Purpose Methadone maintenance treatment is a life-saving treatment for people with opioid use disorders (OUD). The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has introduced many concerns surrounding access to opioid treatment. In March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) issued guidance allowing for the expansion of take-home methadone doses. We sought to describe changes to treatment experiences from the perspective of persons receiving methadone at outpatient treatment facilities for OUD. Methods We conducted an in-person survey among 104 persons receiving methadone from three clinics in central North Carolina in June and July 2020. Surveys collected information on demographic characteristics, methadone treatment history, and experiences with take-home methadone doses in the context of COVID-19 (i.e., before and since March 2020). Results Before COVID-19, the clinic-level percent of participants receiving any amount of days' supply of take-home doses at each clinic ranged from 56% to 82%, while it ranged from 78% to 100% since COVID-19. The clinic-level percent of participants receiving a take-homes days' supply of a week or longer (i.e., ≥6 days) since COVID-19 ranged from 11% to 56%. Among 87 participants who received take-homes since COVID-19, only four reported selling their take-home doses. Conclusions Our study found variation in experiences of take-home dosing by clinic and little diversion of take-home doses. While SAMSHA guidance should allow expanded access to take-home doses, adoption of these guidelines may vary at the clinic level. The adoption of these policies should be explored further, particularly in the context of benefits to patients seeking OUD treatment.

Social science has done well in providing empirical studies that depict how research is used in policymaking. Yet it performs less well in another contribution science can make-developing explanatory theoretical frameworks that predict and promote future research use. To address this theoretical void, onsite studies of policymakers have been called for. In this qualitative study, semistructured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 123 legislators in 2 states, 32 legislators nominated by colleagues as exemplar research users, and 13 key informants. Policymakers' reports of 14 contributions that research makes to policymaking are compared to the predictions of four prominent theories of research utilization, which are representative of four categories of theories that examine the interface between researchers and policymakers-the politico-administrative decision-making model, a typology of research use; community dissonance theory; and policy agenda-setting/multiple-streams theory. The eight research contributions most frequently mentioned by policymakers cut across policymakers, political party, and states with varying degrees of partisan polarization. In some respects, policymakers' perceptions were well-aligned with theory, such as the contributions research makes to individual considerations (e.g., informing, explaining, and justifying one's positions), and to policy issue considerations (e.g., defining issues; designing legislation). Yet other contributions were seldom predicted by theory, such as the contributions research makes to policymakers' relationships (earning the trust of colleagues; educating others) and the policy process (asking important questions; enhancing debate, dialogue, collaboration, and compromise). Policymakers report that these contributions of research provide both policy and political benefits. Implications are drawn for advancing theory on research utilization.

Purpose: Methadone maintenance treatment is a life-saving treatment for people with opioid use disorders (OUD). The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) introduces many concerns surrounding access to opioid treatment. In March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) issued guidance allowing the expansion of take-home methadone doses. We sought to describe changes to treatment experiences from the perspective of persons receiving methadone at outpatient treatment facilities for OUD. Methods: We conducted an in-person survey among 104 persons receiving methadone from three clinics in central North Carolina. Surveys collected information on demographic characteristics, methadone treatment history, and experiences with take-home methadone doses in the context of COVID-19 (i.e., before and since March 2020). Results: Before COVID-19, the clinic-level percent of participants receiving any amount of days supply of take-home doses at each clinic varied ranged from 56% to 82%, while it ranged from 78% to 100% since COVID-19. The clinic-level percent of participants receiving a take-homes days supply of a week or longer (i.e., ≥6 days) since COVID-19 ranged from 11% to 56%. Of the 87 participants who received take-homes since COVID-19 began, only four reported selling their take-home doses. Conclusions: Our study found variation in experiences of take-home dosing by clinic and little diversion of take-home doses. While SAMSHA guidance should allow expanded access to take-home doses, adoption of these guidelines may vary at the clinic level. The adoption of these policies should be explored further, particularly in the context of benefits to patients seeking treatment for OUD.

Common themes that have come up during COVID CLABSI case reviews and/or during the ICU central line prevalence day: ❖ Overdue transparent dressings ❖ Overdue cap changes ❖ Overdue and not labeled tubing ❖ Curos caps missing ❖ Daily CHG treatment not documented at least once every 24 hours New Considerations in COVID Care Line Selection: ❖ Consider a more permanent line (PICC) for patients with an expected longer length of stay ❖ Consult R-VAT team: Pager VEIN (8346) or PICC (7422)

State-level child welfare policies and practices affect what can be referred, investigated, and substantiated as child maltreatment, and these institutional factors vary across states and over time. Researchers typically have not accounted for these factors in analyses, confounding institutional features with the underlying construct they seek to study. The present study addresses this limitation by demonstrating how changes in specific state child welfare policies and practices influence reported and substantiated maltreatment in the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). Using negative binomial models with state and year fixed-effects to analyze data from 2005 to 2018, we found significant influence of state policy and practice changes on state-level rates of reported and substantiated maltreatment over time. If a state implemented three of the most common policy changes—adding mandated reporters, centralized intake, and staff—its maltreatment reports were an estimated 32% higher than they would have been in the absence of these changes. By contrast, most state policy changes decreased the number of reports that were substantiated—by 24% if they implemented both differential response and higher standards of proof. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.

Psychologists are known for using science to influence public policymaking on criminal justice, education, health, and other specific policies. Little is known, however, about what commonalities exist across youth and family policies and, in particular, how prevalent polarization and research utilization are in political decisions. In response, this article examines how youth and family policies are positioned on the decision-making agenda and who advances them from an overlooked point of view, that of state legislators. Semistructured qualitative interviews inquired about research use, partisan polarization, and strategies for effectively advancing youth/family policies with 123 legislators; 24 legislators nominated by colleagues as exemplar champions of youth and family issues; and 13 key informants. Policymakers report youth and families are a population deserving of support. This widely shared value premise makes some policies to support youth and families less partisan. In addition, policymakers report that research can sometimes be more important for youth and family issues, particularly evidence on economic feasibility. Despite the importance of research, policymakers express concerns about its objectivity, conflicting results, and source credibility. Compared with colleagues, Youth and Family Champions are committed to a higher purpose; knowledgeable on policy issues and political maneuvers; and skilled in listening, earning colleagues' trust, and building relationships with colleagues and external stakeholders. For connecting research and policy, the article suggests that researchers could attract the attention of policymakers by illustrating their studies with a compelling story that places a human face on the issue and portrays the pragmatic significance of the findings. Public Significance StatementThis article looks for commonalities that cut across specific youth and family policies and finds empirical evidence that policymaking is not polarized on all issues. In particular, there are a pocket of youth and family policies where polarization is less prevalent and science can play a substantive role. Amidst the widespread defeatism expressed by many social scientists, the findings provide a reason for optimism by pointing to places where policymaking functions better and policies are more research-based.

Universities are renowned for their tradition of producing research that benefits millions of people. When it comes to policymaking, university research is considered more trustworthy than other sources, yet it simultaneously is widely perceived as playing too small a role in public policy decisions. In this article, we consider the engagement of university‐based researchers with policymakers and the policy process. As a guide for researchers, we propose a framework that includes three key decisions: whether, when, and how to engage in policymaking. We also apply Boyer's model of engaged scholarship to policymaking, reviewing what research studies and policymakers say about each domain. The domains are illustrated with case examples in which researchers successfully influenced public policy using ethnography, applied policy research, meta‐analysis, benefit–cost analyses, program evaluation, and policy forums. We discuss applications of our three key decisions and draw implications for researchers interested in building research‐based, family‐focused public policy.

Advanced practice nurses including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists (CNS), certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse midwives contribute in many ways to improve care in the intensive care unit. This article reports on the roles of the CNS at an academic medical center and how they contribute to improving patient outcomes and support critical care nursing practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.