Education and Training Working Group of the National Academy of Medicine’s Action Collaborative on Countering the U.S. Opioid Epidemic. 2022. The 3Cs framework for pain and unhealthy substance use: minimum core competencies for interprofessional education and practice.ĚýNAM Perspectives.ĚýDiscussion Paper, National Academy of Medicine, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.31478/202206a.
56. Hood, C. M., K. P. Gennuso, G. R. Swain, and B. B. Catlin. 2016. County health rankings: relationships between determinant factors and health outcomes.ĚýAmerican Journal of Preventive MedicineĚý50(2):129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.024.
57. Husarewycz, M. N., R. El-Gabalawy, S. Logsetty, and J. Sareen. 2014. The association between number and type of traumatic life experiences and physical conditions in a nationally representative sample.ĚýGeneral Hospital PsychiatryĚý36(1):26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.06.003.
58. IDEA Exchange. n.d.ĚýThe Infectious Disease Elimination Act (IDEA Exchange): Reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis C through harm reduction.ĚýAvailable at: https://ideaexchangeflorida.org/ (accessed September 7, 2022).
59. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders, P. J. Mrazek, and R. J. Haggerty, eds. 1994.ĚýReducing the risks for mental disorders: frontiers for preventive intervention research.ĚýWashington, DC: National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/2139.
60. Ioannidis, J. P. A., N. R. Powe, and C. Yancy. 2021. Recalibrating the use of race in medical research.ĚýJAMAĚý325(7):623–624. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.0003.
61. Jalali, M. S., M. Botticelli, R. C. Hwang, H. K. Koh, and R. K. McHugh. 2020. The opioid crisis: a contextual, socialecological framework.ĚýHealth Research Policy and SystemsĚý18(1):87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00596-8.
62. Javed, Z., K. Burk, S. Facente, L. Pegram, A. Ali, and A. Asher. 2020.ĚýSyringe services programs: a technical package of effective strategies and approaches for planning, design, and implementation.ĚýAtlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/105304 (accessed April 13, 2022).
63. Jones, C. T., and S. F. Branco. 2021. Cultural considerations in addiction treatment: the application of cultural humility.ĚýAdvances in Addiction & Recovery,ĚýWinter. Available at: https://www.naadac.org/assets/2416/aa&r_winter2021_cultural_considerations_in_addiction_treatment.pdf (accessed May 17, 2023).
64. Jones-Eversley, S. D., and L. T. Dean. 2018. After 121 years, it’s time to recognize W.E.B. Du Bois as a founding father of social epidemiology.ĚýThe Journal of Negro EducationĚý87(3):230–245. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.87.3.0230.
65. Kleber, H. D. 2008. Methadone maintenance 4 decades later.ĚýJAMAĚý300(19):2303–2305. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.648.
66. Krieger, N., D. Dorling, and G. McCartney. 2012. Mapping injustice, visualizing equity: why theory, metaphors and images matter in tackling inequalities.ĚýPublic HealthĚý126(3):256–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2012.01.028.
67. Kroenke, K., D. P. Alford, C. Argoff, B. Canlas, E. Covington, J. W. Frank, K. J. Haake, S. Hanling, W. M. Hooten, S. G. Kertesz, R. L. Kravitz, E. E. Krebs, S. P. Stanos Jr., and M. Sullivan. 2019. Challenges with implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opioid guideline: a consensus panel report.ĚýPain MedicineĚý20(4):724–735. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pny307.
68. Latimore A. D., E. Schoyer, S. Mossburg, B. Kellett, T. Derrington, K. Caglayan, and D. Lin. In press. A public health approach to preventing intergenerational transmission of substance use disorder: applying a social determinants of health framework to child welfare and across systems.ĚýChild Welfare.
69. Leavell, H. R., and E. G. Clark. 1965.ĚýPreventive medicine for the doctor in his community: an epidemiologic approach, 3rd ed.ĚýNew York: McGraw Hill.
70. Leshner, A. I. 1997. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters.ĚýScienceĚý278(5335):45–47. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5335.45.
71. Link, B. G., and J. Phelan. 1995. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease.ĚýJournal of Health and Social Behavior (extra issue):80–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2626958.
72. Macintyre, S., and A. Ellaway. 2003. Neighborhoods and health: an overview. InĚýNeighborhoods and Health, 1st ed.,Ěýedited by I. Kawachi and L. F. Berkman. Oxford, UK: Oxford Academic. pp. 20–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195138382.003.0002.
73. Masten, C., J. Lombardi, and P. Fisher. 2021.ĚýHelping families meet basic needs enables parents to promote children’s health growth, development.ĚýWashington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Available at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/helping-families-meet-basic-needs-enables-parents-to-promote (accessed October 7, 2022).
74. Merrin, G. J., M. E. Ames, C. Sturgess, and B. J. Leadbeater. 2020. Disruption of transitions in high-risk substance use from adolescence to young adulthood: school, employment, and romantic relationship factors.ĚýSubstance Use & MisuseĚý55(7):1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2020.1729200.
75. Milligan, K., and M. Stabile. n.d.ĚýDo child tax benefits affect the well-being of children? Evidence from Canadian child benefit expansions.ĚýVancouver and Toronto, Canada. Available at: https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/pep/pep01.pdf (accessed April 11, 2022).
76. Mistler, C. B., M. C. Sullivan, M. M. Copenhaver, J. P. Meyer, A. M. Roth, S. V. Shenoi, E. J. Edelman, J. A. Wickersham, and R. Shrestha. 2021. Differential impacts of COVID-19 across racial-ethnic identities in persons with opioid use disorder.ĚýJournal of Substance Abuse TreatmentĚý129:108387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108387.
77. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019.ĚýThe promise of adolescence: realizing opportunity for all youth.ĚýWashington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25388.
78. National Center for Health Statistics. n.d.ĚýCDC WONDER, multiple cause of death (detailed mortality) – national drug overdose (OD) deaths, 1999-2021 (data file).ĚýAvailable at: https://nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Overdose_data_1999-2021%201.19.23.xlsx (accessed March 24, 2023).
79. National Harm Reduction Coalition. 2020.ĚýGetting off right: a safety manual for injection drug users.ĚýNew York. Available at: https://harmreduction.org/issues/saferdrug-use/injection-safety-manual/(accessed September 7, 2022).
80. National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2017.ĚýNaloxone for opioid overdose: life-saving science.ĚýGaithersburg, MD. Available at: https://nida.nih.gov/publications/naloxoneopioid-overdose-life-saving-science (accessed May 17, 2023).
81. National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. 2017.ĚýNIMHD research framework.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.nimhd.nih.gov/about/overview/research-framework/nimhd-framework.html (accessed June 5, 2023).
82. NEXT Distro. n.d.ĚýHome.ĚýAvailable at: https://nextdistro.org/ (accessed July 12, 2023).
83. Nunn, K. B. 2002. Race, Crime and the pool of surplus criminality: or why the “war on drugs” was a “war on Blacks.”ĚýThe Journal of Gender, Race & JusticeĚý6:381–445. Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=facultypub (accessed May 17, 2023).
84. Nutt D. J., L. A. King, and L. D. Phillips on behalf of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. 2010. Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis.ĚýThe LancetĚý376(9752):P1558–P1565. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61462-6.
85. Office of Minority Health. n.d.ĚýNational standards for culturally and linguistically appropriate services (CLAS) in health and health care.ĚýRockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: https://thinkculturalhealth.hhs.gov/assets/pdfs/EnhancedNationalCLASStandards.pdf (accessed September 7, 2022).
86. Office of the Surgeon General. 2016.ĚýFacing addiction in America: the surgeon general’s report on alcohol, drugs, and health.ĚýWashington, DC. Available at: https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-generals-report.pdf (accessed May 16, 2023).
87. Olsen, Y. 2022. What is addiction? History, terminology, and core concepts.ĚýMedical Clinics of North AmericaĚý106(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2021.08.001.
88. Park, J. N., S. Rouhani, L. Beletsky, L. Vincent, B. Saloner, and S. G. Sherman. 2020. Situating the continuum of overdose risk in the social determinants of health: a new conceptual framework.ĚýThe Milbank QuarterlyĚý98(3):700–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12470.
89. Powerful Voices. n.d.ĚýHome.ĚýAvailable at: https://www.powerfulvoices.org/ (accessed September 7, 2022).
90. Racine, E., S. Sattler, and A. Escande. 2017. Free will and the brain disease model of addiction: the not so seductive allure of neuroscience and its modest impact on the attribution of free will to people with an addiction.ĚýFrontiers in PsychologyĚý8:1850. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01850.
91. Reinarman, C., and H. G. Levine, eds. 1997.ĚýCrack in America: demon drugs and social justice.ĚýBerkeley, CA: University of California Press.
92. Roberts, D. 2012.ĚýFatal invention: how science, politics, and big business re-create race in the twenty-first century.ĚýNew York: The New Press.
93. Rosino, M. L., and M. W. Hughey. 2018. The war on drugs, racial meanings, and structural racism: a holistic and reproductive approach.ĚýThe American Journal of Economics and SociologyĚý77(3–4):849–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12228.
94. Roux, P., C. Donadille, C. Magen, E. Schatz, R. Stranz, A.Curado, T. Tsiakou, L. Verdes, A. Aleksova, P. Carrieri. S. Mezaache. B. Charif Ali, and the Eurosider Study Group. 2021. Implementation and evaluation of an educational intervention for safer injection in people who inject drugs in Europe: a multi-country mixed-methods study.ĚýInternational Journal of Drug PolicyĚý87:102992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102992.
95. Sandstrom, H. and S. Huerta. 2013.ĚýThe negative effects of instability on child development: a research synthesis.ĚýWashington, DC: Urban Institute. Available at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/32706/412899-The-Negative-Effects-of-Instability-on-Child-Development-A-Research-Synthesis.PDF (accessed October 7, 2022).
96. Schmidt, R. A., R. Genois, J. Jin, D. Vigo, J. Rehm, and B. Rush. 2021. The early impact of COVID-19 on the incidence, prevalence, and severity of alcohol use and other drugs: a systematic review.ĚýDrug and Alcohol DependenceĚý228(109065). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109065.
97. Shepard, E., and P. R. Blackley. 2004. U.S. drug control policies: federal spending on law enforcement versus treatment in public health outcomes.ĚýJournal of Drug IssuesĚý34(4):771–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204260403400403.
98. SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). 2020a.ĚýThe opioid crisis and the Black/African American population: an urgent issue.ĚýRockville, MD. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/product/The-Opioid-Crisis-and-the-Black-African-American-Population-An-Urgent-Issue/PEP20-05-02-001 (accessed April 28, 2022).
99. SAMHSA. 2020b.ĚýKey substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.ĚýRockville, MD. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/product/key-substance-useand-mental-health-indicators-in-the-united-states-results-from-the-2019-national-survey-on-Drug-Use-and-Health/PEP20-07-01-001?referer=from_search_result (accessed March 31, 2021).
100. SAMHSA. 2015.ĚýUsing fear messages and scare tactics in substance abuse prevention efforts.ĚýRockville, MD. Available at: https://www.riprc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/fear-messages-prevention-efforts.pdf (accessed August 22, 2023).
101. SAMHSA. 2014a.ĚýTrauma-informed care in behavioral health services.ĚýHHS publication no. (SMA) 13-4801. Rockville, MD. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/sma14-4816.pdf (accessed April 12, 2022).
102. SAMHSA. 2014b.ĚýImproving cultural competence. Treatment Improvement Protocol Series no. 59.ĚýHHS publication no. (SMA) 14-4849. Rockville, MD. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/sma14-4849.pdf (accessed April 12, 2022).
103. Szalavitz, M. 2016.ĚýUnbroken brain: a revolutionary new way of understanding addiction.ĚýNew York: St. Martin’s Press.
104. Tsai, A. C., M. V. Kiang, M. L. Barnett, L. Beletsky, K. M. Keyes, E. E. McGinty, L. R. Smith, S. A. Strathdee, S. E. Wakeman, and A. S. Venkataramani. 2019. Stigma as a fundamental hindrance to the United States opioid overdose crisis response.ĚýPLOS MedicineĚý16(11):e1002969–e1002969. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002969.
105. University of Georgia, Center for Family Research. n.d.ĚýStrong African American Families Program.ĚýAvailable at: https://cfr.uga.edu/saaf-programs/saaf/ (accessed September 7, 2022).
106. Virchow, R. 1848. Der Armenarzt.ĚýMedicinische ReformĚý18:125-127.
107. Volkow, N. D., and M. Boyle. 2018. Neuroscience of addiction: relevance to prevention and treatment.ĚýAmerican Journal of PsychiatryĚý175(8):729–740. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17101174.
108. Volkow, N. D., and A. T. McLellan. 2016. Opioid abuse in chronic pain—misconceptions and mitigation strategies.ĚýNew England Journal of MedicineĚý374:1253–1263. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1507771.
109. Vowles, K. E., M. L. McEntee, P. S. Julnes, T. Frohe, J. P. Ney, and D. N. van der Goes. 2015. Rates of opioid misuse, abuse, and addiction in chronic pain: a systematic review and data synthesis.ĚýPainĚý156(4):569–576. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.j.pain.0000460357.01998.f1.
110. Wagner, K. D., L. Liu, P. J. Davidson, J. Cuevas-Mota, R. F. Armenta, and R. S. Garfein. 2015. Association between non-fatal opioid overdose and encounters with healthcare and criminal justice systems: identifying opportunities for intervention.ĚýDrug and Alcohol DependenceĚý153:215–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.05.026.
111. Wailoo, K. 2014.ĚýPain: a political history.ĚýBaltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
112. Weintraub, W. S., S. R. Daniels, L. E. Burke, B. A. Franklin, D. C. Goff Jr., L. L. Hayman, D. Lloyd-Jones, D. K. Pandey, E. J. Sanchez, A. P. Schram, and L. P. Whitsel. 2011. Value of primordial and primary prevention for cardiovascular disease: a policy statement from the American Heart Association.ĚýCirculationĚý124(8):967–990. https://doi.org/10.116/CIR.0b013e3182285a8.
113. Yang, C., J. Favaro, and M. C. Meacham. 2021. NEXT Harm Reduction: an online, mail-based naloxone distribution and harm-reduction program.ĚýAmerican Journal of Public HealthĚý111(4):667–671. https://doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2020.306124.
114. Yoast, R. A., W. J. Filstead, B. B. Wilford, S. Hayashi, J. Reenan, and J. Epstein. 2008. Teaching about substance abuse.ĚýVirtual MentorĚý10(1):21–29. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2008.10.1.medu1-0801.