Adaptation of the Tele-Harm Reduction intervention to promote initiation and retention in buprenorphine treatment among people who inject drugs: a retrospective cohort study

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of participants in the adapted Tele-Harm Reduction pilot (n = 109).

Characteristic	Total sample
Age (median, IQR)	38 (30–46)
Biological sex (n,%)
Male	82 (75.9)
Female	26 (24.1)
Race/ethnicity (n,%)
Non-Hispanic White	54 (49.5)
Non-Hispanic Black	16 (14.7)
Hispanic	39 (35.8)
Insurance status at enrolment (n,%)
Insured	12 (11.1)
Uninsured	85 (78.7)
Underinsured^a	11 (10.2)
Housing status at enrolment (n,%)
Stably housed	37 (34.3)
Unstably housed (in shelter)	39 (36.1)
Rough sleeping (street)^b	32 (29.6)
IDEA SSP participant (n,%)
Yes	65 (61.3)
No	41 (38.7)
Substance use at baseline
Methamphetamine/amphetamine	22 (20.2)
Cocaine	48 (44.0)
Buprenorphine	32 (29.4)
MDMA	11 (10.1)
‘Molly’	7 (6.4)
Fentanyl	78 (71.6)
Heroin	15 (13.8)
Marijuana	36 (33.0)
Alcohol	16 (14.7)
Benzodiazepine	19 (17.4)
HIV status (n = 85) (n,%)
Positive	5 (5.9)
Negative	80 (94.1)
HCV Ab status (n = 89) (n,%)
Positive	35 (39.3)
Negative	54 (60.7)
Starting buprenorphine dose (n,%)
8 mg	6 (5.7)
16 mg	72 (67.9)
24 mg	23 (21.7)
32 mg	1 (1.9)
Retained at three months (n,%)
Yes	64 (58.7)
No	45 (41.3)

^aInsurance did not cover or did not approve prior authorisation for buprenorphine.

^bRough sleeping was defined as anyone who was living/sleeping on the streets or in public areas.

Table 2. Demographic and tele-harm reduction component comparisons between those retained and not retained in buprenorphine treatment at three months.

Characteristic	Retained at three months (n = 64)	Not retained at three months (n = 45)	p Value
Age (n,%)			.91
< =29 years old	12 (60.0)	8 (40.0)
30–39 years old	22 (56.4)	17 (43.6)
40–59 years old	27 (58.7)	19 (41.3)
> =60	3 (75.0)	1 (25.0)
Biological sex (n,%)			.32
Male	50 (61.0)	32 (39.0)
Female	13 (50.0)	13 (50.0)
Race/ethnicity (n,%)			.61
Non-Hispanic White	34 (63.0)	20 (37.0)
Non-Hispanic Black	8 (50.0)	8 (50.0)
Hispanic	22 (56.4)	17 (43.6)
Insurance status at enrolment (n,%)			.03
Insured	7 (63.6)	4 (36.4)
Uninsured	42 (51.9)	39 (48.2)
Underinsured	14 (87.5)	2 (12.5)
Housing status at enrolment (n,%)			.13
Stably housed	20 (54.1)	17 (46.0)
Unstably housed (in shelter)	28 (71.8)	11 (28.2)
Rough sleeping (street)	16 (50.0)	16 (50.0)
IDEA SSP participant (n,%)	40 (61.5)	25 (38.5)	.47
Stimulant use at baseline	27 (46.6)	31 (53.5)	<.01
Saw provider via Telehealth in first three months (n,%)	54 (75.0)	18 (25.0)	<.01
Escalated buprenorphine dose post baseline (n,%)	26 (86.7)	4 (13.8)	<.01

Table 3. Adjusted logistic regression model assessing the impact of Tele-Harm Reduction for buprenorphine treatment on three-month retention.

Characteristic	aOR	95% CI
Age	0.99	0.95, 1.05
Biological sex
Male	2.45	0.60, 9.99
Female	Ref	Ref
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic Black	0.48	0.09, 2.47
Hispanic	0.84	0.23, 3.04
Non-Hispanic White	Ref	Ref
Insurance status at enrolment
Uninsured	0.39	0.07, 2.09
Underinsured	4.71	0.37, 59.69
Insured	Ref	Ref
Housing status at enrolment
Unstably Housed (in shelter)	2.43	0.60, 9.83
Rough sleeping (street)	1.33	0.28, 6.34
Stably Housed	Ref	Ref
Stimulant use at baseline
Yes	0.29	0.09, 0.93
No	Ref	Ref
Escalated buprenorphine dose post baseline
Yes	8.09	1.83, 35.87
No	Ref	Ref
Saw provider via Telehealth in first three months
Yes	7.53	2.36, 23.98
No	Ref	Ref

Note. Bolded represents a p value <.05.

Data availability statement

Data are not publicly available but may be accessed upon request.