Parents who inject drugs: Demographics, care arrangements and correlates for child placement in out-of-home care.

INTRODUCTION: Children in families affected by substance use disorders are at high risk of being placed in out-of-home care (OOHC). We aimed to describe the characteristics of parents who inject drugs and identify correlates associated with child placement in OOHC. METHODS: We used baseline data from a community-based cohort of parents who inject drugs (SuperMIX) from Melbourne, Australia. Participants were recruited via convenience, respondent-driven and snowball sampling from April 2008 to November 2020, with follow-up until March 2021. To explore correlates associated with child placement to OOHC, we used multivariable logistic regression and assessed for potential interactions between gender and a range of relevant covariates. RESULTS: Of the 1067 participants, 611 (57%) reported being parents. Fifty-six percent of parents reported child protection involvement. Almost half (49%) had children in OOHC. Nearly half of the parents lived in unstable accommodation (44%) and many of them experienced moderate-severe levels of anxiety (48%) and depression (53%). Female or non-binary gender, identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, experiencing assault and having more children were associated with child removal to OOHC. Of the 563 participants who reported their own childhood care status, 135 (24%) reported they had been removed to OOHC. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified high rates of child placement in OOHC among parents who inject drugs. There is a need for targeted health and social services, that are gender and culturally responsive, in addition to systems-level interventions addressing social inequities, such as housing, to support parents to care for their children.

Deimplementation in the provision of opioid agonist treatment to achieve equity of care for people engaged in treatment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Deimplementation, the removal or reduction of potentially hazardous approaches to care, is key to progressing social equity in health. While the benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-evidenced, wide variability in the provision of treatment attenuates positive outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OAT services deimplemented aspects of provision which had long been central to treatment in Australia; supervised dosing, urine drug screening, and frequent in-person attendance for review. This analysis explored how providers considered social inequity in health of patients in the deimplementation of restrictive OAT provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between August and December 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 OAT providers in Australia. Codes relating to the social determinants of client retention in OAT were clustered according to how providers considered deimplementation in relation to social inequities. Normalisation Process Theory was then used to analyse the clusters in relation to how providers understood their work during the COVID-19 pandemic as responding to systemic issues that condition OAT access. RESULTS: We explored four overarching themes based on constructs from Normalisation Process Theory: adaptive execution, cognitive participation, normative restructuring, and sustainment. Accounts of adaptive execution demonstrated tensions between providers' conceptions of equity and patient autonomy. Cognitive participation and normative restructuring were integral to the workability of rapid and drastic changes within the OAT services. Key transformative actors included communities of practice and "thought leaders" who had long supported deimplementation for more humane care. At this early stage of the pandemic, providers had already begun to consider how this period could inform sustainment of deimplementation. When considering a future, post-pandemic period, several providers expressed discomfort at operating with "evidence-enough" and called for narrowly defined types of data on adverse events (e.g. overdose) and expert consensus on takeaway doses. CONCLUSIONS: The possibilities for achieving social equity in health are limited by the divergent treatment goals of providers and people receiving OAT. Sustained and equitable deimplementation of obtrusive aspects of OAT provision require co-created treatment goals, patient-centred monitoring and evaluation, and access to a supportive community of practice for providers.

Characterising the policy influence of peer-based drug user organisations in the context of hepatitis C elimination.

BACKGROUND: Achieving hepatitis C (HCV) elimination goals will require major policy and health service reorientation to scale up testing and treatment among people who inject drugs (PWID). To achieve this, a close partnership with peer-based drug user organisations is required. However, peer organisations have historical and ongoing difficulties in articulating the validity of their service delivery and policy advice, leading to some policy and health services resisting partnership and advice from peer-based drug user organisations. METHODS: To develop a deeper understanding of the role of peer-based drug user organisations in the HCV response, we analysed data from the W3 Project which used systems thinking methods to draw together the insights of over 90 peer staff from 10 Australian community and peer organisations in HCV and HIV. The resulting system maps were analysed to identify system dynamics and functions that need to be fulfilled for peer organisations to be influential within their community and policy system. RESULTS: We identified the interactions at a system level which can enhance or constrain the quality and influence of policy advice from peer-based drug user organisations. We found the strength of Peer-based drug user organisations to support the scale up of HCV testing and treatment was their capacity to mediate between, and navigate within, the complex community and policy/health service systems. While peer-based drug user organisations endeavour to demonstrate their capacity and credibility in terms of engagement, alignment, adaptation and influence, policy and service organisations also need recognise their own system role to value and enable peer-based drug user organisations to achieve their potential. CONCLUSION: If the HCV prevention and treatment system is to reach PWID living with HCV and achieve HCV elimination goals, then policy and health services need to invest in strengthening peer-based drug user organisations as well as recognise, value and act on quality policy advice from PWID peer leadership.

Shouting through bullet-proof glass: some reflections on pharmacotherapy provision in one Australian clinic.

The Opioid Substitution Treatment Program in New South Wales and Australia has a serious impact on the day to day lives of many people. The program and those consumers who rely upon it are seen with ambivalence by many in the wider community, and many consumers are discriminated against. It seems, to those of us who are engaged in it, that the system itself is confusing and sometimes arbitrary, and that a range of priorities other than clinical need dominate our experience of treatment. These pressures can manifest for us consumers as a punitive and unresponsive treatment experience that, rather than assisting us to live our lives, actually places barriers in our way and ties us up in knots that will take a long time to unravel.

Peer support models for people with a history of injecting drug use undertaking assessment and treatment for hepatitis C virus infection.

People who inject drugs (PWID) are the group most affected by HCV; however, treatment uptake has been low. Engagement between PWID and healthcare workers has been characterized by mistrust and discrimination. Peer support for HCV is one way to overcome these barriers. Peer support models for chronic disease management have been successfully applied for other diseases. HCV peer support models have been implemented in various settings, but those that include opioid substitution treatment have been more common. Most models have been either service generated (provider led) or community controlled (peer led). Peer support models have been implemented successfully, with a range of outcomes including increased treatment knowledge and uptake and improved service provision. Genuine partnerships between peers and services were common across models and led to positive transformations for both clients and services. Further investigation of peer support for HCV treatment and its impact on both individuals and services is recommended.