Implementing injectable opioid agonist treatment: a survey of professionals in the field of opioid use disorders

Archambault, Léonie; Goyer, Marie-Ève; Sabetti, Judith; Perreault, Michel

doi:10.1080/09687637.2022.2040007

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the highly variable contexts studied in the past, our research echoes findings on iOAT’s perceived benefits (e.g., the reduction of street heroin use and criminal activities, stabilizing effects, improved health status, and the ability to safely inject opioids) to encourage treatment initiation [21–24, 26, 27]. These motivations closely align with the demonstrated benefits of iOAT in clinical trials [8], underlining the practical relevance of evidence-based education on available OUD treatment [16, 36].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Exploring Patients’ Perceptions on Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment: Influences on Treatment Initiation and Implications for Practice

Friedmann,

Binder,

Kinkel

et al. 2023

Eur Addict Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) with diacetylmorphine is an effective option for individuals previously considered non-responsive to opioid substitution treatment. Despite implementation in Canada and several European countries, relatively few eligible people choose to initiate iOAT. To better understand what encourages or deters prospective patients from initiating iOAT, the current study explores patients’ perceptions on iOAT and how these influence therapy initiation in practice. Methods: We conducted 34 semi-structured interviews with individuals currently in or eligible for iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT clinics. Transcripts were analysed following qualitative content analysis, with development of inductive categories and use of consensual coding. For member checking, we consulted individuals with lived experiences prior to data collection and publication. Results: Participants based their choice to initiate iOAT on the perceived implications of the treatment on one’s daily life and individual recovery. Participants were encouraged to initiate iOAT due to the therapy’s perceived potential in reducing cravings and substance use, its positive health consequences, and due to the image of iOAT as a path towards abstinence. Regarding deterring perceptions, participants feared a profound impairment of daily life due to factors such as the daily visits to the clinic, were concerned about whether iOAT would sufficiently promote or even impede one’s recovery, and described negative health effects. Conclusion: Perceptions found in this study profoundly influenced participants’ decisions on iOAT enrolment and contextualize the previous literature. The study reveals the dynamic coexistence of different perceptions about iOAT and sheds light on the inner-group stigmatization of iOAT. Practitioners and future research should acknowledge the complexities found in the current study in order to exploit the full potential of effective treatment modalities such as iOAT.

show abstract