Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Availability of telehealth-based services at syringe services programs under the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency

Harm Reduction Journal volume 20, Article number: 122 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

The expanded capacity of syringe services programs (SSPs) in the USA to integrate telehealth services was largely related to flexibility of buprenorphine prescription in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. SSPs demonstrated the potential of using telehealth to reach participants with both medical and non-medical services. The present study examines the implementation of medical and non-medical telehealth-based health services in 2020 at SSPs in the USA and organizational characteristics associated with adopting specific telehealth services.

Methods

We administered a cross-sectional survey among all known SSPs operating in the USA as of 2021. The two primary study outcomes were (1) implementation of medical telehealth and (2) implementation of non-medical telehealth in 2020. Medical services included HIV counseling/care, hepatitis C virus (HCV) counseling/care, and buprenorphine. Non-medical services included wellbeing/check-ins, overdose prevention training, health navigation, harm reduction and psychological counseling. Bivariate and multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were used to directly estimate the odds ratio associated with organizational characteristics on the implementation of telehealth-based health services.

Results

Thirty percent of programs (n = 290) reported implementing telehealth-based health services. In multivariable logistic regression models, community-based organization SSPs had higher odds of implementing medical (aOR = 4.69, 95% CI [1.96, 11.19]) and non-medical (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI [1.10, 4.31]) health services compared to public health department SSPs. SSPs that received governmental funding had higher odds of implementing medical services via telehealth (aOR = 2.45, 95% CI [1.35, 4.47]) compared to programs without governmental funding.

Conclusion

Community-based organization SSPs and those with government funding had the highest odds of telehealth implementation in response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. Federal, state, and local governments must increase funding for low-barrier venues like SSPs to support telehealth implementation to serve the needs of people who use drugs.

Introduction

The overdose mortality crisis in the USA culminated in 106,669 drug overdose deaths in 2021 [1, 2]. Social instability, interruption of drug markets, and adulteration of the drug supply exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically shifted the risk landscape for people who use drugs [3]. At the programmatic level, syringe services programs (SSPs) felt the impact on their ability to deliver interventions for people who inject drugs (PWID) and link people to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment [4,5,6,7,8]. Together, these dynamics increased the risk of HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) outbreaks and synergistically contributed to the highest number of overdose fatalities occurring in a 12-month period in the USA to date [1] .

SSPs are evidence-based, indispensable public health programs that undertake all four pillars (Diagnose, Treat, Prevent, and Respond) of the Ending the HIV Epidemic Initiative [9]. Beyond provision of sterile drug equipment and naloxone, an SSP can also provide a comprehensive, culturally competent array of infectious disease and SUD services for PWID. This includes harm reduction counseling, psychological evaluation, HIV prevention, antiretroviral therapy, HCV treatment, and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) [10, 11] . Between 2015 and 2018, the number of SSPs in the USA increased rapidly [12, 13], growing to over 400 organizations [5]. SSPs have proved to be invaluable in reaching individuals who historically have had inadequate access to critical health interventions, including SUD treatment.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has been implemented and scaled-up to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission [14]. In response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, federal agencies adapted policies to allow for the use of telehealth across various health settings. Of note, the in-person requirements for buprenorphine prescription under the 2008 Ryan Haight Act were suspended and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rapidly instituted temporary rules and waivers to expand the scope of Medicare telehealth services in March 2020 [15,16,17]. This facilitated a rapid, large-scale implementation of telehealth programs, particularly in the treatment of mental health and SUD [17] across traditional and non-traditional settings, including SSPs [11, 18,19,20,21,22,23].

After the waiver of the Ryan Haight Act, our previous cross-sectional study found that a quarter of SSPs in the USA reported the implementation of telehealth buprenorphine services [20]. Results also revealed that certain SSP organizational characteristics (i.e., larger budgets and community-based SSPs) were associated with higher likelihood of telehealth buprenorphine implementation [20]. While the substantial rise of telehealth encounters at SSPs has enabled receipt of low-barrier buprenorphine services, it is unknown to what extent SSPs programmatically adapted other telehealth services to meet the medical and non-medical needs of their participants at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The expanded capacity of SSPs in the USA to integrate telehealth services was largely related to flexibility of MOUD prescription in response to the COVID-19 pandemic [15, 20]. But, SSPs also demonstrated the potential of using telehealth modalities to reach participants with other medical and non-medical services. Improved understanding of how general telehealth services were adapted across the USA in 2020 could facilitate future programmatic planning and implementation at SSPs, while also informing future policy. Enhanced accessibility and health equity for PWID, a community who have historically received disproportionately inadequate and fragmented care, could be achieved. Fortunately, in February 2023, the Drug Enforcement Agency proposed to make permanent changes to the rules adopted during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency for telehealth flexibilities [24] . The present study is thus a timely examination of the medical and non-medical telehealth-based health services implemented by SSPs in the USA in 2020 and organizational characteristics associated with adopting specific telehealth services.

Methods

Human subjects

This study was reviewed and approved by the Office of Research Protection at RTI International’s Institutional Review Board.

Study setting and design

We administered a cross-sectional survey among all known SSPs operating in the USA as of 2021. In collaboration with the North American Syringe Exchange Network (NASEN), we built a dataset of SSPs from multiple sources, including NASEN’s online directory and buyers’ program, regional networks of SSPs, public health department websites, social media platforms, webinars, and conferences. Our team proactively contacted SSPs to understand whether the SSPs were currently operating, and to identify updated contact information.

Data collection procedures

SSPs in the USA were recruited to complete an online survey (average completion took 35 min) between February and June 2021. SSPs within our dataset were sent an email invitation to complete the survey. Organizational directors were contacted up to two additional times via email with reminders to complete the survey. If programs were non-responsive, the study team reached out to each program individually via email and/or phone call. A financial incentive ($75 honorarium) was provided to each program that completed the survey. Survey responses were collected and stored using the Voxco platform (Voxco, Montreal, Canada).

Measures

Independent variables

Variables of interest for this present analysis included: type of SSP (public health department (PHD-SSP) vs. community-based organization (CBO-SSP)), census region where the SSP was located (West, South, Northeast, Midwest), annual budget (rounded to the nearest dollar), types of funding to support the SSP (governmental vs. no governmental), and number of different sources of funding (0, 1, 2, 3,  >  = 4).

Primary outcomes

There were two primary study outcomes of interest for this present analysis: (1) whether an SSP had newly implemented a medical, telehealth-based health service in 2020 and (2) whether an SSP had newly implemented a non-medical, telehealth-based health service in 2020. Medical services included HIV status counseling, HIV medical care, HCV status counseling, HCV medical care, and buprenorphine prescription. Whether or not status counseling included self-administered rapid tests was not queried. Non-medical services included wellbeing/check-ins, overdose prevention training, health navigation, harm reduction counseling, and psychological counseling. Telehealth was defined as providing a health-related service or information for SSP participants via phone, tablet, or computer. Data were collected and analyzed as a binary outcome (yes/no).

Statistical analysis

Frequency distributions and percentages were calculated for categorical variables and median and interquartile ranges were calculated for continuous variables to describe the overall characteristics of the sample. Bivariate and multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were used to directly estimate the odds ratio associated with organizational characteristics on the implementation of telehealth-based health services. The census division where the SSP operated (South Atlantic, Middle Atlantic, New England, East North Central, East South Central, West South Central, West North Central, Mountain, and Pacific) was included in the adjusted models as a random effect to account for within cluster correlation. Results were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA) and significance level was set at an alpha of 0.05.

Results

Of the 431 operating SSPs, 324 completed the survey. We excluded 34 programs from the analytic sample due to missing data regarding telehealth-based health service implementation. The final analytic sample was comprised of 290 SSPs. A majority of programs were CBO-SSPs (56.7%), but a majority also reported received some form of governmental funding (73.1%; Table 1). In addition, almost half were operating in the West census region (46.2%). About one-third (30.0%) of programs reported implementing a telehealth-based health service in 2020; specifically, 23.1% reported implementing a medical service and 27.9% reported implementing a non-medical service via telehealth. The most common telehealth-based interventions reported were harm reduction counseling (21.7%), overdose prevention training (19.7%), and health navigation/case management (19.0%), which are notably all non-medical services. Among medical services, specifically, the most common telehealth-based interventions reported were buprenorphine/Suboxone (16.9%), HIV status counseling (10.7%), and HCV status counseling (10.3%).

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of SSPs (N = 290)
Full size table

In multivariable logistic regression models, CBO-SSPs had higher odds of having implemented medical (aOR = 4.69, 95% CI [1.96, 11.19]) and non-medical (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI [1.10, 4.31]) services via telehealth as compared to PHD-SSPs (Table 2). For medical interventions via telehealth, SSPs that received governmental funding (federal, state, or local) had higher odds of having implemented medical interventions via telehealth (aOR = 2.45, 95% CI [1.35, 4.47]) compared to programs who did not receive governmental funding. In addition, the Northeast Census region had higher odds of having implemented medical interventions via telehealth (aOR = 4.29, 95% CI [1.79, 10.31]) compared to the West Census region. For non-medical interventions, the Northeast (aOR = 6.67, 95% CI [2.28, 19.52]), the South (aOR = 3.90, 95% CI [1.28, 11.80]), and the Midwest (aOR = 3.37, 95% CI [1.13, 10.02]) had higher odds of having implemented non-medical telehealth services compared to the West.

Table 2 Association of SSP operational characteristics with availability of medical and non-medical telehealth-based health services in 2020
Full size table

Discussion

We found that in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, 30% of SSPs newly implemented medical and/or non-medical services via telehealth. The recent rise of telehealth co-located at SSPs has expanded the diversity of services PWID can receive in this context with only 6% of SSPs offering telehealth-based services in 2019 [5] . One programmatic survey noted escalated telehealth delivery of primary care and mental health care across SSPs [5]. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, an SSP in New Haven, Connecticut harnessed telehealth in combination with bundled laboratory analyses to screen and treat PWID with HCV, resulting in 93.5% of PWID with sustained virologic response [25, 26]. These auspicious results, combined with our findings that CBO-SSPs were more likely to implement medical telehealth, present a new implementation strategy to bring high quality HIV and HCV care to traditionally marginalized communities.

Our results show that CBO-SSPs, presumably with fewer regulations than PHD-SSPs operating within governmental bureaucracies, had higher odds of having adopted telehealth for medical and non-medical services. However, programs that received governmental funding, perhaps a reflection of program maturity as well as government sanctioned operations [27], also had higher odds of having implemented telehealth for medical services compared to those without government funding. Our results show that SSPs operating with government funding, independent of the significant barriers of governmental institutional bureaucracy, were early adopters of telehealth services. This finding suggests that local, state, and federal governments should increase funding to SSPs, as it could facilitate provision of telehealth services to vulnerable and hard to reach populations.

As a region, the Northeast had the highest odds of having implemented telehealth, followed by the South. It is notable that the most commonly implemented telehealth services in 2020 were harm reduction counseling, overdose prevention training and health navigation/case management, which are all non-medical services that do not require a licensed clinician. It is possible that the scale of the opioid overdose mortality crisis contributed to increased priority of overdose education in telehealth implementation. While medical telehealth offered via SSPs is a new way to bring medical services to a community that has largely been left behind, non-medical telehealth is a new approach that could extend the reach of harm reduction into more communities. A non-medical telehealth harm reduction model could have significant potential to scale harm reduction services into more diverse locations until harm reduction organizations and SSPs are established in all geographic areas of need.

Early adoption of telehealth services in response to the pandemic could be a transformational change for SSPs, a historically limited resource setting [28]. As the traditional healthcare system continues to be an inhospitable environment for PWID due to pervasive stigma and numerous structural barriers [29, 30], SSPs have emerged as ideal venues for provision of comprehensive PWID-specific healthcare including buprenorphine, PrEP, HIV treatment, HCV treatment and primary care [25, 31,32,33,34]. SSPs have shown they can provide access to technology-based solutions for their participants [35,36,37] and have emerged as a potential one-stop shop for PWID healthcare needs.

Telehealth serves as a critical adaptation of the physician–patient encounter to deliver lifesaving treatments in low-barrier settings and at destigmatizing venues. Some well-resourced SSPs with clinicians on-site already provide a range of health services such as HIV/HCV testing [38], linkage to and/or on-site provision of substance use treatment [39, 40] , HIV care [31] , HCV treatment [41] , MOUD [32] , PrEP [42] , overdose prevention through naloxone distribution [43, wound care and general primary care [44 . Yet, this in-person model is more expensive and difficult to scale for all hours an SSP operates and in certain locations, such as rural areas. An increase in the use of telehealth, facilitated by equipment and Wi-Fi at the SSP to overcome the digital divide [45,46,47], could enable PWID who frequent these venues to have increased access to on-demand health services including primary care, infectious disease services, mental health services, etc. [48]. Large hybrid effectiveness-implementation trials [49] will be necessary to determine effective telehealth-based models at SSPs and to understand implementation considerations in these resource limited settings.

There are several potential limitations to this study that need to be considered when interpreting the results. First, this cross-sectional survey only describes use of telehealth in the first year of the pandemic. Follow-up assessments as part of the National Survey of Syringe Services Programs [49] will be essential to monitor trends in the use of telehealth at SSPs. Second, this survey does not include responses from all SSPs in the USA. While we achieved a 75% response rate of known SSPs operating throughout the USA, it is possible that smaller, less resourced programs were unable to participate in our survey and there could be other SSPs that we have yet to identify. However, the SSP database that we have developed in partnership with the North American Syringe Exchange Network is the most comprehensive database of SSPs in the USA. Finally, all data are self-reported and could be subject to social desirability bias, though the research team is well known to SSPs nationwide. Nonetheless, this important study highlights the ability of SSPs operating in collaboration with the traditional healthcare system to adapt expeditiously to a Public Health Emergency by providing remote, telehealth-based provision of services.

Conclusion

CBO-SSPs and those that received some government funding had the highest odds of having implemented telehealth-based services in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. Federal, state, and local governments must increase funding for SSPs, particularly non-governmental programs, to allow for SSPs to continue to adapt dynamically to the needs of PWID in the provision of medical and non-medical services. These low-barrier settings are ideal venues to deliver lifesaving services such as HIV care, PrEP, HCV treatment, and buprenorphine, leveraging their trust among PWID to improve health outcomes in this community during the new telehealth era.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from Barrot H. Lambdin on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

aOR:

Adjusted odds ratios

CI:

Confidence intervals

CBO-SSP:

Community-based organization syringe services program

HCV:

Hepatitis C virus

MOUD:

Medication for opioid use disorder

NASEN:

North American Syringe Exchange Network

OUD:

Opioid use disorder

PHD-SSP:

Public health department syringe services program

PWID:

People who inject drugs

SSP:

Syringe services program

SUD:

Substance use disorder

USA:

United States of America

References

  1. Spencer MR, Miniño AM, Warner M. Drug overdose deaths in the United States, 2001–2021. NCHS Data Brief, no 457. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2022.

  2. Fund TC. Overdose deaths declined but remained near record levels during the first nine months of 2022 as states cope with synthetic opioids 2023 [Available from: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2023/overdose-deaths-declined-remained-near-record-levels-during-first-nine-months-2022-states.

  3. Imtiaz S, Nafeh F, Russell C, Ali F, Elton-Marshall T, Rehm J. The impact of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on drug overdose-related deaths in the United States and Canada: a systematic review of observational studies and analysis of public health surveillance data. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2021;16(1):87.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartholomew TS, Nakamura N, Metsch LR, Tookes HE. Syringe services program (SSP) operational changes during the COVID-19 global outbreak. Int J Drug Policy. 2020;83:102821.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Behrends CN, Lu X, Corry GJ, LaKosky P, Prohaska SM, Glick SN, et al. Harm reduction and health services provided by syringe services programs in 2019 and subsequent impact of COVID-19 on services in 2020. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;232:109323.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Frost MC, Sweek EW, Austin EJ, Corcorran MA, Juarez AM, Frank ND, et al. Program adaptations to provide harm reduction services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study of syringe services programs in the US. AIDS Behav. 2022;26(1):57–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Glick SN, Prohaska SM, LaKosky PA, Juarez AM, Corcorran MA, Des Jarlais DC. The impact of COVID-19 on syringe services programs in the United States. AIDS Behav. 2020;24(9):2466–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wenger LD, Kral AH, Bluthenthal RN, Morris T, Ongais L, Lambdin BH. Ingenuity and resiliency of syringe service programs on the front lines of the opioid overdose and COVID-19 crises. Transl Res. 2021;234:159–73.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Broz D, Carnes N, Chapin-Bardales J, Des Jarlais DC, Handanagic S, Jones CM, et al. Syringe services programs’ role in ending the HIV epidemic in the US: why we cannot do it without them. Am J Prev Med. 2021;61(5 Suppl 1):S118–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Castillo M, Ginoza MEC, Bartholomew TS, Forrest DW, Greven C, Serota DP, et al. When is an abscess more than an abscess? Syringe services programs and the harm reduction safety-net: a case report. Harm Reduct J. 2020;17(1):34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Jakubowski A, Norton BL, Hayes BT, Gibson BE, Fitzsimmons C, Stern LS, et al. Low-threshold buprenorphine treatment in a syringe services program: program description and outcomes. J Addict Med. 2022;16(4):447–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Des Jarlais DC, Feelemyer J, LaKosky P, Szymanowski K, Arasteh K. Expansion of Syringe service programs in the United States, 2015–2018. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(4):517–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lambdin BH, Bluthenthal RN, Wenger LD, Wheeler E, Garner B, Lakosky P, et al. Overdose education and naloxone distribution within syringe service programs - United States, 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(33):1117–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Garfan S, Alamoodi AH, Zaidan BB, Al-Zobbi M, Hamid RA, Alwan JK, et al. Telehealth utilization during the Covid-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Comput Biol Med. 2021;138:104878.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. DEA policy document. https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/GDP/(DEA-DC-022)(DEA068)%20DEA%20SAMHSA%20buprenorphine%20telemedicine%20%20(Final)%20+Esign.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2023.

  16. Davis CS, Samuels EA. Continuing increased access to buprenorphine in the United States via telemedicine after COVID-19. Int J Drug Policy. 2021;93:102905.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Early Impact Of CMS Expansion Of Medicare Telehealth During COVID-19, Health Affairs Blog, July 15, 2020.

  18. Clark SA, Davis C, Wightman RS, Wunsch C, Keeler LAJ, Reddy N, et al. Using telehealth to improve buprenorphine access during and after COVID-19: a rapid response initiative in Rhode Island. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;124:108283.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Guillen AG, Reddy M, Saadat S, Chakravarthy B. Utilization of telehealth solutions for patients with opioid use disorder using buprenorphine: a scoping review. Telemed J E Health. 2022;28(6):761–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lambdin BH, Bluthenthal RN, Tookes HE, Wenger L, Morris T, LaKosky P, et al. Buprenorphine implementation at syringe service programs following waiver of the ryan haight act in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;237:109504.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lambdin BH, Kan D, Kral AH. Improving equity and access to buprenorphine treatment through telemedicine at syringe services programs. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2022;17(1):51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang L, Weiss J, Ryan EB, Waldman J, Rubin S, Griffin JL. Telemedicine increases access to buprenorphine initiation during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;124:108272.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ward KM, Scheim A, Wang J, Cocchiaro B, Singley K, Roth AM. Impact of reduced restrictions on buprenorphine prescribing during COVID-19 among patients in a community-based treatment program. Drug Alcohol Depend Rep. 2022;3:100055.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Department of Justice. Drug Enforcement Administration. Proposed Rule: Expansion of Induction of Buprenorphine via Telemedicine Encounter. 2023. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-03-01/pdf/2023-04217.pdf.

  25. Sivakumar A, Madden L, DiDomizio E, Eller A, Villanueva M, Altice FL. Treatment of Hepatitis C virus among people who inject drugs at a syringe service program during the COVID-19 response: The potential role of telehealth, medications for opioid use disorder and minimal demands on patients. Int J Drug Policy 101:103570.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tookes HE, Bartholomew TS, Suarez E, Ekowo E, Ginoza M, Forrest DW, et al. Acceptability, feasibility, and pilot results of the tele-harm reduction intervention for rapid initiation of antiretrovirals among people who inject drugs. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;229(Pt A):109124.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Jones CM. Syringe services programs: an examination of legal, policy, and funding barriers in the midst of the evolving opioid crisis in the US. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;70:22–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jarlais DCDNA, Solberg A, Feelemyer J, Mermin J, Holtzman D. Syringe service programs for persons who inject drugs in urban, suburban, and rural areas—United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(48):1337–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McNeil R, Small W, Wood E, Kerr T. Hospitals as a “risk environment”: an ethno-epidemiological study of voluntary and involuntary discharge from hospital against medical advice among people who inject drugs. Soc Sci Med. 2014;105:59–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Muncan B, Walters SM, Ezell J, Ompad DC. “They look at us like junkies”: influences of drug use stigma on the healthcare engagement of people who inject drugs in New York City. Harm Reduct J. 2020;17(1):53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Altice FL, Springer S, Buitrago M, Hunt DP, Friedland GH. Pilot study to enhance HIV care using needle exchange-based health services for out-of-treatment injecting drug users. J Urban Health. 2003;80(3):416–27.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Bachhuber MA, Thompson C, Prybylowski A, Benitez JM, Mazzella SM, Barclay D. Description and outcomes of a buprenorphine maintenance treatment program integrated within prevention point philadelphia, an urban syringe exchange program. Subst Abus. 2018;39(2):167–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Bartholomew TS, Andraka-Cristou B, Totaram RK, Harris S, Doblecki-Lewis S, Ostrer L, et al. “We want everything in a one-stop shop”: acceptability and feasibility of PrEP and buprenorphine implementation with mobile syringe services for black people who inject drugs. Harm Reduct J. 2022;19(1):133.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Eckhardt B, Mateu-Gelabert P, Aponte-Melendez Y, Fong C, Kapadia S, Smith M, et al. Accessible hepatitis C care for people who inject drugs: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(5):494–502.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Collins KM, Armenta RF, Cuevas-Mota J, Liu L, Strathdee SA, Garfein RS. Factors associated with patterns of mobile technology use among persons who inject drugs. Subst Abus. 2016;37(4):606–12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Delisle-Reda S, Bruneau J, Martel-Laferriere V. Telehealth for people who inject drugs: an acceptable method of treatment but challenging to access. J Addict Dis. 2022;40(4):514–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Genz A, Kirk G, Piggott D, Mehta SH, Linas BS, Westergaard RP. Uptake and acceptability of information and communication technology in a community-based cohort of people who inject drugs: implications for mobile health interventions. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(2):e70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Spielberg F, Branson BM, Goldbaum GM, Lockhart D, Kurth A, Celum CL, et al. Overcoming barriers to HIV testing: preferences for new strategies among clients of a needle exchange, a sexually transmitted disease clinic, and sex venues for men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;32(3):318–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Strathdee SA, Celentano DD, Shah N, Lyles C, Stambolis VA, Macalino G, et al. Needle-exchange attendance and health care utilization promote entry into detoxification. J Urban Health. 1999;76(4):448–60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Strathdee SA, Ricketts EP, Huettner S, Cornelius L, Bishai D, Havens JR, et al. Facilitating entry into drug treatment among injection drug users referred from a needle exchange program: results from a community-based behavioral intervention trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;83(3):225–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schulkind J, Stephens B, Ahmad F, Johnston L, Hutchinson S, Thain D, et al. High response and re-infection rates among people who inject drugs treated for hepatitis C in a community needle and syringe programme. J Viral Hepat. 2019;26(5):519–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Roth AM, Tran NK, Felsher M, Gadegbeku AB, Piecara B, Fox R, et al. Integrating HIV preexposure prophylaxis with community-based syringe services for women who inject drugs: results from the project SHE demonstration study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2021;86(3):e61–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Ashford RD, Curtis B, Brown AM. Peer-delivered harm reduction and recovery support services: initial evaluation from a hybrid recovery community drop-in center and syringe exchange program. Harm Reduct J. 2018;15(1):52.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang CM. Offering community-based wound care as part of a comprehensive syringe exchange program (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Manoa).

  45. Collins KM, Armenta RF, Cuevas-Mota J, Liu L, Strathdee SA, Garfein RS. Factors associated with patterns of mobile technology use among persons who inject drugs. Subst Abuse. 2016;37(4):606–12.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Genz A, Kirk G, Piggott D, Mehta SH, Linas BS, Westergaard RP. Uptake and acceptability of information and communication technology in a community-based cohort of people who inject drugs: implications for mobile health interventions. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(2):e70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Delisle-Reda S, Bruneau J, Martel-Laferrière V. Telehealth for people who inject drugs: an acceptable method of treatment but challenging to access. J Addict Dis. 2022;1–4:514.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Perlman DC, Jordan AE. The syndemic of opioid misuse, overdose, HCV, and HIV: structural-level causes and interventions. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2018;15(2):96–112.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Landes SJ, McBain SA, Curran GM. Reprint of: an introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283:112630.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the syringe services programs who participated in our survey and all of the people who inject drugs served by these programs.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA046867) and (DP2DA053720), which had no role in the study’s design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Miami, 1120 NW 14th St #860, Miami, FL, 33136, USA

    Tyler S. Bartholomew, Hansel E. Tookes & Teresa A. Chueng

  2. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Ricky N. Bluthenthal

  3. RTI International, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Lynn D. Wenger, Alex H. Kral & Barrot H. Lambdin

Authors
  1. Tyler S. Bartholomew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hansel E. Tookes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Teresa A. Chueng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ricky N. Bluthenthal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lynn D. Wenger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alex H. Kral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Barrot H. Lambdin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BHL, RNB and AHK conceptualized the study; TSB, HET and TC and were involved in drafting the initial paper for submission; TSB led the data analysis; TSB, HET, BHL, RNB, LW and AHK contributed to the interpretation of the analysis as well as made critical contributions and revisions to the paper. TSB, HET, BHL, RNB, LW and AHK agreed to the final version submitted for publication and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hansel E. Tookes.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Our study procedures were reviewed by internal review board within the Office of Research Protection at RTI International’s internal review board and was determined to be exempt under 45 CFR 46.104 (d)(2)(ii). Yet, the study did include a consent process which disclosed the activities of the research, the procedures to be performed, that participation was voluntary, the investigator name and contact information and the provisions to maintain the privacy of subjects. Because the study was determined to be exempt, the consent process did not require a written or electronic signature or a waiver of written documentation of consent. However, participants had to indicate their consent to participate by selecting a button on the webpage before advancing into the online survey.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bartholomew, T.S., Tookes, H.E., Chueng, T.A. et al. Availability of telehealth-based services at syringe services programs under the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. Harm Reduct J 20, 122 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00861-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00861-3

Keywords

Harm Reduction Journal

ISSN: 1477-7517