OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials support injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom other pharmacological management approaches are not well-suited. However, despite substantial research indicating that person-centered care improves engagement, retention and health outcomes for individuals with OUD, structural requirements (e.g. drug policies) often dictate how iOAT must be delivered, regardless of client preferences. This study aimed to quantify clients\' iOAT delivery preferences to improve client engagement and retention.
METHODS: Cross-sectional preference elicitation survey.
METHODS: Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
METHODS: 124 current and former iOAT clients.
METHODS: Participants completed a demographic questionnaire package and an interviewer-led preference elicitation survey (case 2 best-worst scaling task). Latent class analysis was used to identify distinct preference groups and explore demographic differences between preference groups.
RESULTS: Most participants (n = 100; 81%) were current iOAT clients. Latent class analysis identified two distinct groups of client preferences: (1) autonomous decision-makers (n = 73; 59%) and (2) shared decision-makers (n = 51; 41%). These groups had different preferences for how medication type and dosage were selected. Both groups prioritized access to take-home medication (i.e. carries), the ability to set their own schedule, receiving iOAT in a space they like and having other services available at iOAT clinics. Compared with shared decision-makers, fewer autonomous decision-makers identified as a cis-male/man and reported flexible preferences.
CONCLUSIONS: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) clients surveyed in Vancouver, Canada, appear to prefer greater autonomy than they currently have in choosing OAT medication type, dosage and treatment schedule.

Identifying typical doses of existing opioid use disorder medications, such as injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), can support client and program needs, and potentially increase iOAT expansion. Longitudinal data from participants in a cohort study (n = 131), along with clinic dispensation records from August 2014 to April 2020, were used to examine physician prescribed as well as used doses of injectable diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone. Dosage groups, by medication and prescribed dose per session, were created for both hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine. A total of 534, 522 injections were registered during the study period among 129 participants. Mean received diacetylmorphine doses ranged from 106 to 989 mg per day, with most clients using 125-262 mg per session (mean 192.99 mg) and attending 2.40 sessions per day. Mean received hydromorphone doses ranged from 51.09 to 696.06 mg per day, with the majority using 88-154 mg per session (mean 121.32 mg; 2.43 sessions). Average daily doses remained stable overtime and, while mid-range doses were most typical, participants used the whole spectrum of allowable dose prescriptions. Evidence supporting typical doses of iOAT can be integrated into program planning to better allow providers and prescribers to anticipate program needs and engage in individualized care.

UNASSIGNED: Injectable opioid agonist treatment with hydromorphone (iOAT-H) is effective for persons who inject drugs (PWID) with opioid use disorder (OUD) but remains unavailable in the United States. Our objective was to determine interest in iOAT-H among syringe services program (SSP) participants.
UNASSIGNED: We recruited PWID with OUD from SSPs in New York City. Interest in iOAT-H was assessed on a 4-point scale. We compared participants who were and were not interested in iOAT-H regarding sociodemographic characteristics and self-reported variables (past 30 days): heroin use, public injection practices, and participation in illegal activity other than drug possession. Participants reported their preferred OUD treatment and reasons for these preferences.
UNASSIGNED: Of 108 participants, most were male (69%), Hispanic (68%), and median age was 42 years. The median number of prior OUD treatment episodes was 6 (interquartile range: 2-12). Most (65%) were interested in iOAT-H. Interested participants (vs not interested) reported, over the prior 30 days, greater heroin use days (mean, 26.4 vs 22.3), injecting in public more times (median, 15 vs 6), and a higher percentage having participated in illegal activity (40% vs 16%). Preferences for OUD treatment were: iOAT-H (43%), methadone (39%), and buprenorphine (9%). Participants who preferred iOAT-H to conventional OUD treatments reported preferring injection as a route of administration and that available OUD treatments helped them insufficiently.
UNASSIGNED: SSP participants with OUD reported high interest in iOAT-H. Participants had attempted conventional treatments but still used heroin almost daily. We identified PWID at risk for opioid-related harms who potentially could benefit from iOAT-H.

Across different types of oral Opioid Agonist Treatment for people with Opioid Use Disorder, receiving a dose that meets their needs is associated with better outcomes. Evidence also shows patients are more likely to receive an \"adequate dose\" when their prescribers are involving them in decision making. Neither of these findings have been studied in the context of injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment, which is the purpose of this study.
This study was a retrospective analysis of an 18-month prospective longitudinal cohort study of 131 people receiving injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment. In the 18-month study, observations were collected every two months for one year, and then once more at 18 months. At 6 months, participants were asked whether their dose was satisfactory to them (outcome variable). Generalized Estimating Equations were used, to account for multiple observations from each participant. The final multivariate model was built using a stepwise approach.
Five hundred forty-five participant-observations were included in the analysis. Participant-observations were grouped by \"dose is satisfactory\" and \"wants higher dose\". From unadjusted analyses, participants were less likely to report being satisfied with their dose if they: were Indigenous, had worse psychological or physical health problems, had ever attempted suicide, were younger when they first injected any drug, were a current smoker, felt troubled by drug problems, gave their medication a lower \"drug liking\" score, and felt that their doctor was not including them in decisions the way they wanted to be. In the final multivariate model, all previously significant associations except for \"current smoker\" and \"troubled by drug problems\" were no longer significant after the addition of the \"drug liking\" score.
Patients in injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment who are not satisfied with their dose are more likely to: be troubled by drug problems, be a current smoker, and report liking their medication less than dose-satisfied patients. Prescribers\' practicing shared decision-making can help patients achieve dose-satisfaction and possibly alleviate troubles from drug problems. Additionally, receiving a satisfactory dose may be dependent on patients being able to access an opioid agonist medication (and formulation) that they like.

BACKGROUND: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an effective option to support people living with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have not sufficiently benefitted from oral OAT. However, iOAT has been criticised based on theoretical and practical grounds for its dosing policies: Current regulations demand supervised, on-site application and require patients to frequently visit their treatment facility. The current study aims to investigate how patients experience on-site application and derive strategies to enhance the acceptability and effectiveness of iOAT-delivery.
This article is based on semi-structured interviews with 27 individuals currently or previously in iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT-clinics. We undertook an inductive qualitative content analysis, which included blinded, independent coding and the analysis of individual cases.
Comments regarding on-site application and daily visits to the clinic were grouped into positive and negative aspects, iOAT as the best alternative option, facilitators of daily visits, and suggestions for improvement. Positive aspects took the factors stability and social support in regard. Negative aspects ranged from general inconveniences to major impediments to individuals\' daily lives and towards achieving psychosocial goals. Participants reported rigorous adherence to iOAT\'s treatment regime, often due to a perceived lack of alternative options. Meeting iOAT\'s demands was eased by the patients\' coping-strategies and through facilitating measures implemented by iOAT-clinics. Despite acknowledgement of the potential detriments from easing regulations, take-home arrangements were frequently suggested by participants to improve iOAT.
Being required to attend the clinic for supervised iOAT-application is not experienced uniformly. While clinics can support their patients to cope with strict regulations, alternative approaches to iOAT-application should be considered to accommodate patients\' individual needs. Examples from other treatment modalities (e.g., remote supervision and delivery services) might aid to reconcile individualisation while providing adequate safety measures and improve iOAT in the long term.

BACKGROUND: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an evidence-based treatment that serves an important minority of people with opioid use disorder who require specialized care. Unique to iOAT care is the consistency with which clients access treatment (up to three times daily), a condition that creates repeated opportunities for health care engagement. To date, no study has examined therapeutic relationships in this life saving, nurse-led treatment that can have lasting implications in the equitable delivery of other forms of addictions care.
METHODS: This study used grounded theory to generate a dynamic framework for therapeutic relationship building in iOAT. Researchers collected semi-structured interviews from registered nurses working in iOAT sites (n=24) form January 2020 through June 2022. The study analyzed collected data through a constant comparative analysis; explored through open, axial, and selective coding; and assessed in a conditional relationship matrix. The team reviewed key findings with stakeholders through formalized processes of engagement to confirm saturation of coding categories. Throughout data collection and analysis, researchers integrated feedback from additional knowledge users and member checking. Reported findings adhered to the COREQ1 standardized checklist.
RESULTS: We identified five interrelated categories that created a distinct culture of care for iOAT nurses: Ways of Knowing, Personal Investment, Leveraging Empathy, Finding Flexibility, and Collaborating to Overcome. Through creating a safe, nonjudgmental environment, nurses establish therapeutic relationships that build trust to identify client needs outside of medication administration. In turn, nurses participate in team-based problem solving to advocate for client needs. If nurses cannot find flexibility within and outside of the health care system to improve client engagement, tensions can arise and therapeutic relationships can be strained.
CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic relationships are an integral part of building and maintaining trust with a population that has been precariously involved with other forms of health care. Nurses make a substantial effort to create a safe and nonjudgmental environment to manifest a culture of care that bridges client needs and program access. Without the expansion of access to iOAT programs and their embedded services, nurses are limited in their ability to provide individualized care for clients with diverse needs.

UNASSIGNED: Though double-blind studies have indicated that hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine produce similar effects when administered through injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) programs, participant preference may influence some aspects of medication dispensation such as dose.
UNASSIGNED:  This is a retrospective longitudinal analysis. Participants (n = 131) were previously enrolled in a double-blind clinical trial for iOAT who continued to receive treatment in an open-label follow up study. Data included medication dispensation records from 2012 to 2020. Using linear regression and paired t-tests, average daily dose totals of hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine were examined comparatively between double-blind and open-label periods. A subgroup analysis explored dose difference by preference using the proxy, blinding guess, a variable used to facilitate the measurement of treatment masking during the clinical trial by asking which medication the participant thought they received.
UNASSIGNED: During the open-label period, participants prescribed diacetylmorphine received 49.5 mg less than during the double-blind period (95% CI -12.6,-86.4). Participants receiving hydromorphone did not see a significant dose decrease. Participants who guessed they received hydromorphone during the clinical trial, but learned they were on diacetylmorphine during the open-label period, saw a decrease in total daily dose of 78.3 mg less (95% CI -134.3,-22.4) during the open-label period.
UNASSIGNED: If client preference is considered in the treatment of chronic opioid use disorder, clients may be able to better moderate their dose to suit their individual needs. Together with their healthcare providers, clients can participate in their treatment trajectories collaboratively to optimize client outcomes and promote person-centered treatment options.

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

Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is effective for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet little is known about client preferences for accessing iOAT (e.g., with diacetylmorphine, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, fentanyl, etc.). Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a preference elicitation method from health economics that has never been applied to addiction care broadly, or iOAT specifically. We describe the stages of developing a BWS scale that assesses iOAT clients\' treatment delivery preferences to inform program planning and maximize healthcare efficiency.
We underwent several steps to reveal the relevant attributes/levels and design the scale structure. An initial list of potential attributes and levels was established from a literature review and prior qualitative data. Then, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with clients (n=21) on their iOAT preferences to confirm the attributes and prioritize/include new ones. Next, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with iOAT experts and stakeholders to receive their input on the draft list of attributes and levels. A BWS profile case design was piloted with iOAT clients (n=18) from different sites during a think aloud interview. After several rounds of revisions, the final version was tested by iOAT clients (n=2) before the scale was launched.
We developed a person-centered scale that assesses current and former iOAT clients\' most and least wanted aspects of iOAT delivery. The final version yielded 7 unique attributes: choice of medication, choice of dose, convenience, location & space, scheduling & routines, staff & training, and types of services offered.
This scale can help expand iOAT programs in a way that is person-centered, rapid, and affordable. The methodology is a guide for other regions with similar populations who aim to develop strong quantitative methodologies that prioritize client collaboration.