Enriching qualitative alcohol and other drug research by engaging lived experience peer researchers in a dual-interview approach: A case study.

INTRODUCTION: Engaging people with lived experience of alcohol and other drug use as peer researchers in qualitative research is becoming more common. However, there are differing opinions on how to best engage and support peer researchers. CASE PRESENTATION: Through this case study the researchers aimed to illustrate the potential benefits of a peer/academic researcher dual-interview approach as a qualitative method in research. In the study, a peer researcher who had lived experience of alcohol and other drug use collaborated with an academic researcher who had qualitative expertise. Semi-structured interviews (N = 22) were undertaken with men and women with lived experience of alcohol and other drug harms (n = 14) and healthcare staff (n = 8) from alcohol and other drug, and broader healthcare services. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The research team contend that in a dual-interview approach, rather than peer/academic researchers being binary opposites, there exists a continuum along which peer and academic researchers travel back and forth; that supports recognition of similarities and differences; and deepens mutual respect. Engaging peer researchers also represents an opportunity for meaningful capability building, with the ultimate and important goal of having peer researchers drive their own research agendas, and move from supporting to leading alcohol and other drug-related research.

Alcohol and other drug use: A qualitative exploration of staff and patient's experiences of language use as a means of stigma communication in hospital and primary care settings.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital and primary care settings present opportunities to interact, initiate conversations, and instigate referrals for patients experiencing harm from their alcohol and other drug use. Using a stigma communication model, our qualitative study explored whether stigma communication materialized in staff's language in the hospital and primary care settings, and if so, whether this had any impact on staff's and patients' experiences. METHOD: The study conducted thematic analysis on 39 semi-structured interviews comprising both male and female adults (n = 20) who had experienced or were currently experiencing problematic alcohol or other drug use; and staff (n = 19) from either alcohol and other drug specialist services, or other broader health care services. RESULTS: The study identified three themes where language use materialized as a means of stigma communication: (i) language that positioned a patient as undeserving; (ii) language that separated a patient from other patients; and (iii) language that blamed a patient. Where language use materialized as a means of stigma communication, this appeared to influence staff's decision-making, or potential avoidance of staff's obligations related to health care. Where language use materialized as a means of stigma communication for patients, poor experiences occurred for both staff and patients, that potentially influenced health care provision or future treatment-seeking intentions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of language as a means of stigma communication was present in staff/patient interactions. Although a number of targeted interventions exist that address language and stigma toward people who use alcohol and other drugs, our findings indicate that change may be inhibited if staff do not realize that their own use of language may contribute to the perpetuation of stigma. The findings also suggest that aspects of language that materialize as a means of stigma communication may impact the "no wrong door" approach, which intends that people, regardless of which service they attend, receive appropriate support.

Monitoring for fentanyl within Australian supervised injecting facilities: Findings from feasibility testing of novel methods and collaborative workshops.

BACKGROUND: Australia is yet to see widespread fentanyl-contaminated heroin, despite the established presence of fentanyl in other countries. International mortality trends alongside a local cluster of fentanyl-related deaths prompted interest in developing methods to monitor for fentanyl and other potentially harmful novel psychoactive substances (NPS) in Australia. METHODS: We tested novel methods to monitor for fentanyl and other NPS. From 2017-2021, clients from supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, contributed urine screens (UDS) with BTNX Rapid Response™ fentanyl test strips (FTS) paired with surveys, and injecting equipment associated with opioid overdoses for laboratory analysis. A single site piloted drug checking using FTS with laboratory confirmation. Two workshops were conducted with SIF staff, content experts and people with lived experience to determine how results can inform practices within SIFs. RESULTS: Of the 911 UDS with FTS conducted, less than 1% (n=8) yielded positive results that were not explained by self-reported pharmaceutical fentanyl use, with two laboratory confirmed fentanyl positive results. Injecting equipment from 59 overdoses was tested and neither fentanyl nor other NPS were identified. Drug checking with FTS (n=34) indicated the presence of fentanyl on three tests. Two specimens were subsequently sent for laboratory testing and classified as false positives as the presence of fentanyl was not confirmed. Workshop participants (n=21) felt routine monitoring with FTS currently had limited value. A process for using pre-defined signals to trigger surveillance was developed. CONCLUSION: The high false positive rates with FTS, relative to the small number of positive results and potential for them to undermine confidence in FTS emphasised the need for confirmatory testing. The role of routine surveillance was unclear within the current low-fentanyl context, however, a process was developed to upscale testing should signals of increased fentanyl prevalence in the Australian heroin market emerge.

Which alcohol products might be affected by the introduction of a minimum unit price in Western Australia? Findings from a survey of alcohol retail prices.

INTRODUCTION: Minimum unit price (MUP) policies establish a retail floor price below which alcohol may not be sold, and have been shown to reduce harmful alcohol use. We aimed to collect retail price data to estimate the proportion of alcohol products that would potentially be impacted by a MUP policy in Western Australia. METHODS: We purposively sampled the four largest off-premises alcohol retail chains, a further random sample of other off-premise alcohol outlets (n = 16) and on-premise inner-city outlets (n = 11). Using website data from May to June 2021, we estimated the proportion of products across four beverage categories priced ≤A$1.30, ≤A$1.50 and ≤A$1.75 per standard drink (10 g alcohol). RESULTS: Of 27,797 off-premise products identified, 5.7% were available at ≤$1.30 per standard drink, 7.6% at ≤$1.50 and 10.4% at ≤$1.75. The proportion of products available at ≤$1.30 per standard drink varied by beverage category: 7.8% wine, 2.9% beer and cider, <0.1% spirits, 0.0% ready-to-drink spirits. Cask-packaged wines represented only 1.9% of off-premise wine products and 98.9% of this cask wine was priced ≤$1.30 per standard drink. No on-premise products were priced ≤$1.75 per standard drink. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive survey of alcohol prices in Western Australia found only a small proportion of products would potentially be affected by a MUP of $1.30 to $1.75 per standard drink. A MUP policy has potential to target the small proportion of alcohol products available at very low prices (i.e., off-premise cask wine), with negligible impact on other off-premise beverage categories, and no impact on on-premises products.

Putting out the welcome mat-A qualitative exploration of service delivery processes and procedures as barriers to treatment-seeking for people who use alcohol and other drugs.

INTRODUCTION: There are a range of models and structures that determine features of alcohol and other drug treatment. Despite some structures being long-established, less is known about how specific aspects of service delivery impact treatment-seeking for people who use alcohol and other drugs. This Australian qualitative study explored both people with lived experience of problematic alcohol and other drug use, and health care staff's experiences of service delivery. METHODS: Thirty-nine semi-structured interviews with people with lived experience and staff from either alcohol and other drug specialist, or broader health-care services, explored experiences of service delivery processes and procedures. Transcripts were thematically analysed and guided by a broad interest in barriers to treatment-seeking. RESULTS: Within alcohol and other drug specialist services (i) time spent on wait lists; and (ii) poor implementation of assessment processes were identified barriers to treatment-seeking and engagement. Within broader health-care services (i) organisational expectations around behaviour and engagement; (ii) alcohol and other drugs viewed as separate to service role; and (iii) limited opportunities to informally engage were identified barriers to treatment-seeking. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest opportunities to engage and undertake needs-based care planning are yet to be fully realised, particularly at the intake and assessment stages of alcohol and other drug service delivery; with frequent reassessment resulting in people repeatedly recounting traumatic experiences, often to different people, only to be placed back on wait lists with no support. Within broader health-care services aspects of service delivery may perpetuate stigma that places such people outside the purview of health care.