Deimplementation in the provision of opioid agonist treatment to achieve equity of care for people engaged in treatment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Deimplementation, the removal or reduction of potentially hazardous approaches to care, is key to progressing social equity in health. While the benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-evidenced, wide variability in the provision of treatment attenuates positive outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OAT services deimplemented aspects of provision which had long been central to treatment in Australia; supervised dosing, urine drug screening, and frequent in-person attendance for review. This analysis explored how providers considered social inequity in health of patients in the deimplementation of restrictive OAT provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between August and December 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 OAT providers in Australia. Codes relating to the social determinants of client retention in OAT were clustered according to how providers considered deimplementation in relation to social inequities. Normalisation Process Theory was then used to analyse the clusters in relation to how providers understood their work during the COVID-19 pandemic as responding to systemic issues that condition OAT access. RESULTS: We explored four overarching themes based on constructs from Normalisation Process Theory: adaptive execution, cognitive participation, normative restructuring, and sustainment. Accounts of adaptive execution demonstrated tensions between providers' conceptions of equity and patient autonomy. Cognitive participation and normative restructuring were integral to the workability of rapid and drastic changes within the OAT services. Key transformative actors included communities of practice and "thought leaders" who had long supported deimplementation for more humane care. At this early stage of the pandemic, providers had already begun to consider how this period could inform sustainment of deimplementation. When considering a future, post-pandemic period, several providers expressed discomfort at operating with "evidence-enough" and called for narrowly defined types of data on adverse events (e.g. overdose) and expert consensus on takeaway doses. CONCLUSIONS: The possibilities for achieving social equity in health are limited by the divergent treatment goals of providers and people receiving OAT. Sustained and equitable deimplementation of obtrusive aspects of OAT provision require co-created treatment goals, patient-centred monitoring and evaluation, and access to a supportive community of practice for providers.

"You'll come in and dose even in a global pandemic”: a qualitative study of adaptive opioid agonist treatment provision during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) improves multiple health and social outcomes, yet requirements to attend for supervised dosing can be burdensome and stigmatising. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions threatened continuity of care and the wellbeing of people receiving OAT, risking a parallel health crisis. This study sought to understand how adaptations in the complex system of OAT provision impacted and responded to risk environments of people receiving OAT during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods The analysis draws on semi-structured interviews with 40 people receiving and 29 people providing OAT located across Australia. The study considered the risk environments that produce COVID-19 transmission, treatment (non-)adherence, and adverse events for people receiving OAT. Drawing on theories of risk environments and complex adaptive systems, data were coded and analysed to understand how adaptations to the typically rigid system of OAT provision impacted and responded to risk environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results During COVID-19, the complex system of OAT provision demonstrated possibilities for responsive adaptation to the entangled features of risk environments of people receiving OAT. Structural stigma was evident in the services which stayed rigid during the pandemic, requiring people to attend for daily supervised dosing and risking fracturing therapeutic relationships. In parallel, there were several examples of services developing enabling environments by offering flexible care through increased takeaways, treatment subsidies, and home delivery. Conclusions Rigidity in the delivery of OAT has been an impediment to achieving health and wellbeing over past decades. To sustain health-promoting environments for people receiving OAT, the wider impacts of the complex system should be acknowledged beyond narrowly defined outcomes relating solely to the medication. Centring people receiving OAT in their own care plans will ensure adaptations in the complex system of OAT provision are responsive to the individual's risk environment.

The impacts of COVID-19 measures on drug markets and drug use among a cohort of people who use methamphetamine in Victoria, Australia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Few studies of the impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health measures on drug markets and drug use patterns have used longitudinal data. We aimed to examine whether COVID-19 measures were associated with increases in methamphetamine price, decreases in methamphetamine use frequency and subsequent changes in secondary outcomes of other drug use frequency in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria. DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis framework was used from a longitudinal cohort of people who use methamphetamine. SETTING: Victoria state, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-five VMAX study participants who reported a methamphetamine purchase after the onset of the pandemic were used for the price paid analysis. Methamphetamine or other drug use frequency analysis was performed using 277 participants who used methamphetamine during the pandemic or in the year before the pandemic. MEASUREMENTS: Price paid per gram of methamphetamine derived from the most recent purchase price and most recent purchase quantity. Frequency of methamphetamine and other drug use measured as the average number of days per week used in the last month. FINDINGS: Compared with pre-COVID-19 period, methamphetamine prices increased by AUD351.63 (P value <0.001) and by AUD456.51 (P value <0.001) in Melbourne and regional Victoria, respectively, during the period in which the most intense public health measures were implemented in Victoria. Although prices decreased after harder restrictions were lifted (by AUD232.84, P value <0.001 and AUD263.68, P value <0.001, in Melbourne and regional Victoria, respectively), they remained higher than pre-COVID-19 levels. A complementary 76% decrease was observed in relation to methamphetamine use frequency in regional Victoria (P value = 0.006) that was not offset by any changes in the frequency of use of other drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or other illicit drugs. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 public health measures in Victoria state, Australia, appear to have been associated with major price changes in the methamphetamine market and decreased frequency of use of the drug.

COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and facilitators among people in Australia who inject drugs.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to describe COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and identify potential facilitators for vaccine uptake among people who inject drugs. METHODS: People who inject drugs were recruited from all eight Australian capital cities (N = 884; 65% male, mean age 44 years) and interviewed face-to-face or via telephone in June-July 2021. COVID-19 and broader vaccination attitudes were used to model latent classes. Correlates of class membership were assessed through multinomial logistic regression. Probability of endorsing potential vaccination facilitators were reported by class. RESULTS: Three classes of participants were identified: 'vaccine acceptant' (39%), 'vaccine hesitant' (34%) and 'vaccine resistant' (27%). Those in the hesitant and resistant groups were younger, more likely to be unstably housed and less likely to have received the current season influenza vaccine than the acceptant group. In addition, hesitant participants were less likely to report a chronic medical condition than acceptant participants. Compared to vaccine acceptant and hesitant participants, vaccine-resistant participants were more likely to predominantly inject methamphetamine and to inject drugs more frequently in the past month. Both vaccine-hesitant and resistant participants endorsed financial incentives for vaccination and hesitant participants also endorsed facilitators related to vaccine trust. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: People who inject drugs who are unstably housed or predominantly inject methamphetamine are subgroups that require targeted interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Vaccine-hesitant people may benefit from interventions that build trust in vaccine safety and utility. Financial incentives may improve vaccine uptake among both hesitant and resistant people.

"You'll come in and dose even in a global pandemic": A qualitative study of adaptive opioid agonist treatment provision during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) improves multiple health and social outcomes, yet requirements to attend for supervised dosing can be burdensome and stigmatising. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions threatened continuity of care and the wellbeing of people receiving OAT, risking a parallel health crisis. This study sought to understand how adaptations in the complex system of OAT provision impacted and responded to risk environments of people receiving OAT during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The analysis draws on semi-structured interviews with 40 people receiving and 29 people providing OAT located across Australia. The study considered the risk environments that produce COVID-19 transmission, treatment (non-)adherence, and adverse events for people receiving OAT. Drawing on theories of risk environments and complex adaptive systems, data were coded and analysed to understand how adaptations to the typically rigid system of OAT provision impacted and responded to risk environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: During COVID-19, the complex system of OAT provision demonstrated possibilities for responsive adaptation to the entangled features of risk environments of people receiving OAT. Structural stigma was evident in the services which stayed rigid during the pandemic, requiring people to attend for daily supervised dosing and risking fracturing therapeutic relationships. In parallel, there were several examples of services developing enabling environments by offering flexible care through increased takeaways, treatment subsidies, and home delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Rigidity in the delivery of OAT has been an impediment to achieving health and wellbeing over past decades. To sustain health-promoting environments for people receiving OAT, the wider impacts of the complex system should be acknowledged beyond narrowly defined outcomes relating solely to the medication. Centring people receiving OAT in their own care plans will ensure adaptations in the complex system of OAT provision are responsive to the individual's risk environment.

People engaged in opioid agonist treatment as a counterpublic during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: People receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are at higher risk of comorbidities, poverty and discrimination, which Big Events like the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate. The behaviours of people receiving OAT do not always align with normative behaviours as conceived by ruling institutions and laws, and so the group becomes a counterpublic, not imagined in mainstream public discourse. The aim of this study was to understand how people receiving OAT, as a counterpublic, implemented practises of care to mitigate negative health outcomes during COVID-19. METHODS: Participants were recruited via eight peer-led organisations across Australia. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were completed between August and December 2020 with 40 people receiving OAT. The analysis centres practises of care, allowing interactions that influence the health of participants, to be understood in their unique contexts. RESULTS: Aspects of the COVID-19 state response were designed for an idealised public, demonstrated by the increased policing that accompanied enforcement of restrictions which was detrimental to the wellbeing of people receiving OAT. Counterpublic health strategies employed by people receiving OAT were disrupted, but participants were often able to adapt to the changing context. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study elucidates how practises of care among people receiving OAT are enacted and disrupted during a Big Event, with implications beyond the COVID-19 pandemic for future Big Events. The study findings evidence the need for policies that mitigate the impact of Big Events such as supporting re-groupment within the counterpublic, legitimising counterpublic health strategies and stopping the criminalisation of people who use drugs.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among people in Australia who inject drugs: Update from the 2021 Illicit Drug Reporting System interviews.

People who inject drugs may be at higher risk of COVID-19 transmission and more severe negative health outcomes following COVID-19 infection. Early research on hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines suggests this population may be less likely to accept vaccination. This commentary extends this research by presenting vaccine intention data from Illicit Drug Reporting System interviews conducted in June-July 2021, in the early stages of vaccine rollout, with people in Australia who inject drugs (N = 888). Half the sample (48%, n = 419) reported that they were hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, with key barriers relating to vaccine safety and side effect concerns. This level of hesitancy is substantially higher than that of the general population at a similar time. While we note that the subsequent Delta variant-driven third wave of cases in Australia and efforts to increase population vaccination coverage may have altered intent in this group, this level of hesitancy warrants a targeted strategy to mitigate vaccine-related concerns and maximise uptake. Ideally, this should comprise an inclusive health response that is peer-led, with peer-based organisations ideally positioned to direct immunisation service delivery and provide vaccine-related messaging.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among people in Australia who inject drugs: Implications for vaccine rollout.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine acceptability is a key determinant of vaccination uptake. Despite being at risk of adverse outcomes from coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19), COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among people who inject drugs is unknown. We surveyed people who inject drugs in Melbourne, Australia to assess potential uptake of COVID-19 vaccines prior to distribution. METHODS: Cross-sectional study, comprising interviewer-administered structured telephone interviews completed from 30 November to 22 December 2020 in Melbourne, Australia. Participants were people aged 18 years or older who injected drugs at least monthly in the past 6 months and had resided in Melbourne in the past 12 months recruited via needle-syringe programs and word-of-mouth. MEASUREMENTS: COVID-19 hypothetical vaccine acceptability, participants' demographic, drug use and drug treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent (57/99) of the sample reported that they would definitely or probably be vaccinated for COVID-19, with the remainder indicating that they would not (22%) or were undecided (20%). Among those who indicated that they would definitely or probably not be vaccinated or were undecided (n = 42), safety concerns were most often cited as a reason for not wanting to be vaccinated. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Although a majority of sampled people who inject drugs indicated that they would definitely or probably be vaccinated, efforts to reduce hesitancy and allay COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns will be necessary to optimise vaccine uptake among this population.