Access and barriers to safer supply prescribing during a toxic drug emergency: a mixed methods study of implementation in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, British Columbia, Canada, introduced prescribed safer supply involving the distribution of pharmaceutical grade alternatives to the unregulated toxic drug supply. Prior research has demonstrated positive impacts on overdose mortality, but with limited reach to people who use substances. Objectives of this study were to (1) identify barriers to accessing safer supply prescribing among people who use substances; and (2) determine whether and how barriers differed between people with and without prescriptions, and between urban and rural settings. METHODS: We conducted a participatory mixed-methods study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Participants (≥ 19 years old) had received a safer supply prescription or were seeking one (survey n = 353; interviews n = 54). RESULTS: Participants who had a prescription were more likely to be living in a large urban centre, compared to medium/smaller centres and rural areas (78.5% vs. 65.8%, standardized mean difference = 0.286). Participants who did not have a prescription were more likely to report an array of structural, interpersonal, and health-related barriers (compared to those who had a prescription). In interviews, participants linked experiences of barriers to stigma and criminalization, low availability of services, lack of information and prescribers, not being able to get what they need, and anxieties, worries and doubts stemming from personal circumstances. There were no notable differences between large urban centres and medium/smaller centres and rural areas in the presence of specific types of barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate restricted access to safer supply prescribing outside of large urban centres and provide future targets for enhancing implementation. Attention is needed to promote equity and counter systemic barriers in the implementation of responses to the ongoing toxic drug emergency.

Navigating the nexus between British Columbia's public consumption and decriminalization policies of illegal drugs.

In January 2023, the province of British Columbia (BC) decriminalized the possession of certain illegal drugs for personal use. The province's primary intent was to reduce the stigma associated with drug use, as well as barriers for people who use drugs (PWUD) to access treatment and supports. However, less than ten months into the decriminalization policy, due to growing concerns about public safety voiced by municipal governments and communities, the provincial government made amendments to the policy to ban the public consumption of illicit drugs in additional locations, and subsequently introduced additional legislation, Bill 34, aimed at regulating public consumption of drugs in public spaces. Some communities have also implemented local bylaws similarly regulating public drug use. Bill 34 and local bylaws may serve as tools to promote community health and safety and minimize direct and indirect harms associated with public drug use. However, such legislation may re-criminalize PWUD and reinforce negative perceptions surrounding drug use, especially if these policies are not paired with strategies to expand the availability and accessibility of critical harm reduction and housing services. Without ample access to these services, limitations on public drug use can potentially displace individuals to areas where they are more likely to use alone, further exposing them to substance use-related harms, and undermining the goals of decriminalization. The potential effects of these restrictions may also disproportionately impact marginalized populations. As of April 2024, Bill 34 remains on hold. Moving forward, it will be important to monitor this bill, as well as other public consumption bylaws and legislation, and their impact on BC's overall decriminalization initiative. Decision-makers are urged to increase engagement with PWUD and relevant stakeholders in the design and implementation of policies pertaining to public consumption to ensure that they effectively address the evolving needs and realities of PWUD, and align with decriminalization goals.

Associations with experience of non-fatal opioid overdose in British Columbia, Canada: a repeated cross sectional survey study.

INTRODUCTION: Lives lost in North America due to the unregulated drug poisoning emergency are preventable and those who survive an opioid overdose may suffer long-term disability. Rates of opioid overdose more than doubled following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia, Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our analytical sample was comprised of 1447 participants from the 2018, 2019, and 2021 Harm Reduction Client Survey who responded yes or no to having experienced an opioid overdose in the past 6 months. Participants were recruited from harm reduction sites from across British Columbia. We used logistic regression to explore associations of experiencing an opioid overdose. RESULTS: Overall, 21.8% of participants reported experiencing an opioid overdose in the last six months (18.2% in 2019 and 26.6% in 2021). The following factors were positively associated with increased adjusted odds of experiencing a non-fatal opioid overdose: cis men relative to cis women (AOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.02), unstably housed compared to people with stable housing (AOR 1.87, 95% CI 1.40-2.50), and participants from 2021 compared to those from 2019 (AOR 3.06, 95% CI 1.57-5.97). The effects of both previous experience of a stimulant overdose and having witnessed an opioid overdose depended on the year of study, with both effects decreasing over subsequent years. CONCLUSIONS: Overdoses have increased over time; in 2021 more than one in four participants experienced an overdose. There is an urgent need for policy and program development to meaningfully address the unregulated drug poisoning emergency through acceptable life-saving interventions and services to prevent overdoses and support overdose survivors.

The Impact of Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment (iOAT) on Involvement in Criminalized Activities: A Secondary Analysis from a Clinical Trial in Vancouver, BC.

Purpose: A significant portion of the economic consequences of untreated Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) relate to individuals' involvement in the criminal justice system. The present study uncovers if treatment with iOAT is related to the number of criminal charges amongst participants, what type of crime participants were involved in, and the frequency with which participants were victims of crime. This study contributes to the body of research on the effectiveness of iOAT reducing criminal involvement. Patients and Methods: This is a secondary analysis of police record data obtained from the Vancouver Police Department over a three-year period during the Study to Assess Longer-term Opioid Medication Effectiveness clinical trial. The data was obtained from participants (N = 192) enrolled in the trial through a release of information form. Results: During the three-year period, most charges (45.6%) were property offences, and 25.5% of participants were victims of crime. Participants with no treatment prior to randomization into the SALOME trial were 2.61 (95% CI = 1.64-4.14) more likely to have been charged with a crime than during the iOAT state. Conclusion: IOAT can reduce individuals' involvement with the criminal justice system and is thus a crucial part of the continuum of care. Addiction should be conceptualized as a healthcare rather than criminal issue.

Doing community-based research during dual public health emergencies (COVID and overdose).

Meaningful engagement and partnerships with people who use drugs are essential to conducting research that is relevant and impactful in supporting desired outcomes of drug consumption as well as reducing drug-related harms of overdose and COVID-19. Community-based participatory research is a key strategy for engaging communities in research that directly affects their lives. While there are growing descriptions of community-based participatory research with people who use drugs and identification of key principles for conducting research, there is a gap in relation to models and frameworks to guide research partnerships with people who use drugs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for research partnerships between people who use drugs and academic researchers, collaboratively developed and implemented as part of an evaluation of a provincial prescribed safer supply initiative introduced during dual public health emergencies (overdose and COVID-19) in British Columbia, Canada. The framework shifts from having researchers choose among multiple models (advisory, partnership and employment) to incorporating multiple roles within an overall community-based participatory research approach. Advocacy by and for drug users was identified as a key role and reason for engaging in research. Overall, both academic researchers and Peer Research Associates benefited within this collaborative partnerships approach. Each offered their expertise, creating opportunities for omni-directional learning and enhancing the research. The shift from fixed models to flexible roles allows for a range of involvement that accommodates varying time, energy and resources. Facilitators of involvement include development of trust and partnering with networks of people who use drugs, equitable pay, a graduate-level research assistant dedicated to ongoing orientation and communication, technical supports as well as fluidity in roles and opportunities. Key challenges included working in geographically dispersed locations, maintaining contact and connection over the course of the project and ensuring ongoing sustainable but flexible employment.

Smoking identified as preferred mode of opioid safe supply use; investigating correlates of smoking preference through a 2021 cross-sectional study in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of illicit drug toxicity deaths in British Columbia (BC) has led to calls for a regulated (pharmaceutical grade) supply of substances ("safe supply"). In order to inform safe supply recommendations, we aimed to identify why people currently smoke opioids and assess the preferred mode of consumption if people who use opioids were provided with opioid safe supply. METHODS: The BC Harm Reduction Client Survey (HRCS) is an annual survey that gathers information about people who use drugs' (PWUD) substance use characteristic with the goal of contributing to evidence-based policy. This study utilized data from the 2021 HRCS. The outcome variable was "prefer smoking opioid safe supply" ('yes/no'). Explanatory variables included participants' demographics, drug use, and overdose characteristics. Bivariate and hierarchical multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with the outcome. RESULTS: Of 282 total participants who indicated a preference for a mode of consumption for opioid safe supply, 62.4% preferred a smokable option and 19.9% preferred to inject if provided with opioid safe supply. Variables significantly associated with the outcome (preferred smoking) included: being 19-29 years old (AOR=5.95, CI =1.93 - 18.31) compared to >50 years old, having witnessed an overdose in the last 6 months (AOR=2.26, CI=1.20 - 4.28), having smoked opioids in the last 3 days (AOR=6.35, CI=2.98 - 13.53) and having a preference to smoke stimulants safe supply (AOR=5.04, CI=2.53 - 10.07). CONCLUSION: We found that over half of participants prefer smokable options when accessing opioid safe supply. Currently in BC, there are limited smokable opioid safe supply options as alternatives to the toxic street supply. To reduce overdose deaths, safe supply options should be expanded to accommodate PWUD that prefer smoking opioids.

Awareness, predictors and outcomes of drug alerts among people who access harm reduction services in British Columbia, Canada: findings from a 2021 cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the awareness and predictors of seeing/hearing a drug alert in British Columbia (BC) and subsequent drug use behaviour after seeing/hearing an alert. METHODS: This study analysed the 2021 BC harm reduction client survey (HRCS)-a cross-sectional self-reported survey administered at harm reduction sites throughout the province and completed by participants using the services. RESULTS: In total, n=537 respondents participated and n=482 (89.8%) responded to the question asking if they saw/heard a drug alert. Of those, n=300 (62.2%) stated that they saw/heard a drug alert and almost half reported hearing from a friend or peer network; the majority (67.4%) reported altering their drug use behaviour to be safer after seeing/hearing a drug alert. The proportion of individuals who saw/heard a drug alert increased with each ascending age category. Among health authorities, there were significant differences in the odds of seeing/hearing an alert. In the past 6 months, the odds of participants who attended harm reduction sites a few times per month seeing/hearing an alert were 2.73 (95% CI: 1.17 to 6.52) times the odds of those who did not. Those who attended more frequently were less likely to report seeing/hearing a drug alert. The odds of those who witnessed an opioid-related overdose in the past 6 months seeing/hearing an alert were 1.96 (95% CI: 0.86 to 4.50) times the odds of those who had not. CONCLUSION: We found that drug alerts were mostly disseminated through communication with friends or peers and that most participants altered their drug use behaviour after seeing/hearing a drug alert. Therefore, drug alerts can play a role in reducing harms from substance use and more work is needed to reach diverse populations, such as younger people, those in differing geographical locations, and those who attend harm reduction sites more frequently.

"As long as that place stays open, I'll stay alive": Accessing injectable opioid agonist treatment during dual public health crises.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, overdose rates in North America have continued to rise, with more than 100,000 drug poisoning deaths in the past year. Amidst an increasingly toxic drug supply, the pandemic disrupted essential substance use treatment and harm reduction services that reduce overdose risk for people who use drugs. In British Columbia, one such treatment is injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), the supervised dispensation of injectable hydromorphone or diacetylmorphine for people with opioid use disorder. While evidence has shown iOAT to be safe and effective, it is intensive and highly regimented, characterized by daily clinic visits and provider-client interaction-treatment components made difficult by the pandemic. METHODS: Between April 2020 and February 2021, we conducted 51 interviews with 18 iOAT clients and two clinic nurses to understand how the pandemic shaped iOAT access and treatment experiences. To analyze interview data, we employed a multi-step, flexible coding strategy, an iterative and abductive approach to analysis, using NVivo software. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed the ways in which the pandemic shaped clients' lives and the provision of iOAT care. First, client narratives illuminated how the pandemic reinforced existing inequities. For example, socioeconomically marginalized clients expressed concerns around their financial stability and economic impacts on their communities. Second, clients with health comorbidities recognized how the pandemic amplified health risks, through potential COVID-19 exposure or by limiting social connection and mental health supports. Third, clients described how the pandemic changed their engagement with the iOAT clinic and medication. For instance, clients noted that physical distancing guidelines and occupancy limits reduced opportunities for social connection with staff and other iOAT clients. However, pandemic policies also created opportunities to adapt treatment in ways that increased patient trust and autonomy, for example through more flexible medication regimens and take-home oral doses. CONCLUSION: Participant narratives underscored the unequal distribution of pandemic impacts for people who use drugs but also highlighted opportunities for more flexible, patient-centered treatment approaches. Across treatment settings, pandemic-era changes that increase client autonomy and ensure equitable access to care are to be continued and expanded, beyond the duration of the pandemic.

"It's just a perfect storm": Exploring the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on overdose risk in British Columbia from the perspectives of people who use substances.

BACKGROUND: Despite the implementation and expansion of public health and harm reduction strategies aimed at preventing and reversing overdoses, rates of overdose-related events and fatalities continue to rise in British Columbia. The COVID-19 pandemic created a second, concurrent public health emergency that further exacerbated the illicit drug toxicity crisis, reinforced existing social inequities and vulnerabilities, and highlighted the precariousness of systems in place that are meant to protect the health of communities. By exploring the perspectives of people with recent experience of illicit substance use, this study sought to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures influenced risk and protective factors related to unintentional overdose by altering the environment in which people live and use substances, influencing the ability of people who use substances to be safe and well. METHODS: One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone or in-person with people who use illicit substances (n = 62) across the province. Thematic analysis was performed to identify factors shaping the overdose risk environment. RESULTS: Participants pointed to factors that increased risk of overdose, including: [1] physical distancing measures that created social and physical isolation and led to more substance use alone without bystanders nearby able to respond in the event of an emergency; [2] early drug price spikes and supply chain issues that created inconsistencies in drug availability; [3] increasing toxicity and impurities in unregulated substances; [4] restriction of harm reduction services and supply distribution sites; and [5] additional burden placed on peer workers on the frontlines of the illicit drug toxicity crisis. Despite these challenges, participants highlighted factors that protected against overdose and substance-related harm, including the emergence of new programs, the resiliency of communities of people who use substances who expanded their outreach efforts, the existence of established social relationships, and the ways that individuals consistently prioritized overdose response over concerns about COVID-19 transmission to care for one another. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study illustrate the complex contextual factors that shape overdose risk and highlight the importance of ensuring that the needs of people who use substances are addressed in future public health emergency responses.

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

Purpose: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). To our knowledge, no research has systematically studied client preferences for accessing iOAT. Incorporating preferences could help meet the heterogenous needs of clients and make addiction care more person-centred. This paper presents a pilot study of a best-worst scaling (BWS) preference elicitation survey that aimed to assess if the survey was feasible and accessible for our population and to test that the survey could gather sound data that would suit our planned analyses. Patients and Methods: Current and former iOAT clients (n = 18) completed a BWS survey supported by an interviewer using a think-aloud approach. The survey was administered on PowerPoint, and responses and contextual field notes were recorded manually. Think-aloud audio was recorded on Audacity. Results: Clients' feedback fell into five categories: framing of the task, accessibility, conceptualization of attributes and levels, formatting, and behaviour predicting questions. Survey repetitiveness was the most consistent feedback. The data simulation showed that 100 responses should provide an adequate sample size. Conclusion: This pilot demonstrates the type of analysis that can be done with BWS in our population, suggests that such analysis is feasible, and highlights the importance of the interviewer and participant working side-by-side throughout the task.

Concurrent use of opioids and stimulants and risk of fatal overdose: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant use has been rising among people with opioid use disorder in recent years in North America, alongside a parallel rise in illicit drug toxicity (overdose) deaths. This study aimed to examine the association between stimulant use and overdose mortality. METHODS: Data from a universal health insurance client roster were used to identify a 20% random general population sample (aged ≥12) in British Columbia, Canada between January 1 2015 and December 31 2018 (N = 1,089,682). Provincial health records were used to identify people who used opioids and/or stimulants. Fatal overdose observed during follow-up (January 12,015- December 312,018) was retrieved from Vital Statistics Death Registry and BC Coroners Service Data. Potential confounders including age, sex, health region, comorbidities and prescribed medications were retrieved from the provincial client roster and health records. RESULTS: We identified 7460 people who used stimulants and or opioids. During follow-up there were 272 fatal overdose events. People who used both opioids and stimulants had more than twice the hazard of fatal overdose (HR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.47-2.78, p < 0.001) compared to people who used opioids only. The hazard of death increased over time among people who used both opioids and stimulants. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to prioritize the service needs of people who use stimulants to reduce overdose mortality in British Columbia. Findings have relevance more broadly in other North American settings, where similar trends in opioid and stimulant polysubstance use have been observed.

Identifying behaviours for survival and wellness among people who use methamphetamine with opioids in British Columbia: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: British Columbia (BC) has been in a state of public health emergency since 2016, due to the unprecedented numbers of fatal and non-fatal drug toxicity (i.e. overdose) events. Methamphetamine detection in illicit drug toxicity deaths increased from 14% in 2012 to 43% in 2020 suggesting a concerning trend of concurrent methamphetamine and opioid use in BC, consistent with rising patterns identified across North America. People who use methamphetamine concurrently with opioids face an elevated risk of harm. This study aimed to identify behaviours for survival and wellness practiced by people who concurrently use methamphetamine and opioids. METHODS: One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted by peer research assistants in person and by telephone. Thematic analysis was carried out to identify patterns in behaviours participants described as important to their safety in the context of concurrent use of methamphetamine and opioids. RESULTS: Participants (n = 22) were distributed across the province with at least four participants from each of the five geographic health regions: 64% self-identified as men, and 50% self-identified as Indigenous. Daily methamphetamine use was reported by 72.7% of participants, and 67.3% reported using alone either often or always. Participants made several considerations and adaptations in order to balance the perceived benefits and risks of their use of methamphetamine with opioids. Two overarching themes were identified to describe how participants adapted their use for survival and wellness. The first was personal safety behaviours which included self-regulation and self-care behaviours. The second was interpersonal safety behaviours which included using alongside peers, and engaging with peer-led services (e.g. community outreach organizations) and public health-led services (e.g. overdose prevention sites) to reduce the risk of harm. Participants identified many gaps in available services to meet their diverse needs. CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript identified diversity in participants' methamphetamine and opioid use (i.e. frequency, route of administration), and a range of behaviours that were performed to improve wellness and survival while using methamphetamine and opioids. Harm reduction and treatment responses must be robust and adaptable to respond to the diversity of patterns of substance use among people who use methamphetamine and opioids concurrently, so as to not perpetuate harm and leave people behind.

Motivations for concurrent use of uppers and downers among people who access harm reduction services in British Columbia, Canada: findings from the 2019 Harm Reduction Client Survey.

INTRODUCTION: An increase in crystal methamphetamine (methamphetamine) use during the overdose epidemic is being observed in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and across North America. Concurrent use (ie, using uppers and downers one after the other or together) can increase the risk of fatal and non-fatal opioid overdose. OBJECTIVES: We investigated motivations for concurrent use of uppers and downers, specifically how (eg, in what order) and why people use concurrently, to identify potential interventions to prevent overdose and other harms. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The 2019 Harm Reduction Client Survey was administered across 22 harm reduction supply distribution sites in BC (n=621). This thematic analysis examined 307 responses by people who affirmed concurrent use to classify order and reasons for using uppers and downers concurrently. RESULTS: Of the 307 people who responded 'yes' to concurrent use, 179 (58.3%) used downers then uppers, 76 (24.8%) used uppers then downers and 184 (59.9%) mixed uppers and downers together. Four main reasons for concurrent use emerged: self-medication, availability and preference, drug effects/properties, and financial and life situation. People who mixed drugs together predominantly wanted to achieve desired drug effects/properties, such as a specific high or balancing stimulating and sedating effects. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing rise in overdoses in BC is multifactorial, and the recent parallel increases in methamphetamine use and concurrent use with opioids may contribute. Qualitative interviews may further elucidate reasons for concurrent use. Addressing reasons for concurrent use identified in this study through harm reduction strategies and education may affect the rates of overdose morbidity and mortality.

Correlates of concurrent use of stimulants and opioids among people who access harm reduction services in British Columbia, Canada: Findings from the 2019 Harm Reduction Client Survey.

BACKGROUND: During a public health overdose emergency driven by fentanyl in British Columbia (BC), Canada, a parallel increase in concurrent use of methamphetamines may be contributing to the risk of overdose. Concurrent use refers to the use of stimulants and opioids one after the other, or together. Describing substance use practices and elucidating correlates of concurrent use can inform harm reduction service provision and prevent overdose events. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed the 2019 Harm Reduction Client Survey administered at 22 harm reduction sites across BC and sampled individuals aged 19 and older. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models identified correlates of concurrent use of stimulants and opioids in the last three days. RESULTS: The study sample was composed of 574 individuals who used stimulants and/or opioids, among whom 307 (53.5%) reported concurrent use. Compared with individuals who used stimulants and/or opioids separately, the odds of concurrent use were significantly increased (OR=2.74, 95%CI 1.71-4.51) while the adjusted odds were increased (aOR=1.79, 95%CI 0.98-3.34) among individuals who experienced an opioid overdose. Further, the adjusted odds of concurrent use decreased with every one-year increase in age (aOR=0.97, 95%CI 0.95-0.99), among individuals with paid work (aOR=0.58, 95%CI 0.33-0.99), and stable housing (aOR=0.61, 95%CI 0.37-1.02). The adjusted odds of concurrent use increased among individuals who used drugs daily (aOR=3.78, 95%CI 2.28-6.40), used tobacco (aOR=2.03, 95%CI 1.09-3.87), used benzodiazepines (aOR=3.72, 95%CI 1.76-8.41), owned a naloxone kit (aOR=1.94, 95%CI 1.15-3.31), used observed consumption sites (aOR=2.51, 95%CI 1.57-4.07), and were prescribed opioid agonist therapy (aOR=2.92, 95%CI 1.81-4.77). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who used stimulants and opioids concurrently tend to be younger, without paid work or housing. They were engaged in harm reduction and treatment services, yet used illicit drugs with unknown concentration daily. Improving access to age-appropriate services and expanding the availability of both legal and regulated stimulants and opioids may further reduce harms of concurrent use.

Investigating opioid preference to inform safe supply services: A cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The drug toxicity crisis continues to be a significant cause of death. Over 24,600 people died from opioid toxicity in Canada over the last 5 years. Safe supply programs are required now more than ever to address the high rate of drug toxicity overdose deaths caused by illicit fentanyl and its analogues. This study aims to identify opioid preferences and associated variables to inform further phases of safe supply program implementation. METHODS: The Harm Reduction Client Survey, an annual cross-sectional survey of people who use drugs (PWUD), was administered at harm reduction supply distribution sites in BC in October-December 2019. The survey collects information on substance use patterns, associated harms, stigma, and utilization of harm reduction services. Eligibility criteria for survey participation included aged 19 years or older; self-reported substance use of any illicit substance in the past six months, and ability to provide verbal informed consent. We conducted multivariate logistic regression to investigate associations with opioid preference. We used the dichotomized preference for either heroin or fentanyl as an outcome variable. Explanatory variables of interest included: geographic region, urbanicity, gender, age category, Indigenous identity, housing, employment, witnessing or experiencing an overdose, using drugs alone, using drugs at an observed consumption site, injection as preferred mode of use, injecting any drug, frequency of use, and drugs used in last 3 days. RESULTS: Of the 621 survey participants, 405 reported a preferred opioid; of these 57.8% preferred heroin, 32.8% preferred fentanyl and 9.4% preferred prescription opioids. The proportion of participants who preferred heroin over fentanyl significantly increased with age. The adjusted odds of a participant 50 or older preferring heroin was 6.76 (95% CI: 2.78-16.41, p-value: < 0.01) times the odds of an individual 29 or under. The adjusted odds of an Indigenous participant reporting a preference for heroin compared to fentanyl was 1.75 (95% CI: 1.03-2.98, p-value: 0.04) the odds of a non-Indigenous participant reporting the same. Adjusted odds of heroin preference also differed between geographic regions within British Columbia, Canada. CONCLUSION: Opioid preference differs by age, geographic area, and Indigenous identity. To create effective safe supply programs, we need to engage PWUD about their drugs of choice.

Guideline development in harm reduction: Considerations around the meaningful involvement of people who access services.

Background: Harm reduction seeks to minimizes the negative effects of drug use while respecting the rights of people with lived and living experience of substance use (PWLLE). Guideline standards ("guidelines for guidelines") provide direction on developing healthcare guidelines. To identify essential considerations for guideline development within harm reduction, we examined whether guideline standards are consistent with a harm reduction approach in their recommendations on involving people who access services. Methods: We searched the literature from 2011-2021 to identify guideline standards used in harm reduction and publications on involving PWLLE in developing harm reduction services. We used thematic analysis to compare their guidance on involving people who access services. Findings were validated with two organizations of PWLLE. Results: Six guideline standards and 18 publications met inclusion criteria. We identified three themes related to involving people who access services: Reasons for Involvement, Methods of Involvement, and Factors in Success. Subthemes varied across the literature. We identified five essential considerations for guideline development in harm reduction: establishing a shared understanding of reasons for involving PWLLE; respecting their expertise; partnering with PWLLE to ensure appropriate engagement; incorporating perspectives of populations disproportionately affected by substance use; and securing resources. Conclusion: Guideline standards and the harm reduction literature approach the involvement of people who access services from different perspectives. Thoughtful integration of the two paradigms can improve guidelines while empowering PWLLE. Our findings can support the development of high-quality guidelines that align with the fundamental principles of harm reduction in their involvement of PWLLE.

A multi-methods and longitudinal study of patients' perceptions in injectable opioid agonist treatment: Implications for advancing patient-centered methodologies in substance use research.

BACKGROUND: Patients' perceptions are vital to the delivery and evaluation of substance use treatment. They are most frequently collected at one time-point and measured using patient satisfaction questionnaires or qualitative methodologies. Interestingly, the findings of these studies often diverge, as satisfaction scores tend to be highly positive, while qualitative findings suggest dissatisfaction and areas for improvement. This divergence limits current understandings of patients' perceptions and their potential change over time in treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study explores the relationship between open-ended positive and negative perceptions of treatment and patient satisfaction scores over time. METHODS: The RUTH (Research on the Utilization of Therapeutic Hydromorphone) prospective cohort study included 131 participants receiving injectable diacetylmorphine or hydromorphone in Canada's first injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) program. The study collected the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) at eight time-points over an 18-month period. Following a multi-methods approach, the study complemented the CSQ-8 with open-ended positive and negative comments of iOAT. The research team analyzed these comments thematically at each time-point to develop positive and negative perception themes. We then used growth curve modeling to explore the relationship between positive and negative perception themes and patient satisfaction over time. FINDINGS: Over the eight time-points, six positive and eight negative perception themes emerged, broadly reflecting structural (e.g., expansion of iOAT), process (e.g., schedules), relational (e.g., interactions with providers), and outcome-related (e.g., met/unmet needs) perceptions of iOAT. On average, participants reported high satisfaction (grand mean = 29.2 out of 32), and scores did not significantly change over time. However, we did find significant unexplained variation within participants in their satisfaction trajectories and between participants in their initial satisfaction scores. In conditional growth curve models, the theme "unfavorable interactions with providers" had the strongest independent effect on overall satisfaction trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an example of how open-ended comments can be integrated with patient satisfaction questionnaire data to gather a comprehensive and patient-centered evaluation of substance use treatment. Considering the iOAT context specifically, relational dynamics and daily treatment access were significant predictors of patient satisfaction over time and may be attributes of iOAT that require further investigation.

Exploring the effectiveness of dextroamphetamine for the treatment of stimulant use disorder: a qualitative study with patients receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment.

BACKGROUND: A high proportion of people receiving both oral and injectable opioid agonist treatment report concurrent use of stimulants (i.e. cocaine and or amphetamines), which has been associated with higher rates of continued illicit opioid use and treatment dropout. A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of dextroamphetamine (a prescribed stimulant) at reducing craving for and use of cocaine among patients receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment. Following this evidence, dextroamphetamine has been prescribed to patients with stimulant use disorder at a clinic in Vancouver. This study investigates perceptions of the effectiveness of dextroamphetamine from the perspective of these patients. METHODS: Data were collected using small focus groups and one-on-one interviews with patients who were currently or formerly receiving dextroamphetamine (n = 20). Thematic analysis was conducted using an iterative approach, moving between data collection and analysis to search for patterns in the data across transcripts. This process led to the defining and naming of three central themes responding to the research question. RESULTS: Participants reported a range of stimulant use types, including cocaine (n = 8), methamphetamine (n = 8), or both (n = 4). Three central themes were identified as relating to participants' perceptions of the effectiveness of the medication: 1) achieving a substitution effect (i.e. extent to which dextroamphetamine provided a substitution for the effect they received from use of illicit stimulants); 2) Reaching a preferred dose (i.e. speed of titration and effect of the dose received); and 3) Ease of medication access (i.e. preference for take home doses (i.e. carries) vs. medication integrated into care at the clinic). CONCLUSION: In the context of continued investigation of pharmacological treatments for stimulant use disorder, the present study has highlighted how the study of clinical outcomes could be extended to account for factors that contribute to perceptions of effectiveness from the perspective of patients. In practice, elements of treatment delivery (e.g. dosing and dispensation protocols) can be adjusted to allow for various scenarios (e.g. on site vs. take home dosing) by which dextroamphetamine and other pharmacological stimulants could be implemented to provide "effective" treatment for people with a wide range of treatment goals and needs.

Evaluation of risk mitigation measures for people with substance use disorders to address the dual public health crises of COVID-19 and overdose in British Columbia: a mixed-method study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic was preceded by an ongoing overdose crisis and linked to escalating drug overdose deaths in British Columbia (BC). At the outset of these dual public health emergencies, the BC government announced interim Risk Mitigation Guidance (RMG) that permitted prescribing medication alternatives to substances, including opioids, alcohol, stimulants and benzodiazepines, an intervention sometimes referred to as 'safe supply'. This protocol outlines the approach for a study of the implementation of RMG and its impacts on COVID-19 infection, drug-related and systemic harms, continuity of care for people with substance use disorder (SUD), as well as their behavioural, psychosocial and well-being outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a parallel mixed-method study that involved both analysis of population-level administrative health data and primary data collection, including a 10-week longitudinal observational study (target n=200), a cross-sectional survey (target n=200) and qualitative interviews (target n=60). We implemented a participatory approach to this evaluation, partnering with people with lived or living expertise of drug use, and researchers and public health decision-makers across the province. Linked population-level administrative databases will analyse data from a cohort of BC residents with an indication of SUD between 1996 and 2020. We will execute high-dimensional propensity score matching and marginal structural modelling to construct a control group and to assess the impact of RMG dispensation receipt on a collaboratively determined set of primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study activities were developed to adhere to the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, recommended COVID-19 research practices, and guided by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action for public health, data governance and research ethics related to Indigenous people. Results will be disseminated incrementally, on an ongoing basis, through the consortium established for this study, then published in peer-reviewed journals.

Treatment with injectable hydromorphone: Comparing retention in double blind and open label treatment periods.

BACKGROUND: In a double-blind, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial injectable hydromorphone, a licensed short acting opioid analgesic, was shown to be as effective as diacetylmorphine for the treatment of severe opioid use disorder. An appropriate question is whether hydromorphone offered open-label can attract and retain patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective study, using daily prescription data from the Crosstown Clinic in Vancouver, Canada. Treatment retention among participants who had the opportunity to receive open-label injectable hydromorphone for at least 90 consecutive days (n = 108) before having the choice of receiving open-label diacetylmorphine, was compared to their retention outcomes with double-blind injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT). McNemar tests analyzed differences in proportions; a conditional logistic model estimated exact odds ratios; Pairwise t-tests analyzed differences in total number of treatment days; and Kaplan-Meier curves and clustered log-rank tests compared time to first 30 continuous days without injectable treatment. RESULTS: A total of 74 participants (68.5%) were retained in both open-label hydromorphone and double-blind iOAT. Open-label hydromorphone was not significantly associated with lower retention (OR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.2, 1.1; p = .10). Participants attended a mean of 84.4 (SD = 15.8) days of iOAT in the trial and 80.5 (SD = 22.0) days in open-label hydromorphone (mean difference of -3.9; 95% CI = -8.9, 1.1). Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: As treatment with injectable hydromorphone expands across Canada, our study contributes in a unique manner by providing evidence that the high retention rates observed during the clinical trial were maintained when participants started open-label hydromorphone.