A Cross-Sectional Survey of Potential Factors, Motivations, and Barriers Influencing Research Participation and Retention among People Who Use Drugs in the Rural USA

BACKGROUND: Despite high morbidity and mortality among people who use drugs (PWUD) in rural America, most research is conducted within urban areas. Our objective was to describe influencing factors, motivations, and barriers to research participation and retention among rural PWUD. METHODS: We recruited 255 eligible participants from community outreach and community-based, epidemiologic research cohorts from April to July 2019 to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Eligible participants reported opioid or injection drug use to get high within 30 days and resided in high-needs rural counties in Oregon, Kentucky, and Ohio. We aggregated response rankings to identify salient influences, motivations, and barriers. We estimated prevalence ratios to assess for gender, preferred drug use, and geographic differences using log-binomial models. RESULTS: Most participants were male (55%) and preferred methamphetamine (36%) over heroin (35%). Participants reported confidentiality, amount of financial compensation, and time required as primary influential factors for research participation. Primary motivations for participation include financial compensation, free HIV/HCV testing, and contribution to research. Changed or false participant contact information and transportation are principal barriers to retention. Respondents who prefer methamphetamines over heroin reported being influenced by the purpose and use of their information (PR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.26). Females and Oregonians (versus Appalachians) reported knowing and wanting to help the research team as participation motivation (PR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.26 and PR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.99). CONCLUSIONS: Beyond financial compensation, researchers should emphasize confidentiality, offer testing and linkage with care, use several contact methods, aid transportation, and accommodate demographic differences to improve research participation and retention among rural PWUD

flu eni ofWeb Accessibilitq Hnowledqe and Needs Communitql Colleges

Accessible Web design techniques help make equal educational opportunities a reality for students with disabilities. Through accessibleWeb design, a student with a visual impairment has access to text descriptions of visual information, and a student who is deaf can access the spoken content of a streaming video through captioning. Students with limitations in manual dexterity can use an adaptive keyboard or other input device to navigate through interface elements on an accessible Web site. By providing accessible content onWeb sites, instructors avoid the need for expensive individual accommodations and ensure that students have access to instructional materials at the same time as their peers. By providing an accessible Web site, a community college is more likely to provide full access to equal educational opportunities for students both with and without disabilities. While the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the U.S. Office ofEducation'

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Potential Factors, Motivations, and Barriers Influencing Research Participation and Retention among People Who Use Drugs in the Rural USA

Background: Despite high morbidity and mortality among people who use drugs (PWUD) in rural America, most research is conducted within urban areas. Our objective was to describe influencing factors, motivations, and barriers to research participation and retention among rural PWUD. Methods: We recruited 255 eligible participants from community outreach and community-based, epidemiologic research cohorts from April to July 2019 to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Eligible participants reported opioid or injection drug use to get high within 30 days and resided in high-needs rural counties in Oregon, Kentucky, and Ohio. We aggregated response rankings to identify salient influences, motivations, and barriers. We estimated prevalence ratios to assess for gender, preferred drug use, and geographic differences using log-binomial models. Results: Most participants were male (55%) and preferred methamphetamine (36%) over heroin (35%). Participants reported confidentiality, amount of financial compensation, and time required as primary influential factors for research participation. Primary motivations for participation include financial compensation, free HIV/HCV testing, and contribution to research. Changed or false participant contact information and transportation are principal barriers to retention. Respondents who prefer methamphetamines over heroin reported being influenced by the purpose and use of their information (PR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.26). Females and Oregonians (versus Appalachians) reported knowing and wanting to help the research team as participation motivation (PR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.26 and PR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.99). Conclusions: Beyond financial compensation, researchers should emphasize confidentiality, offer testing and linkage with care, use several contact methods, aid transportation, and accommodate demographic differences to improve research participation and retention among rural PWUD

HIV Clinic-Based Buprenorphine Plus Naloxone Versus Referral for Methadone Maintenance Therapy for Treatment of opioid Use Disorder in HIV clinics in Vietnam (BRAVO): an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial

Background UNAIDS recommends integrating methadone or buprenorphine treatment of opioid use disorder with HIV care to improve HIV outcomes, but buprenorphine adoption remains limited in many countries. We aimed to assess whether HIV clinic-based buprenorphine plus naloxone treatment for opioid use disorder was non-inferior to referral for methadone maintenance therapy in achieving HIV viral suppression in Vietnam. Methods In an open-label, non-inferiority trial (BRAVO), we randomly assigned people with HIV and opioid use disorder (1:1) by computer-generated random number sequence, in blocks of ten and stratified by site, to receive HIV clinic-based buprenorphine plus naloxone treatment or referral for methadone maintenance therapy in six HIV clinics in Vietnam. The primary outcome was HIV viral suppression at 12 months (HIV-1 RNA ≤200 copies per mL on PCR) by intention to treat (absolute risk difference [RD] margin ≤13%), compared by use of generalised estimating equations. Research staff actively queried treatment-emergent adverse events during quarterly study visits and passively collected adverse events reported during HIV clinic visits. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01936857, and is completed. Findings Between July 27, 2015, and Feb 12, 2018, we enrolled 281 patients. At baseline, 272 (97%) participants were male, mean age was 38·3 years (SD 6·1), and mean CD4 count was 405 cells per μL (SD 224). Viral suppression improved between baseline and 12 months for both HIV clinic-based buprenorphine plus naloxone (from 97 [69%] of 140 patients to 74 [81%] of 91 patients) and referral for methadone maintenance therapy (from 92 [66%] of 140 to 99 [93%] of 107). Buprenorphine plus naloxone did not demonstrate non-inferiority to methadone maintenance therapy in achieving viral suppression at 12 months (RD −0·11, 95% CI −0·20 to −0·02). Retention on medication at 12 months was lower for buprenorphine plus naloxone than for methadone maintenance therapy (40% vs 65%; RD −0·53, 95% CI −0·75 to −0·31). Participants assigned to buprenorphine plus naloxone more frequently experienced serious adverse events (ten [7%] of 141 vs four of 140 [3%] assigned to methadone maintenance therapy) and deaths (seven of 141 [5%] vs three of 141 [2%]). Serious adverse events and deaths typically occurred in people no longer taking ART or opioid use disorder medications. Interpretation Although integrated buprenorphine and HIV care may potentially increase access to treatment for opioid use disorder, scale-up in middle-income countries might require enhanced support for buprenorphine adherence to improve HIV viral suppression. The strength of our study as a multisite randomised trial was offset by low retention of patients on buprenorphine