Feasibility of Testing Client Preferences for Accessing Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment (iOAT): A Pilot Study

"I'm just searching to get better": Constructions of treatment citizenship on injectable opioid agonist treatment

BACKGROUND

As part of the response to Canada's worsening overdose crisis driven by a toxic, adulterated drug supply, there has been increased attention to and expansion of drug treatment, options, including injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT). iOAT typically involves the, witnessed daily injection of opioids under healthcare provider supervision. There is a robust, evidence base on iOAT; however, there has been less focus on how people engage with this; treatment outside of clinical trials. This paper examines how people engage with iOAT programs, in expanded treatment settings in Canada, focusing on how the broader socio-structural context, shapes patient subjectivities in treatment.

METHODS

This study draws on critical ethnographic and community-based research approaches, conducted with people accessing four iOAT programs in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside; neighbourhood from May 2018 to November 2019. Data included in-depth baseline and followup, interviews and approximately 50 h of observation fieldwork conducted in one iOAT, program and with a subsample of participants in the surrounding neighbourhood. Analysis, leveraged the concepts of biological citizenship and structural vulnerability.

RESULTS

This analysis characterized three narrative frames-regular long-term engagers, pain, patients, and sporadic and short-term engagers-through in-depth case presentations of participants with distinct types of engagement with iOAT programs. Participants within these, narrative frames described a dominant form of iOAT citizenship, an autonomous patient who, regularly engages in treatment and avoids pleasure. However, structural vulnerabilities, including, homelessness and housing instability, entrenched poverty, criminal-legal system engagement, and unmanaged pain, shaped the ability of participants to make claims to this normative model of citizenship.

CONCLUSION

This study examined how structural vulnerabilities impact people's construction and ability to make iOAT citizenship claims. Findings point to the need for changes within and outside of iOAT programs, such as lower threshold treatment models, improved social services (e.g., secure housing), and pain management support.

Clients' experiences on North America's first take-home injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) program: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

To support public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, oral opioid agonist treatment (OAT) take-home doses were expanded in Western countries with positive results. Injectable OAT (iOAT) take-home doses were previously not an eligible option, and were made available for the first time in several sites to align with public health measures. Building upon these temporary risk-mitigating guidelines, a clinic in Vancouver, BC continued to offer two of a possible three daily doses of take-home injectable medications to eligible clients. The present study explores the processes through which take-home iOAT doses impacted clients' quality of life and continuity of care in real-life settings.

METHODS

Three rounds of semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted over a period of seventeen months beginning in July 2021 with eleven participants receiving iOAT take-home doses at a community clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia. Interviews followed a topic guide that evolved iteratively in response to emerging lines of inquiry. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then coded using NVivo 1.6 using an interpretive description approach.

RESULTS

Participants reported that take-home doses granted them the freedom away from the clinic to have daily routines, form plans, and enjoy unstructured time. Participants appreciated the greater privacy, accessibility, and ability to engage in paid work. Furthermore, participants enjoyed greater autonomy to manage their medication and level of engagement with the clinic. These factors contributed to greater quality of life and continuity of care. Participants shared that their dose was too essential to divert and that they felt safe transporting and administering their medication off-site. In the future, all participants would like more accessible treatment such as access longer take-home prescriptions (e.g., one week), the ability to pick-up at different and convenient locations (e.g., community pharmacies), and a medication delivery service.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing the number of daily onsite injections from two or three to only one revealed the diversity of rich and nuanced needs that added flexibility and accessibility in iOAT can meet. Actions such as licencing diverse opioid medications/formulations, medication pick-up at community pharmacies, and a community of practice that supports clinical decisions are necessary to increase take-home iOAT accessibility.

Measuring the preferences of injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) clients: Development of a person-centered scale (best-worst scaling)

BACKGROUND

Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is effective for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet little is known about client preferences for accessing iOAT (e.g., with diacetylmorphine, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, fentanyl, etc.). Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a preference elicitation method from health economics that has never been applied to addiction care broadly, or iOAT specifically. We describe the stages of developing a BWS scale that assesses iOAT clients' treatment delivery preferences to inform program planning and maximize healthcare efficiency.

METHODS

We underwent several steps to reveal the relevant attributes/levels and design the scale structure. An initial list of potential attributes and levels was established from a literature review and prior qualitative data. Then, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with clients (n=21) on their iOAT preferences to confirm the attributes and prioritize/include new ones. Next, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with iOAT experts and stakeholders to receive their input on the draft list of attributes and levels. A BWS profile case design was piloted with iOAT clients (n=18) from different sites during a think aloud interview. After several rounds of revisions, the final version was tested by iOAT clients (n=2) before the scale was launched.

RESULTS

We developed a person-centered scale that assesses current and former iOAT clients' most and least wanted aspects of iOAT delivery. The final version yielded 7 unique attributes: choice of medication, choice of dose, convenience, location & space, scheduling & routines, staff & training, and types of services offered.

CONCLUSION

This scale can help expand iOAT programs in a way that is person-centered, rapid, and affordable. The methodology is a guide for other regions with similar populations who aim to develop strong quantitative methodologies that prioritize client collaboration.