ABSTRACT
Young people who attend intensive alcohol and other drug (AoD) treatment commonly do so more than once. This paper aims to understand precipitators, enablers and barriers to young people's re-engagement in programs. Data come from a longitudinal qualitative study involving three waves of interviews with Australian young people recruited while attending intensive AoD programs (n = 38 at wave 1). We found that young people's ambitions for what they might achieve with a new stay and capacity to benefit from programs, evolved. Skills learnt in earlier stays or changed life circumstances often helped them achieve better outcomes subsequently. Ongoing contact with an AoD worker was the most important enabler to service re-engagement. Across the span of a year, we saw most young people in our study sample develop a stronger sense of wellbeing and control over substance use. While researchers tend to focus on evaluating outcomes associated with single stays at specific programs, young people think about their trajectories towards managing substance use and their lives as occurring more holistically, supported by engagements with a range of services. We argue that the notion of incremental treatment is useful in depicting the synergistic effects of service engagement over time.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) is a new treatment for opioid use disorder. Drawing upon new materialism and the concept of social capital, this article provides a focused analysis of how LAIB affects, and is affected by, patients' relationships with other people. Methods: Data derive from a longitudinal qualitative study. Twenty-six people (18 males; 8 females) initiating LAIB were recruited from England and Wales (2020/2021) and interviewed up to six times each over a year (125 interviews in total). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Coded relationship data were summarized in Excel and analyzed via Iterative Categorization. Results: Core significant others who did not use substances offered participants important support with LAIB. Children and grandchildren provided motivation for LAIB, whilst other family relationships could be supportive and unsupportive. Participants wanted to avoid friends, peers and associates who might offer them substances, but valued sharing experiences with others in similar circumstances. Whilst some participants were unconcerned when treatment staff did not contact them, others were angry and upset. Those who did not continue LAIB or were lost from the study were more isolated at recruitment. Meanwhile, participants who remained on LAIB described increased sociability over time. Conclusions: Findings are consistent with ideas relating to new materialism (LAIB is part of an interacting network of material and non-material factors) and social capital (those with supportive relationships benefited more from LAIB). Interpersonal relationships need to be considered as part of routine care and should be reviewed with patients throughout the treatment journey.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Discontinuation of medications such as methadone and buprenorphine amongst patients receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is an international phenomenon. Recent developments in OAT medication include depot-injections of buprenorphine. Circumstances underlying discontinuation of these new formulations of medication are not fully understood from a qualitative perspective. METHODS: Data derive from a longitudinal qualitative study of patients' experience of long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB), involving semi-structured telephone-interviews held at six-points in time. The relevant dataset for this article consists of 44 interview transcripts, generated from 8 participants who were each affected by discontinuation of LAIB prescriptions (during the first 12-months of treatment). Analyses sought to identify circumstances associated with LAIB discontinuation and data were further situated within a framework of 'evidence making intervention' and associated 'matters-of-concern'. Matters-of-concern relate to the ways in which an intervention is 'made' and constructed through engagement and practice, from the perspective of the recipient. FINDINGS: In this study, participants experienced either 'discontinuation of LAIB prescriptions by treatment services' or patient-led 'opt-out' from treatment. Matters-of-concern underlying the former were associated with late attendance for scheduled appointments, non-prescribed substance use or receiving a custodial sentence. Matters-of-concern relating to patient-initiated discontinuation were associated with personal circumstances that affected treatment motivation, side-effects (of buprenorphine), a preference to resume heroin use, or because individual treatment goals had been achieved. CONCLUSION: The assorted matters-of-concern that influence discontinuation of LAIB demonstrate that such OAT is complex and multi-faceted, is neither fixed nor stable, and does not generate universally shared outcome. Experiences of LAIB discontinuation are shaped by a wide range of social, temporal and treatment-related effects that include disconnected therapeutic alliance between patient and treatment providers. In order to maximise the benefits of LAIB it is necessary to develop meaningful therapeutic alliances (notwithstanding policy boundaries) to enable exploration of matters-of-concern during treatment.
Subject(s)
Buprenorphine , Delayed-Action Preparations , Opiate Substitution Treatment , Opioid-Related Disorders , Qualitative Research , Humans , Buprenorphine/administration & dosage , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Female , Adult , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Middle Aged , Interviews as Topic , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , InjectionsABSTRACT
Background: In 1990, the United States' Institute of Medicine promoted the principles of outcomes monitoring in the alcohol and other drugs treatment field to improve the evidence synthesis and quality of research. While various national outcome measures have been developed and employed, no global consensus on standard measurement has been agreed for addiction. It is thus timely to build an international consensus. Convened by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), an international, multi-disciplinary working group reviewed the existing literature and reached consensus for a globally applicable minimum set of outcome measures for people who seek treatment for addiction. Methods: To this end, 26 addiction experts from 11 countries and 5 continents, including people with lived experience (n = 5; 19%), convened over 16 months (December 2018-March 2020) to develop recommendations for a minimum set of outcome measures. A structured, consensus-building, modified Delphi process was employed. Evidence-based proposals for the minimum set of measures were generated and discussed across eight videoconferences and in a subsequent structured online consultation. The resulting set was reviewed by 123 professionals and 34 people with lived experience internationally. Results: The final consensus-based recommendation includes alcohol, substance, and tobacco use disorders, as well as gambling and gaming disorders in people aged 12 years and older. Recommended outcome domains are frequency and quantity of addictive disorders, symptom burden, health-related quality of life, global functioning, psychosocial functioning, and overall physical and mental health and wellbeing. Standard case-mix (moderator) variables and measurement time points are also recommended. Conclusions: Use of consistent and meaningful outcome measurement facilitates carer-patient relations, shared decision-making, service improvement, benchmarking, and evidence synthesis for the evaluation of addiction treatment services and the dissemination of best practices. The consensus set of recommended outcomes is freely available for adoption in healthcare settings globally.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Women who use or are in treatment for drug use during the perinatal period often have complex needs and presenting comorbidity. Women who use opioids during pregnancy, and their infants, experience poor outcomes. Drug use by women during pregnancy is a public health priority. This scoping review aimed to (1) map clinical guidelines, treatment protocols and good practice guidance across the UK for women who use or are in treatment for drug use during the perinatal period, (2) identify recommended best practice across health and social care for optimising outcomes and reducing inequalities for these women and (3) identify potential gaps within guidance. METHODS: We followed the Joanna Briggs International (JBI) guidance on scoping reviews and PRISMA Scr extension. A registered protocol, containing a clear search strategy, inclusion, and exclusion criteria was adhered to. Reviewers double screened 25%, discussing disagreements. Data were extracted using a predefined template and charted in tables. Recommendations for best practice were organised around agreed categories. RESULTS: Of 968 documents screened, 111 met the inclusion criteria. The documents included UK-wide, national, regional, and organisational policy documents. They varied in the degree they were relevant to women who use or are in treatment for drug use during the perinatal period, the settings to which they applied, and their intended users. Most were created without patient or public involvement and lacked any clear evidence base. Overall, documents recommended an integrated model of care with a lead professional, clear referral pathways and information sharing between agencies. Guidance suggested referrals should be made to specialist midwives, drug, and social care services. A holistic assessment, inclusive of fathers / partners was suggested. Recent documents advocated a trauma-informed care approach. Opioid substitution therapy (OST) was recommended throughout pregnancy where required. Potential gaps were identified around provision of support for women postnatally, especially when their baby is removed from their care. CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis of recommended practice provides key information for practitioners, service providers and policy makers. It also highlights the need for guidelines to be evidence-based, informed by the experiences of women who use or are in treatment for drug use during the perinatal period, and to address the support needs of postnatal women who have their babies removed from their care.
Subject(s)
Midwifery , Substance-Related Disorders , Pregnancy , Infant , Humans , Female , Policy , Organizational Policy , Qualitative Research , Health PrioritiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is limited provision of inpatient detoxification relative to other treatments for alcohol and other drug (AOD) use. This means people often need to wait prior to detoxifying. However, waiting for healthcare is generally perceived as negative and stressful. This paper aims to understand patients' experiences of waiting for inpatient AOD detoxification to ascertain whether and how service-level policies and practices might be improved. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 32 people (20 males, 12 females; aged 25-67 years) who were waiting for inpatient detoxification. Data collection was part of a wider evaluation of a policy initiative started in 2021 to increase detoxification service capacity in England, UK. Interviews were professionally transcribed and data on waiting experiences were coded using qualitative software. Analyses were informed by new materialist thinking and undertaken via Iterative Categorisation. RESULTS: We found that waiting was constituted through five dimensions: i. duration; ii. support; iii. information; iv. preparations; and v. emotions. These five dimensions were multi-faceted and operated in and through wider interacting social, material, and affective forces (e.g., professional judgements, formal and informal relationships, the availability of beds and funding, bureaucratic procedures, the utility and relevance of information, and participants' diverse feelings, including desperation for treatment). Not all accounts of waiting were negative. The experience was complex, non-uniform and variable over time. Moreover, it affected how people felt and how they behaved. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to service-level policies and practices can potentially minimise the stress of waiting for inpatient AOD detoxification. The negative impact of waiting may be reduced if professionals more consistently engage patients in a wider range of constructive pre-treatment activities, offer regular 'check-ins' to mitigate any anxiety, explain changes in wait duration to help with planning and demonstrate fairness, and facilitate contact between those waiting to lessen feelings of isolation.
Subject(s)
Emotions , Inpatients , Male , Female , Humans , Anxiety , Anxiety Disorders , Patient Outcome Assessment , Qualitative ResearchABSTRACT
Background: Acamprosate is an effective and cost-effective medication for alcohol relapse prevention but poor adherence can limit its full benefit. Effective interventions to support adherence to acamprosate are therefore needed. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of Medication Management, with and without Contingency Management, compared to Standard Support alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate and the impact of adherence to acamprosate on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Design: Multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial. Setting: Specialist alcohol treatment services in five regions of England (South East London, Central and North West London, Wessex, Yorkshire and Humber and West Midlands). Participants: Adults (aged 18 years or more), an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence, abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment, in receipt of a prescription for acamprosate. Interventions: (1) Standard Support, (2) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management provided by pharmacists via a clinical contact centre (12 sessions over 6 months), (3) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management plus Contingency Management that consisted of vouchers (up to £120) to reinforce participation in Medication Management. Consenting participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to one of the three groups using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: self-reported percentage of medication taken in the previous 28 days at 6 months post randomisation. Economic outcome: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version, used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, with costs estimated using the Adult Service Use Schedule. Results: Of the 1459 potential participants approached, 1019 (70%) were assessed and 739 (73 consented to participate in the study, 372 (50%) were allocated to Standard Support, 182 (25%) to Standard Support with Medication Management and 185 (25%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. Data were available for 518 (70%) of participants at 6-month follow-up, 255 (68.5%) allocated to Standard Support, 122 (67.0%) to Standard Support and Medication Management and 141 (76.2%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. The mean difference of per cent adherence to acamprosate was higher for those who received Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management (10.6%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 1.6%) compared to Standard Support alone, at the primary end point (6-month follow-up). There was no significant difference in per cent days adherent when comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support alone 3.1% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to -6.5%) or comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management 7.9% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to -2.8%). The primary economic analysis at 6 months found that Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management was cost-effective compared to Standard Support alone, achieving small gains in quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost per participant. Cost-effectiveness was not observed for adjunctive Medication Management compared to Standard Support alone. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. Limitations: The trial's primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. Conclusions: Medication Management enhanced with Contingency Management is beneficial to patients for supporting them to take acamprosate. Future work: Given our findings in relation to Contingency Management enhancing Medication Management adherence, future trials should be developed to explore its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness with other alcohol interventions where there is evidence of poor adherence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Many people who are trying to stop drinking alcohol can find it difficult to remain alcohol free. There is a medication called acamprosate (Campral) that can reduce cravings thereby increasing the likelihood of abstinence. However, some people have trouble taking the right amount of acamprosate tablets needed every day at the right time, preferably at mealtimes. This means the medication is not as effective. We have tested some new ways to help support people taking acamprosate. We tested three different strategies to find the best way to support people taking acamprosate. We recruited 739 people aged 18 and over who were receiving alcohol treatment to stop drinking and were taking acamprosate. We randomly allocated these people to three groups. The first was Standard Support, the usual support people receive when taking acamprosate. The second group received Standard Support plus Medication Management. This consisted of 12 telephone calls over 6 months with a trained pharmacist to discuss the importance of taking the right amount of the medication, how the medication works and strategies to help people take the medication correctly. The third group received Standard Support, Medication Management and Contingency Management. This involved giving people shopping vouchers for participating with Medication Management calls. The maximum value of vouchers per person was £120. People who were in the group receiving Medication Management and Contingency Management took a greater number of acamprosate tablets. We also found that Medication Management plus Contingency Management was more cost-effective; there were greater gains in health with a smaller cost per person compared to Standard Support alone. This shows that there is likely to be a benefit to patients of Medication Management plus Contingency Management for supporting people taking acamprosate.
Subject(s)
Alcoholism , Adult , Humans , Acamprosate/therapeutic use , Alcoholism/drug therapy , Medication Therapy Management , Behavior Therapy , England , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Conceptualisations of the 'patient journey' are popular within health service research. Patient journeys provide a person-centred approach to health care that typically prioritise subjective patient experience with the aim of improving relevant forms of intervention. This article explores the conceptualisation of retention in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) using long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) as a journey. METHODS: Data derive from a longitudinal qualitative study, involving semi-structured interviews (held at six time-points), with participants who each initiated LAIB for the first time. Data analysis for this article focuses exclusively upon the experiences of those who had continued with LAIB treatment throughout one year (11 participants). Framework and thematic narrative analyses of 64 interviews with 11 participants sought to identify 'retention-narratives' that would indicate a 'retention journey' associated with LAIB treatment. FINDINGS: Shared treatment experiences consisted of three distinct phases (Withdrawal and Separation, Transformation, and Engagement) that progressed in a linear and intersecting manner through time. Each phase had features that defined treatment experiences at a given time but changed as treatment progressed. All 11 participants experienced multiple features within each of the three treatment phases and all participants reported separation from their respective service provider throughout the first 12 months of treatment. Although some valued the latter separation, most were dissatisfied by reduced levels of contact. CONCLUSION: Retention in treatment for OUD with LAIB, for at least 12-months, can be conceptualised as a journey. This conceptualisation emphasises the benefits (and challenges) clinicians and patients may expect to encounter during the first year of a LAIB treatment programme. An added implication of conceptualising LAIB treatment in this manner is that optimal benefits of the medication (as observed by participants) began to emerge during 'months 7-12' of the retention journey.
Subject(s)
Buprenorphine , Opioid-Related Disorders , Humans , Buprenorphine/therapeutic use , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Opiate Substitution Treatment , Qualitative Research , Longitudinal Studies , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic useABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, opioid use causes more than 100,000 overdose deaths annually. Naloxone has proven efficacy in reversing opioid overdoses and is approved as an emergency antidote to opioid overdose. Take home naloxone (THN) programmes have been introduced to provide 'community members', who are likely to observe opioid overdoses, with naloxone kits and train them to recognise an overdose and administer naloxone. The acceptability and feasibility of THN programmes has been demonstrated, but the real-life effectiveness of naloxone administration by community members is not known. In recent years, the approval of several concentrated naloxone nasal-spray formulations (in addition to injectable formulations, eg.prenoxad) potentially increases acceptability and scope for wider provision. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of THN (all formulations) in real-world conditions. METHODS: A European, multi-country, prospective cohort study, to assess the use of THN by community members to reverse opioid overdoses in a six-month, follow-up period. Participants provided with THN from participating harm reduction and drug treatment sites will be recruited to the study and followed-up for six months. We are particularly interested in the experiences of community members who have been provided with THN and have witnessed an opioid overdose. All participants who witness an opioid overdose during the six-month period (target approx. 600) will be asked to take part in a structured interview about this event. Of these, 60 will be invited to participate in a qualitative interview. A Post Authorisation Efficacy Study (PAES) for the concentrated nasal naloxone, Nyxoid, has been integrated into the study design. DISCUSSION: There are many challenges involved in evaluating the real-life effectiveness of THN. It is not possible to use a randomised trial design, recruitment of community members provided with THN will depend upon recruitment sites distributing THN kits, and the type of THN received by participants will depend on regulations and on local clinical and policy decision-makers. Following up this population, some of whom may be itinerant, over the 6-month study period will be challenging, but we plan to maintain contact with participants through regular text message reminders and staff contact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05072249. Date of Registration: 8.10.2021.
Subject(s)
Drug Overdose , Opiate Overdose , Humans , Naloxone/therapeutic use , Cohort Studies , Prospective Studies , Drug Overdose/drug therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
Background: Non-prescribed substance use (NPSU) during the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is a recognized phenomenon. The use of non-prescribed substances is associated with discontinuing treatment and drop-out can occur within the early weeks of treatment, before benefit from treatment occurs. Recent developments in treatment include long-acting, slow-release depot buprenorphine injections. This article focuses on NPSU during the first month of treatment with depot buprenorphine, addressing the frequency with which it occurs, the substances used, and reasons for use. Methods: 70 semi-structured interviews (held at three time-points) were conducted with 26 patients initiating depot buprenorphine as part of a longitudinal qualitative study. Analysis prioritized content and framework analyses. Findings: 17/26 participants self-reported NPSU at various times during the first month of treatment. NPSU typically involved heroin, crack-cocaine and some use of benzodiazepines and/or cannabis. Participants' reasons for heroin use were connected to their subjective accounts of opioid withdrawal symptoms, the management of pain, and experimentation (to test the blockade effect of buprenorphine). Frequency of heroin use was typically episodic rather than sustained. Participants associated crack-cocaine use with stimulant-craving and social connections, and considered their use of this substance to be difficult to manage. Conclusions: Patients' initial engagement with treatment for OUD is rarely examined in qualitative research. This study highlights how NPSU amongst patients receiving new forms of such treatment continues to be a challenge. As such, shared decision-making (between providers and patients) regarding treatment goals and NPSU should be central to the delivery of depot buprenorphine treatment programmes.
Subject(s)
Buprenorphine , Cocaine , Opioid-Related Disorders , Substance Withdrawal Syndrome , Humans , Buprenorphine/adverse effects , Heroin , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Opiate Substitution Treatment , Cocaine/therapeutic useABSTRACT
In this article, we investigate young people's involvement with residential alcohol and other drug (AOD) services as part of their broader engagement with hope. This study draws on qualitative interviews conducted with 20 young people aged 17-23 from Victoria, Australia, who were either in, or had recently left, residential AOD services. Interviews explored their experiences with AOD services and included questions about their hopes for the future. We found hope located in social relationships, productive discourses and AOD settings themselves. Hope also presented differently according to the external resources young people had available to them, giving some young people greater capacity to action their hoped-for futures than others. Given many young people seek reimagined futures as part of their use of residential AOD services, this creates a valuable opportunity for services to help shape achievable hopes and boost service engagement. We suggest that hope can materialise in a variety of ways but caution against relying on it as a motivational strategy without providing young people with other resources. A more sustainable narrative of hope may require a solid foundation of resources, allowing young people with AOD problems to gain a sense of control over their lives and their imagined futures.
Subject(s)
Substance-Related Disorders , Humans , Adolescent , VictoriaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) is a new treatment for opioid use disorder that has been introduced against an international policy backdrop of recovery and person-centred care. This paper explores the goals that people want to achieve from LAIB to identify potential implications for policy and practice. METHODS: Data derive from longitudinal qualitative interviews conducted with 26 people (18 male; 8 female) initiating LAIB in England and Wales, UK (June 2021-March 2022). Participants were interviewed up to five times by telephone over six months (107 interviews in total). Transcribed interview data relating to each participant's treatment goals were coded, summarised in Excel, and then analysed via a process of Iterative Categorization. RESULTS: Participants often articulated a desire to be abstinent without defining exactly what they meant by this. Most intended to reduce their dosage of LAIB but did not want to rush. Although participants seldom used the term 'recovery', almost all identified objectives consistent with current definitions of this concept. Participants articulated broadly consistent goals over time, although some extended the timeframes for achieving treatment-related goals at later interviews. At their last interview, most participants remained on LAIB, and there were reports that the medication was enabling positive outcomes. Despite this, participants were aware of the complex personal, service-level, and situational factors that hindered their treatment progress, understood the additional support they needed to achieve their goals, and voiced frustrations when services failed them. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for wider debate regarding the goals people initiating LAIB are seeking and the diverse range of positive treatment outcomes LAIB could potentially generate. Those providing LAIB should offer regular on-going contact and other forms of non-medical support so that patients have the best opportunity to succeed. Policies relating to recovery and person-centred care have previously been criticised for responsibilising patients and service users to take better care of themselves and to change their own lives. In contrast, our findings suggest that these policies may, in fact, be empowering people to expect a greater range of support as part of the package of care they receive from service providers.
Subject(s)
Buprenorphine , Opioid-Related Disorders , Humans , Male , Female , Buprenorphine/therapeutic use , Goals , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Qualitative Research , Opiate Substitution TreatmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) is a new treatment for opioid use disorder that is generating positive outcomes. Negative effects are typically mild and transient, but can occasionally be serious, resulting in treatment discontinuation/non-adherence. This paper aims to analyse patients' accounts of how they felt during the first 72 h after initiating LAIB. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted (June 2021-March 2022) with 26 people (18 males and 8 females) who had started LAIB within the previous 72 h. Participants were recruited from treatment services in England and Wales and were interviewed by telephone using a topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded. The concepts of embodiment and embodied cognition framed the analyses. Data on participants' substance use, initiation onto LAIB and feelings were tabulated. Next, participants' accounts of how they felt were analysed following the stages of Iterative Categorization. RESULTS: Participants reported complex combinations of changing negative and positive feelings. Bodily experiences included withdrawal symptoms, poor sleep, injection-site pain/soreness, lethargy and heightened senses inducing nausea ('distressed bodies'), but also enhanced somatic wellbeing, improved sleep, better skin, increased appetite, reduced constipation and heightened senses inducing pleasure ('returning body functions'). Cognitive responses included anxiety, uncertainties and low mood/depression ('the mind in crisis') and improved mood, greater positivity and reduced craving ('feeling psychologically better'). Whereas most negative effects reported are widely recognized, the early benefits of treatment described are less well-documented and may be an overlooked distinctive feature of LAIB. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 72 h after initiating long-acting injectable buprenorphine, new patients report experiencing a range of interconnected positive and negative short-term effects. Providing new patients with information about the range and nature of these effects can prepare them for what to expect and help them manage feelings and reduce anxiety. In turn, this may increase medication adherence.
Subject(s)
Buprenorphine , Opioid-Related Disorders , Male , Female , Humans , Buprenorphine/therapeutic use , Opiate Substitution Treatment/methods , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Medication Adherence , Emotions , Pain/drug therapy , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic useABSTRACT
There are long-standing concerns that people experiencing homelessness may not recover well if left unsupported after a hospital stay. This study reports on a study investigating the cost-effectiveness of three different 'in patient care coordination and discharge planning' configurations for adults experiencing homelessness who are discharged from hospitals in England. The first configuration provided a clinical and housing in-reach service during acute care and discharge coordination but with no 'step-down' care. The second configuration provided clinical and housing in-reach, discharge coordination and 'step-down' intermediate care. The third configuration consisted of housing support workers providing in-reach and discharge coordination as well as step-down care. These three configurations were each compared with 'standard care' (control, defined as one visit by the homelessness health nurse before discharge during which patients received an information leaflet on local services). Multiple sources of data and multi-outcome measures were adopted to assess the cost utility of hospital discharge service delivery for the NHS and broader public perspective. Details of 354 participants were collated on service delivery costs (salary, on-costs, capital, overheads and 'hotel' costs, advertising and other indirect costs), the economic consequences for different public services (e.g. NHS, social care, criminal justice, housing, etc.) and health utilities (quality-adjusted-life-years, QALYs). Findings were complex across the configurations, but, on the whole, there was promising evidence suggesting that, with delivery costs similar to those reported for bed-based intermediate care, step-down care secured better health outcomes and improved cost-effectiveness (compared with usual care) within NICE cost-effectiveness recommendations.
Subject(s)
Ill-Housed Persons , Patient Discharge , Adult , Humans , Social Problems , Housing , HospitalsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: People who are homeless and using substances frequently encounter barriers to accessing support. This paper aims to inform policy and practice by analysing changes in the tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use of people experiencing homelessness. METHODS: Data derive from a qualitative longitudinal study (undertaken 2020/2021) and involving telephone interviews (n = 310) conducted with 34 people accommodated in two London hotels provided as part of a UK policy response to COVID-19. The hotels offered various supports, including opioid replacement therapy, prescribed alcohol, licensed nicotine replacement therapy, and e-cigarettes. Participants' substance use data were organised by Iterative Categorization and subjected to a content analysis to identify patterns and themes.. RESULTS: At entry to the hotel, 5/34 participants (14.7%) had never used alcohol nor illicit drugs; 10/34 (29.4%) had only ever used alcohol (mostly without a problem); 11/34 (32.4%) had ever used illicit drugs but without a problem; and 8/34 (23.5%) had ever had a problem with illicit drugs. Sub-groups had different socio-demographic characteristics, particularly regarding being/not being a UK national, sex, and homelessness duration. Tobacco smoking was common across all sub-groups (18/34; 52.9%). Participants were often anxious about living with others who were using substances, and some worried about their own substance use. Substance use was changeable, with more decreases than increases. Changes related to intrapersonal (psychological), interpersonal (social) and structural (resource-based) factors. For example, decreases were precipitated by people feeling motivated to change, separation from others who used drugs, and receiving treatment or support. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that various interventions and accommodation models may benefit people who are homeless and using substances. An initiative that combined shelter and basic amenities, pharmacological treatment, psychosocial support, and space where substances were not available and other people using substances could be avoided resulted in an overall reduction in substance use amongst those accommodated.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems , Ill-Housed Persons , Illicit Drugs , Smoking Cessation , Substance-Related Disorders , COVID-19/epidemiology , Ill-Housed Persons/psychology , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Policy , Qualitative Research , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Substance-Related Disorders/psychology , Tobacco Use Cessation DevicesABSTRACT
Background: Take-home naloxone (THN) is provided to non-medically trained people to reverse potential opioid overdoses. There is an increasing range of effective intramuscular (IM) and intranasal (IN) naloxone devices and this paper explores the types preferred by people who use opioids, using consumer behaviour literature to interpret the findings. Methods: Data derive from two unconnected qualitative studies involving audio-recorded semi-structured interviews. Study 1 was conducted in the United States (n=21 users of non-medical/illicit opioids). Study 2 was conducted in Australia (n=42 users of non-medical/illicit or prescribed opioids). Findings: Most participants preferred IN naloxone. Preferences were based on the ease, speed, safety and comfort of each device and underpinned by accounts of overdose revivals as being very rushed and frightening situations. Preferences related to complex interactions between the naloxone device ('product'); the knowledge, skills, experience and attitudes of the lay responder ('consumer'), and when, where and how naloxone was to be used ('usage situation'). Conclusions: THN programs should offer choice of device when possible and nasal naloxone if resources permit. Asking people which devices they prefer and why and treating them as valued consumers of naloxone products can generate insights that improve future naloxone technology and increase THN uptake and usage.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. In the following weeks, most European countries implemented national lockdowns to mitigate viral spread. Services for people who use drugs had to quickly revise their operating procedures to rearrange service provision while adhering to lockdown requirements. Given the scarcity of literature published on overdose prevention during COVID-19 in Europe, we aimed to examine how these changes to service provision affected take-home naloxone (THN) programmes and naloxone availability across Europe. METHODS: Between November 2020 and January 2021, we conducted a rapid assessment with country experts from European countries that provide THN. We sent country experts a template to report monthly THN distribution data (January 1, 2019-October 31, 2020) and a structured 6-item survey for completion. RESULTS: Responses were received from 14 of the 15 European countries with THN provision of which 11 participated in the rapid assessment: Austria, Denmark, England, Estonia, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Spain (Catalonia only), Sweden, and Wales. All reported reduced organisational capacity during COVID-19, and some put into place a range of novel approaches to manage the restrictions on face-to-face service provision. In six countries, the introduction of programme innovation occurred alongside the publication of government guidelines recommending increased THN provision during COVID-19. Eight of the eleven participating countries managed to maintain 2019-level monthly THN distribution rates or even increase provision during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Through programme innovation supported by public guidelines, many European THN programmes managed to ensure stable or even increased THN provision during the pandemic, despite social distancing and stay-at-home orders affecting client mobility.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drug Overdose , Opioid-Related Disorders , Communicable Disease Control , Drug Overdose/drug therapy , Drug Overdose/epidemiology , Drug Overdose/prevention & control , Humans , Naloxone/therapeutic use , Narcotic Antagonists/therapeutic use , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) trains people who use opioids (PWUO) in how to intervene in cases of opioid overdose but best practices have not been assessed empirically. METHODS: PWUO along with a significant other (SO) were randomized to one of three training conditions. In the Treatment-as-Usual (TAU) condition, participants were randomized to receive minimal overdose-related education. In the extended training (ET) condition, PWUO received an extended training, while their SO received no overdose training. In the final condition, both the participant and SO received the extended overdose training (ETwSO). Outcome measures were naloxone use and overdose knowledge and competency assessed immediately before and after training, and at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month timepoints following training. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-one PWUO (w/ a SO) were randomized. All intensities of OD training were associated with sustained increases in OD knowledge/ competency (versus pre-training baseline p's < 0.01). PWUO intervened in 166 ODs. The 12-month incidence of naloxone use did not significantly differ between groups. Extended training (ET + ETwSO) compared to TAU resulted in significantly greater naloxone utilization by: 30 days (10.1% vs 4.1%, p = 0.041), 60 days (16.4% vs 5.2%, p<0.001) and 90 days (17.9% vs 9.5%, p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: All intensities of OD training were associated with sustained increases in OD knowledge and competency, and equivalent rates of successful naloxone use. More extensive training increased naloxone utilization during the first 3 months. However, the benefits of more comprehensive training should be balanced against feasibility.
Subject(s)
Drug Overdose , Opiate Overdose , Opioid-Related Disorders , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Drug Overdose/complications , Drug Overdose/drug therapy , Humans , Naloxone/therapeutic use , Narcotic Antagonists/therapeutic use , Opioid-Related Disorders/complications , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Mobile health apps promoting health and well-being have substantial potential but low uptake and engagement. Barriers common to addiction treatment app uptake and engagement include poor access to mobile technology, Wi-Fi, or mobile data, plus low motivation among non-treatment-seeking users to cut down or quit. Working with people who used substances, we had previously designed and published an app to support recovery from alcohol and other drug problems. The app, which is available for free from the Apple App Store and Google Play, is called SURE Recovery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to undertake a qualitative study to ascertain end users' views and experiences of the SURE Recovery app, including how it might be improved, and present the findings on uptake and engagement to assist other researchers and app developers working on similar apps for people experiencing alcohol and other drug problems. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 people (n=12, 60%, men and n=8, 40%, women aged 25-63 years; all identifying as White British) who had varied patterns of using the app. The audio recordings were transcribed, and the data were coded and analyzed through Iterative Categorization. RESULTS: Analyses identified three main factors relevant to uptake (discoverability of the app, personal relevance, and expectations and motivations) and three main factors relevant to engagement (the appeal and relevance of specific features, perceived benefits, and the need for improvements). The findings on uptake and engagement were largely consistent with our own earlier developmental work and with other published literature. However, we additionally found that uptake was strongly affected by first impressions, including trust and personal recommendations; that users were attracted to the app by their need for support and curiosity but had relatively modest expectations; that engagement increased if the app made users feel positive; and that people were unlikely to download, or engage with, the app if they could not relate to, or identify with, aspects of its content. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating end-user views into app design and having a network of supportive partners (ie, credible organizations and individuals who will champion the app) seem to increase uptake and engagement among people experiencing alcohol and other drug problems. Although better digital literacy and access to devices and mobile data are needed if addiction recovery apps are to reach their full potential, we should not evaluate them based only on observable changes in substance use behaviors. How using an app makes a person feel is more transient and difficult to quantify but also relevant to uptake and engagement.
ABSTRACT
The words we choose to describe alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatments and interventions reveal assumptions about how we understand AOD use. Moreover, they have important implications for how the treatment is imagined, implemented and funded. Service provision which follows engagement in an intensive (usually residential) program is often called 'aftercare' in the international AOD field. In this commentary, we argue that the term 'aftercare' fails to articulate the nature of ongoing care required by people who are managing AOD use. We maintain that 'aftercare' positions post-residential care as being less important than other treatment modalities, rather than as integral to a continuum of care. It is a term that implies that care should be acute, like much treatment delivered through a medical model, and assumes that people follow linear pathways in managing their AOD use. Assumptions embedded in the term 'aftercare' such as these may disincline governments from funding ongoing services for people exiting intensive programs. Alternative terms including 'continuing coordinated care' more aptly signal the integrated and ongoing service provision that should be available to support people in sustaining changes initiated through other AOD interventions.