Safe inhalation pipe provision (SIPP): protocol for a mixed-method evaluation of an intervention to improve health outcomes and service engagement among people who use crack cocaine in England.

BACKGROUND: Over 180,000 people use crack cocaine in England, yet provision of smoking equipment to support safer crack use is prohibited under UK law. Pipes used for crack cocaine smoking are often homemade and/or in short supply, leading to pipe sharing and injuries from use of unsafe materials. This increases risk of viral infection and respiratory harm among a marginalised underserved population. International evaluations suggest crack pipe supply leads to sustained reductions in pipe sharing and use of homemade equipment; increased health risk awareness; improved service access; reduction in injecting and crack-related health problems. In this paper, we introduce the protocol for the NIHR-funded SIPP (Safe inhalation pipe provision) project and discuss implications for impact. METHODS: The SIPP study will develop, implement and evaluate a crack smoking equipment and training intervention to be distributed through peer networks and specialist drug services in England. Study components comprise: (1) peer-network capacity building and co-production; (2) a pre- and post-intervention survey at intervention and non-equivalent control sites; (3) a mixed-method process evaluation; and (4) an economic evaluation. Participant eligibility criteria are use of crack within the past 28 days, with a survey sample of ~ 740 for each impact evaluation survey point and ~ 40 for qualitative process evaluation interviews. Our primary outcome measure is pipe sharing within the past 28 days, with secondary outcomes pertaining to use of homemade pipes, service engagement, injecting practice and acute health harms. ANTICIPATED IMPACT: SIPP aims to reduce crack use risk practices and associated health harms; including through increasing crack harm reduction awareness among service providers and peers. Implementation has only been possible with local police approvals. Our goal is to generate an evidence base to inform review of the legislation prohibiting crack pipe supply in the UK. This holds potential to transform harm reduction service provision and engagement nationally. CONCLUSION: People who smoke crack cocaine in England currently have little reason to engage with harm reduction and drug services. Little is known about this growing population. This study will provide insight into population characteristics, unmet need and the case for legislative reform. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12541454  https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12541454.

Opioid Injection-Associated Bacterial Infections in England, 2002-2021: A Time Series Analysis of Seasonal Variation and the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial infections cause substantial pain and disability among people who inject drugs. We described time trends in hospital admissions for injecting-related infections in England. METHODS: We analyzed hospital admissions in England between January 2002 and December 2021. We included patients with infections commonly caused by drug injection, including cutaneous abscesses, cellulitis, endocarditis, or osteomyelitis, and a diagnosis of opioid use disorder. We used Poisson regression to estimate seasonal variation and changes associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response. RESULTS: There were 92 303 hospital admissions for injection-associated infections between 2002 and 2021. Eighty-seven percent were skin, soft-tissue, or vascular infections; 72% of patients were male; and the median age increased from 31 years in 2002 to 42 years in 2021. The rate of admissions reduced from 13.97 per day (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.59-14.36) in 2003 to 8.94 (95% CI, 8.64-9.25) in 2011, then increased to 18.91 (95% CI, 18.46-19.36) in 2019. At the introduction of COVID-19 response in March 2020, the rate of injection-associated infections reduced by 35.3% (95% CI, 32.1-38.4). Injection-associated infections were also seasonal; the rate was 1.21 (95% CI, 1.18-1.24) times higher in July than in February. CONCLUSIONS: This incidence of opioid injection-associated infections varies within years and reduced following COVID-19 response measures. This suggests that social and structural factors such as housing and the degree of social mixing may contribute to the risk of infection, supporting investment in improved social conditions for this population as a means to reduce the burden of injecting-related infections.

Analysis of the UK Government's 10-Year Drugs Strategy-a resource for practitioners and policymakers.

In 2021, during a drug-related death crisis in the UK, the Government published its ten-year drugs strategy. This article, written in collaboration with the Faculty of Public Health and the Association of Directors of Public Health, assesses whether this Strategy is evidence-based and consistent with international calls to promote public health approaches to drugs, which put 'people, health and human rights at the centre'. Elements of the Strategy are welcome, including the promise of significant funding for drug treatment services, the effects of which will depend on how it is utilized by services and local commissioners and whether it is sustained. However, unevidenced and harmful measures to deter drug use by means of punishment continue to be promoted, which will have deleterious impacts on people who use drugs. An effective public health approach to drugs should tackle population-level risk factors, which may predispose to harmful patterns of drug use, including adverse childhood experiences and socioeconomic deprivation, and institute evidence-based measures to mitigate drug-related harm. This would likely be more effective, and just, than the continuation of policies rooted in enforcement. A more dramatic re-orientation of UK drug policy than that offered by the Strategy is overdue.

'This is hardcore': a qualitative study exploring service users' experiences of Heroin-Assisted Treatment (HAT) in Middlesbrough, England.

BACKGROUND: Heroin-Assisted Treatment (HAT) is well evidenced internationally to improve health and social outcomes for people dependent on opioids who have not been helped by traditional treatment options. Despite this evidence base, England has been slow to implement HAT. The first service outside of a trial setting opened in 2019, providing twice-daily supervised injections of medical-grade heroin (diamorphine) to a select sample of high-risk heroin users in Middlesbrough. This paper explores their experiences, including the negotiation of the strict regularly controls required of a novel intervention in the UK context. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with service providers and users of the Middlesbrough HAT service between September and November 2021. Data from each group were thematically analysed and reported separately. This paper details the experiences of the twelve heroin dependent men and women accessing HAT. RESULTS: Participants' accounts of HAT treatment evidenced a tension between the regulatory constraints and uncertainty of treatment provision, and the positive outcomes experienced through supportive service provision and an injectable treatment option. Limited confidence was held in treatment efficacy, longevity of funding, and personal capacity for treatment success. This was counteracted by a strong motivation to cease engagement with the illicit drug market. While attendance requirements placed restrictions on daily activities, participants also experienced benefits from strong, supportive bonds built with the service providers through their continued engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The Middlesbrough HAT programme provided benefits to a high-risk population of opioid dependent people who were unable or disinclined to participate in conventional opioid substitution treatments. The findings in this paper highlight the potential for service modifications to further enhance engagement. The closure of this programme in 2022 prohibits this opportunity for the Middlesbrough community, but holds potential to inform advocacy and innovation for future HAT interventions in England.

Development, acceptability and feasibility of a personalised, behavioural intervention to prevent bacterial skin and soft tissue infections among people who inject drugs: a mixed-methods Person-Based Approach study.

BACKGROUND: Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) among people who inject drugs (PWID) are a public health concern. This study aimed to co-produce and assess the acceptability and feasibility of a behavioural intervention to prevent SSTI. METHODS: The Person-Based Approach (PBA) was followed which involves: (i) collating and analysing evidence; (ii) developing guiding principles; (iii) a behavioural analysis; (iv) logic model development; and (v) designing and refining intervention materials. Co-production activities with target group representatives and key collaborators obtained feedback on the intervention which was used to refine its design and content. The intervention, harm reduction advice cards to support conversation between service provider and PWID and resources to support safer injecting practice, was piloted with 13 PWID by four service providers in Bristol and evaluated using a mixed-methods approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 PWID and four service providers. Questionnaires completed by all PWID recorded demographic characteristics, SSTI, drug use and treatment history. Interviews were analysed thematically and questionnaires were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Published literature highlighted structural barriers to safer injecting practices, such as access to hygienic injecting environments and injecting practices associated with SSTI included: limited handwashing/injection-site swabbing and use of too much acidifier to dissolve drugs. Co-production activities and the literature indicated vein care and minimisation of pain as PWID priorities. The importance of service provider-client relationships and non-stigmatising delivery was highlighted through the co-production work. Providing practical resources was identified as important to address environmental constraints to safer injecting practices. Most participants receiving the intervention were White British, male, had a history of SSTI and on average were 43.6 years old and had injected for 22.7 years. The intervention was well-received by PWID and service providers. Intervention content and materials given out to support harm reduction were viewed positively. The intervention appeared to support reflections on and intentions to change injecting behaviours, though barriers to safer injecting practice remained prominent. CONCLUSIONS: The PBA ensured the intervention aligned to the priorities of PWID. It was viewed as acceptable and mostly feasible to PWID and service providers and has transferability promise. Further implementation alongside broader harm reduction interventions is needed.

Barriers to management of opioid withdrawal in hospitals in England: a document analysis of hospital policies on the management of substance dependence.

BACKGROUND: People who use illicit opioids are more likely to be admitted to hospital than people of the same age in the general population. Many admissions end in discharge against medical advice, which is associated with readmission and all-cause mortality. Opioid withdrawal contributes to premature discharge. We sought to understand the barriers to timely provision of opioid substitution therapy (OST), which helps to prevent opioid withdrawal, in acute hospitals in England. METHODS: We requested policies on substance dependence management from 135 National Health Service trusts, which manage acute hospitals in England, and conducted a document content analysis. Additionally, we reviewed an Omitted and Delayed Medicines Tool (ODMT), one resource used to inform critical medicine categorisation in England. We worked closely with people with lived experience of OST and/or illicit opioid use, informed by principles of community-based participatory research. RESULTS: Eighty-six (64%) trusts provided 101 relevant policies. An additional 44 (33%) responded but could not provide relevant policies, and five (4%) did not send a definitive response. Policies illustrate procedural barriers to OST provision, including inconsistent application of national guidelines across trusts. Continuing community OST prescriptions for people admitted in the evening, night-time, or weekend was often precluded by requirements to confirm doses with organisations that were closed during these hours. 42/101 trusts (42%) required or recommended a urine drug test positive for OST medications or opioids prior to OST prescription. The language used in many policies was stigmatising and characterised people who use drugs as untrustworthy. OST was not specifically mentioned in the reviewed ODMT, with 'drugs used in substance dependence' collectively categorised as posing low risk if delayed and moderate risk if omitted. CONCLUSIONS: Many hospitals in England have policies that likely prevent timely and effective OST. This was underpinned by the 'low-risk' categorisation of OST delay in the ODMT. Delays to continuity of OST between community and hospital settings may contribute to inpatient opioid withdrawal and increase the risk of discharge against medical advice. Acute hospitals in England require standardised best practice policies that account for the needs of this patient group.

"It's too hard" - the management of latent TB in under-served populations in the UK: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: UK national guidance recommends systematic screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in under-served populations, including people experiencing homelessness and people who use drugs. This is not routinely implemented in the UK, and the reasons for this policy-practice mismatch remain underexplored. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 19 healthcare professionals from across the UK. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling and snowballing, identifying individuals with excellent knowledge of their regions practice and policy of LTBI management. The interviews were conducted online, and were audio recorded, with transcripts thematically analysed using a two-stage inductive coding process to explore perceived barriers and enablers to LTBI screening. RESULTS: Most participants had previous experience managing LTBI in under-served populations, but none were conducting systematic screening as per national guidance. We identified service provision challenges and low prioritisation of LTBI as the key explanatory themes driving this policy-practice mismatch. Lack of resource, and the complexity of clinical decision making were two key service level barriers. System and service inertia, and lack of cost effectiveness evidence led to LTBI being deprioritised. Service integration and promotion of WHO targets for TB elimination were highlighted as potential solutions. CONCLUSION: Integrating LTBI testing and treatment with existing health services for under-served populations could improve feasibility and efficacy. Promotion of UK TB elimination goals and generation of regional evidence to support commissioning for LTBI care is vital. Without such a multi-pronged approach inertia is likely to persist and the zeitgeist will remain: "it's too hard".

Navigating environmental constraints to injection preparation: the use of saliva and other alternatives to sterile water among unstably housed PWID in London.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom is experiencing an increase in drug-related deaths and serious bacterial infections among its most vulnerable citizens. Cuts to essential services, coupled with a growing homeless population, create a challenging environment to tackle this public health crisis. In this paper, we highlight an underexplored environmental constraint faced by people living and injecting drugs on the streets. Access to water for injection is restricted in the UK, due to legislative and financial barriers. Austerity measures, such as public toilet closures, further restrict the ability of people made homeless to access clean water and protect themselves from health harms. METHODS: We generated questionnaire (n = 455) and in-depth qualitative interview (n = 32) data with people who inject drugs in London for the Care and Prevent study. Participants provided detail on their life history; drug use, injecting and living environments; health conditions and care seeking practices. FINDINGS: A high proportion of the survey sample reported lifetime history of street homelessness (78%), bacterial infections (65%) and related hospitalisation (30%). Qualitative accounts highlight unsafe, potentially dangerous, injection practices in semi-public spaces. Multiple constraints to sourcing sterile water for injection preparation were reported. Alternatives to sterile water included puddle water, toilet cistern water, whisky, cola soda and saliva. Participants who injected heroin and crack cocaine together unanimously reported adding water at two stages during injection preparation: first, adding water as a vehicle for heroin (which was then heated); second, adding cold water to the heroin mixture prior to adding the crack cocaine. This new finding of a stage addition of solvent may represent an additional risk of infection. CONCLUSION: Currently, harm reduction equipment and resources for safe injecting are not meeting the needs of people who inject drugs who are street homeless or unstably housed. Preparation of injections with non-sterile water sources could precipitate bacterial and fungal infections, particularly when used without the application of heat. It is crucial that water for injection, also skin cleaning, is made available for the unstably housed and that harm reduction messaging is tailored to speak to the everyday realities of people who prepare and inject drugs in public spaces.

Correction to: Navigating environmental constraints to injection preparation: the use of saliva and other alternatives to sterile water among unstably housed PWID in London.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Injecting-related health harms and overuse of acidifiers among people who inject heroin and crack cocaine in London: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Venous access is a priority for people who inject drugs (PWID). Damage and scarring of peripheral veins can exacerbate health harms, such as skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), and promote transitions to femoral and subcutaneous injecting. Brown heroin available in Europe requires acidification for injection preparation. In this paper, we present mixed-methods data to explore our hypothesis of a link between overly acidic injection solutions, venous damage and SSTI risk. METHODS: We present a structured survey (n = 455) and in-depth qualitative interview (n = 31) data generated with PWID in London for the Care & Prevent study. Participants provided life history data and detail on injecting environments and drug preparation practices, including the use of acidifiers. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using a logistic regression for binary outcomes to explore associations between outcomes and excessive acidifier use. Grounded theory principles informed inductive qualitative analysis. Mixed-methods triangulation was iterative with results comparison informing the direction and questions asked of further analyses. RESULTS: Of the 455 participants, most (92%) injected heroin and/or crack cocaine, with 84% using citric as their primary acid for drug preparation. Overuse of acidifier was common: of the 418 who provided an estimate, 36% (n = 150) used more than ½ a sachet, with 30% (n = 127) using a whole sachet or more. We found associations between acidifier overuse, femoral injecting and DVT, but not SSTI. Qualitative accounts highlight the role of poor heroin quality, crack cocaine use, information and manufacturing constraints in acidifier overuse. Painful injections and damage to peripheral veins were common and often attributed to the use of citric acid. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce injecting-related injury and associated consequences, it is crucial to understand the interplay of environmental and practice-based risks underpinning venous damage among PWID. Overuse of acidifier is a modifiable risk factor. In the absence of structural supports such as safe injecting facilities or the prescribing of pharmaceutical diamorphine, there is an urgent need to revisit injecting paraphernalia design and distribution in order to alleviate health harms and distress among the most marginalised.

A qualitative assessment of the acceptability of hepatitis C remote self-testing and self-sampling amongst people who use drugs in London, UK.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C (HCV) diagnosis and care is a major challenge for people who use illicit drugs, and is characterised by low rates of testing and treatment engagement globally. New approaches to fostering engagement are needed. We explored the acceptability of remote forms of HCV testing including self-testing and self-sampling among people who use drugs in London, UK. METHODS: A qualitative rapid assessment was undertaken with people who use drugs and stakeholders in London, UK. Focus groups were held with men who have sex with men engaged in drug use, people who currently inject drugs and people who formerly injected drugs (22 participants across the 3 focus groups). Stakeholders participated in semi-structured interviews (n = 5). We used a thematic analysis to report significant themes in participants' responses. RESULTS: We report an overarching theme of 'tension' in how participants responded to the acceptability of remote testing. This tension is evident across four separate sub-themes we explore. First, choice and control, with some valuing the autonomy and privacy remote testing could support. Second, the ease of use of self testing linked to its immediate result and saliva sample was preferred over the delayed result from a self administered blood sample tested in a laboratory. Third, many respondents described the need to embed remote testing within a supportive care pathway. Fourth, were concerns over managing a positive result, and its different meanings, in isolation. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of remote HCV testing is acceptable to some people who use drugs in London, although tensions with lived experience of drug use and health system access limit its relevance. Future development of remote testing must respond to concerns raised in order for acceptable implementation to take place.

"It's Not Much of a Life": The Benefits and Ethics of Using Life History Methods With People Who Inject Drugs in Qualitative Harm Reduction Research.

A life history approach enables study of how risk or health protection is shaped by critical transitions and turning points in a life trajectory and in the context of social environment and time. We employed visual and narrative life history methods with people who inject drugs to explore how hepatitis C protection was enabled and maintained over the life course. We overview our methodological approach, with a focus on the ethics in practice of using life history timelines and life-grids with 37 participants. The life-grid evoked mixed emotions for participants: pleasure in receiving a personalized visual history and pain elicited by its contents. A minority managed this pain with additional heroin use. The methodological benefits of using life history methods and visual aids have been extensively reported. Crucial to consider are the ethical implications of this process, particularly for people who lack socially ascribed markers of a "successful life."

Opiate Injection-Associated Skin, Soft Tissue, and Vascular Infections, England, UK, 1997-2016.

In England, UK, hospital admissions caused by bacterial infections associated with opioid use have increased annually since 2012, after 9 years of decline, mirroring trends in overdose deaths. The increase occurred among persons of both sexes and in all age groups and suggests preventive measures need reviewing.

"Three in the Room": Embodiment, Disclosure, and Vulnerability in Qualitative Research.

The researcher's body in qualitative research is often absented, an absence that can render deceptively tidy research accounts. In this article, I reflect on the interplay of embodiment and disclosure in the interview dynamic and the way in which my body became an object of inquiry in the research process. Three qualitative studies inform the article: the first exploring the experiences of 40 people living with hepatitis C in New Zealand and Australia, the second comprising life-history interviews with 38 people who inject drugs in London, and the third following 27 people through hepatitis C treatment in London. Bodily and verbal disclosures of my history, as someone with/without hepatitis C and a former heroin user, affected the energy of the interview dynamic, also embodied understandings of illness and drug use. Disclosure can enhance researcher vulnerability and I close with reflection on the ethical implications of "enhanced rapport" in the research situation.

Purging to cleanse: a qualitative study of Ayahuasca healing at a drug treatment centre in Peru.

OBJECTIVE: Ayahuasca, an entheogen from the Amazon rainforest, has garnered growing interest to treat substance dependence. To date, there is little research concerning the act of Ayahuasca-related purging (mainly vomiting), which is considered to be central to healing during Ayahuasca rituals. This study explored practitioner perspectives on purging during Ayahuasca rituals at the Takiwasi Centre in Peru. METHOD: We conducted in-depth interviews with curanderos (healers), plant preparers, and psychotherapists (N=11) at the Takiwasi Centre between August-October 2021. Interviews were conducted and transcribed in Spanish. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants described purging as a fluid concept that went beyond the act of vomiting. Participant narratives around purging were organized into three central themes or "accounts": Spiritual-oriented, which highlighted the relationship between purging and spiritual development; Amazonian-oriented, which placed emphasis on purging as a cathartic expulsion of embodied cargas (loads) that are perceived to lead to sickness; and Clinical-oriented, which stressed that purging generates a range of empirically-observable therapeutic benefits. All of these explanatory models emphasized the pivotal interconnection between purging and healing during Ayahuasca-assisted treatment for substance dependence at Takiwasi. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights practitioner perspectives on purging at the Takiwasi Centre, who offer three main explanatory models for this aspect of healing during Ayahuasca-assisted therapy for substance dependence. This research contributes to the limited literature on the role of purging in Ayahuasca-related healing, which may inform further investigation into differential understandings of the role of purging for therapeutic benefits.

Co-located Heroin Assisted Treatment within primary care: A preliminary analysis of the implications for healthcare access, cost, and treatment delivery in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The UK is experiencing its highest rate of drug related deaths in 25 years. Poor and inconsistent access to healthcare negatively impacts health outcomes for people who use drugs. Innovation in models of care which promote access and availability of physical treatment is fundamental. Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) is a treatment modality targeted at the most marginalised people who use drugs, at high risk of mortality and morbidity. The first service-provider initiated HAT service in the UK ran between October 2019 and November 2022 in Middlesbrough, England. The service was co-located within a specialist primary care facility offering acute healthcare treatment alongside injectable diamorphine. METHODS: Analysis of anonymised health records for healthcare costs (not including drug treatment) took place using descriptive statistics prior and during engagement with HAT, at both three (n=15) and six (n=12) months. Primary outcome measures were incidents of wound care, skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), overdose (OD) events, unplanned overnight stays in hospital, treatment engagement (general and within hospital care settings) and ambulance incidents. Secondary outcome measures were costs associated with these events. RESULTS: A shift in healthcare access for participants during HAT engagement was observed. HAT service attendance appeared to support health promoting preventative care, and reduce reactive reliance on emergency healthcare systems. At three and six months, engagement for preventative wound care and treatment for SSTIs increased at the practice. Unplanned emergency healthcare interactions for ODs, overnight hospital stays, serious SSTIs, and ambulance incidents reduced, and there was an increase in treatment engagement (i.e. a reduction in appointments which were not engaged with). There was a decrease in treatment engagement in hospital settings. Changes in healthcare utilisation during HAT translated to a reduction in healthcare costs of 58% within six months compared to the same timeframe from the period directly prior to commencing HAT. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study highlights the potential for innovative harm reduction interventions such as HAT, co-located with primary care services, to improve healthcare access and engagement for a high-risk population. Increased uptake of primary healthcare services translated to reductions in emergency healthcare use and associated costs. Although costs of HAT provision are substantial, the notable cost-savings in health care should be an important consideration in service implementation planning.

One size fits all? The discursive framing of cultural difference in health professional accounts of providing cancer care to Aboriginal people.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer is the second biggest killer of Aboriginal Australians. For some cancers, the mortality rate is more than three times higher in Aboriginal people than for non-Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal Patterns of Cancer Care Study explored barriers to and facilitators of cancer diagnosis and treatment among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in New South Wales. DESIGN: Our team--which includes both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal researchers--conducted in-depth interviews between 2009 and 2010 with Aboriginal people with cancer, their carers and health professionals who care for them. In this paper, we identify recurrent patterns of 'discursive framing' in the 16 interviews with health care professionals. We are particularly interested in how these frames assisted participants in constructing a professional position on what 'cultural difference' means for the design and delivery of cancer care services to Aboriginal people. RESULTS: Despite geographical, organisational, disciplinary and cultural diversity, these interview participants consistently drew upon six discursive frames, which we have interpreted as either eliding a discussion of difference ('everyone is the same' and 'everyone is different') or facilitating that discussion ('different priorities,' 'different practices' and 'making difference safe'). An additional strategy appeared to actively resist either of these positions but then tended to ultimately prioritise the eliding frames. CONCLUSIONS: While none of our participants were dismissive of the idea that cultural identity might matter to Aboriginal people, their reliance upon familiar narratives about what that means for cancer care services has the potential to both symbolically and practically exclude the voices of a group of people who may already feel disenfranchised from the mainstream health care system. Critically unpacking the 'taken for granted' assumptions behind how health care professionals make sense of cultural difference can enrich our understanding of and response to the care needs of indigenous people affected by cancer.

Negotiating access to medical treatment and the making of patient citizenship: the case of hepatitis C treatment.

Drawing on qualitative interview accounts with people who have injected drugs, we deploy ideas of biological and therapeutic citizenship to explore how the negotiation of access to hepatitis C treatment enacts patient citizenship potential. We find that the patient citizenship made through hepatitis C treatment divides those who are deserving from those who are not, largely in relation to their presentations of self-control, responsibility and recovery regarding drug use. Accessing treatment requires that patients negotiate their entitlement by reflexively producing the patient citizen role expected of them. In this context of rationed treatment expectation, access to treatment is constructed in relation to gratitude rather than entitlement. Rationed treatment expectation also interplays with a utilitarian approach to hepatitis C expertise. Accounts of the bio-effects of hepatitis C and its treatment as uncertain further weaken the potential for shared illness identity and biosocial membership as well as contributing to treatment delay. We conclude that the construction of hepatitis C treatment as a negotiation of 'recovery towards normality' positions people who continue to use or inject drugs as beyond patient citizenship. Our findings underscore the situated limits of therapeutic and biological citizenship, emphasising that these processes are unavoidably forces of governance.

Hepatitis C treatment access and uptake for people who inject drugs: a review mapping the role of social factors.

BACKGROUND: Evidence documents successful hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment outcomes for people who inject drugs (PWID) and interest in HCV treatment among this population. Maximising HCV treatment for PWID can be an effective HCV preventative measure. Yet HCV treatment among PWID remains suboptimal. This review seeks to map social factors mediating HCV treatment access. METHOD: We undertook a review of the social science and public health literature pertaining to HCV treatment for PWID, with a focus on barriers to treatment access, uptake and completion. Medline and Scopus databases were searched, supplemented by manual and grey literature searches. A two step search was taken, with the first step pertaining to literature on HCV treatment for PWID and the second focusing on social structural factors. In total, 596 references were screened, with 165 articles and reports selected to inform the review. RESULTS: Clinical and individual level barriers to HCV treatment among PWID are well evidenced. These include patient and provider concerns regarding co-morbidities, adherence, and side effect management. Social factors affecting treatment access are less well evidenced. In attempting to map these, key barriers fall into the following domains: social stigma, housing, criminalisation, health care systems, and gender. Key facilitating factors to treatment access include: combination intervention approaches encompassing social as well as biomedical interventions, low threshold access to opiate substitution therapy, and integrated delivery of multidisciplinary care. CONCLUSION: Combination intervention approaches need to encompass social interventions in relation to housing, stigma reduction and systemic changes in policy and health care delivery. Future research needs to better delineate social factors affecting treatment access.

Precarious Lives, Precarious Treatments: Making Drug Treatment Work in Northern Myanmar.

We explore how precarious livelihoods intersect with precarious treatments for heroin dependency in a setting affected by longstanding conflicts and an illicit drug economy as well as by recent events of pandemic and political change. Working with 33 qualitative interviews with people who inject drugs in Kachin State, northern Myanmar, we explore how drug dependency treatment, especially methadone substitution, is made to work in efforts to sustain everyday livelihoods. Our analysis attends to the work that is done to enable therapeutic trajectories to emerge as "generous constraints" in precarity. We trace methadone substitution as an emergent intervention of livelihood survival.