Search the Library
Enter keywords and hit Enter (or click the magnifying glass) to search. You can then also select document type or subject/topic to narrow results further (or just use those for searching without a keyword). Results display below this search form.
Document types
Subjects
Use:
"exact phrase" word1 NOT word2 (finds items with word 1 but NOT word2) word1 word2 (finds both words)
Results:
Title opens document
“Show details” reveals abstract & other info
Checkboxes select items for copy/pasting or printing
Search results
Background: Rural communities face disproportionate rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose mortality but continue to be underrepresented in clinical research and underserved in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Structural barriers including shortages of qualified providers, transportation challenges, and stigma limit uptake of evidence-based treatment. To address these gaps, the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) launched two pragmatic trials focused exclusively on rural populations: CTN-0102, a telemedicine (TM) feasibility study connecting rural primary care patients to external MOUD providers, and CTN-0102XR (RXR), a pilot randomized trial evaluating extended-release buprenorphine (Brixadi®) compared to sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone.
Objective: The article aims to describe the implementation of these two rural pragmatic trials, identify challenges encountered in study implementation, and present lessons learned. We applied frameworks from implementation science, including the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), to demonstrate how pragmatic trial implementation mirrors implementation of evidence-based programs and practices, and can benefit from established implementation frameworks and strategies.
Results: Across 13 rural clinics in 10 states, both trials demonstrated the feasibility of integrating MOUD into primary care settings through pragmatic study designs closely aligned with routine clinical workflows. Principal challenges included limited clinic research capacity, staff stigma toward OUD treatment, communication barriers between local clinics and external TM vendors, and variable digital access. Solutions included engaging local champions, co-developing workflows tailored to each clinic’s operations, simplifying technology requirements, and emphasizing bi-directional communication among clinic, research, and vendor teams. Continuous technical assistance and protocol flexibility and adaptation were crucial for sustaining engagement and aligning study procedures with clinical realities. Findings demonstrated that rural clinics can feasibly implement TM-based MOUD coordination and extended-release buprenorphine with adequate support and contextual adaptation.
Conclusions: Lessons from CTN-0102 and CTN-0102XR underscore that pragmatic trials in rural settings benefit from early contextual assessment, engagement of community stakeholders, adaptable protocols, and strong implementation support. Applying implementation science frameworks facilitates solutions to real-world barriers and enhances study sustainability. Future CTN efforts should continue to prioritize rural site inclusion, capacity building, and equitable access to evidence-based OUD treatment.
Related protocols: CTN-0102, CTN-0102-XR
Background: Rural communities continue to experience high overdose mortality rates and challenges retaining individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). The most recent formulation of injectable extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) may improve treatment engagement and outcomes for people with OUD.
Objectives: The RXR study (CTN-0102-XR) aims to evaluate the feasibility of implementing XR-BUP in rural settings, acceptability of XR-BUP to clinic staff and patients, and effectiveness of XR-BUP compared with sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (SL-BUP).
Study design and methods: This is an open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT) using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Approximately 144 participants recruited from seven rural clinic sites will be randomized to receive XR-BUP or SL-BUP in a ratio of 2:1, and will receive study medication for 14 weeks. Participants in the XR-BUP condition will receive two weekly initiation dosages, followed by the target monthly dosage (128 mg) at Weeks 2, 6, and 10. Participants in the SL-BUP condition will receive medication on a similar schedule, with a target dose range of 16-24 mg/day. The main comparative effectiveness outcome measure is the number of monthly opioid negative urine drug screens (UDS) for non-prescribed opioids from Weeks 2-14. Feasibility and acceptability will be evaluated using mixed methods, combining participant survey and interview data from clinic administrators, providers, and patients.
Conclusions: If demonstrated to be feasible and acceptable to participants and staff and there is evidence of effectiveness for people with OUD in reducing opioid use, XR-BUP may be considered an important option for addressing OUD in rural settings.
Related protocols: CTN-0102-XR