Introducing methadone maintenance therapy into Ukrainian prisons: a qualitative study of criminal subculture, Russia's full-scale invasion, and contested methadone objects.

Background: After pilot testing, methadone was newly being introduced into Ukrainian prisons in 2021 as part of a national scale-up strategy to treat opioid use disorder and prevent transmission of HIV and HCV infections. Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) scale-up in Eastern Europe and Central Asia prisons has been hampered by varying levels of influence of criminal subculture, an extralegal informal governance by a social hierarchy that operates in parallel to formal prison authorities. This study examined the socio-environmental factors influencing the uptake of methadone treatment in Ukrainian prisons, including changes that evolved during Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the displacement of people deprived of liberty (PDL) from conflict to non-conflict regions. Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews (N = 37) were conducted from January 2021 to October 2022 in the only two Ukrainian prisons where methadone was being introduced with PDL (N = 18). These two prisons continued to provide methadone after the full-scale invasion. Former PDL (N = 4) were also interviewed and prison staff (N = 15). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated into English. Four authors independently reviewed, coded, and applied a phenomenological framework for data analysis, delineating themes related to criminal subculture, drug use, methadone uptake, and evolving changes during the Russian invasion. Findings: Criminal subculture perceptions varied, with some seeing it as strongly discouraging drug use among certain groups, while others described it as a residual and weak influence from a more distant past. The influence of the subculture on methadone treatment uptake, however, was less clear. PDL and prison staff struggled to identify and articulate differences between illicit street-bought methadone, used recreationally, and medically prescribed methadone. Thus, the meaning of "methadone" varies in interpretation as it is being introduced, making it potentially conflicting for patients to opt into this evidence-based treatment. As Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, PDL from conflict zones were transferred to non-conflict regions where methadone was being introduced. The prison environment became more enabling for PDL to start methadone as they were segregated and not subject to the existing criminal subculture's rules and lacked the social ties necessary to procure drugs illegally. Conclusion: It appears that the criminal subculture is variable and evolving in Ukrainian prisons and appears to be impacted differently by the invasion of Russia. As methadone scale-up in prisons expands, it will be important to distinguish the meaning of methadone perpetuated negatively by the prison subculture versus that in which it is intended as a medical treatment by the formal prison authorities. The current invasion of Ukraine by Russia provides a potential disruption to alter this course.

Aligning public health and public safety: Probation as a touchpoint to identify and link patients with opioid use disorder to opioid agonist treatment.

BACKGROUND: People in criminal justice settings (CJS) have high rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) and HIV. Probation is part of the CJS and congregates many individuals with high rates of mental health and substance use disorders relative to the general population; nevertheless, probation remains a major improvement to incarceration. As a steppingstone to full decarceration efforts, community supervision settings like probation can be leveraged as "touchpoints" to identify and link people with OUD (and other co-morbid conditions) to treatment and reduce criminal activity. METHODOLOGY: To determine the feasibility of a modified screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) strategy to link probationers to opioid agonist therapies (OAT) in the newly created probation system in Ukraine, we conducted a single-arm SBIRT intervention in eight probation centers in four Ukrainian administrative regions. For those screening positive for OUD, interest in OAT was assessed before and after a brief intervention. Those interested in OAT were referred to community OAT services. Participants with OUD also underwent HIV testing. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of the 1,298 consecutive individuals screened, 208 (16.0%) met criteria for opioid dependence. Of these, 122 (58.7%) enrolled in brief intervention, of which 54 (44.3%) had HIV and 14 (25.9%) of these were newly diagnosed. After the brief intervention, interest in starting OAT increased significantly from a median of 7.0 to 8.0 (P = <0.001) using a 10-point scale. Thirty (N = 30; 24.6%) of the enrolled participants initiated OAT and 21 of these (70%) were retained in treatment for 6 months. SIGNIFICANCE: The prevalence of OUD (and HIV) is high among people in probation in Ukraine. SBIRT can identify a large number of people eligible for OAT, many of whom were willing to initiate and remain on OAT. Integrating SBIRT into probation can potentially assist with OAT scale-up and help address HIV prevention efforts.

Interest without uptake: A mixed-methods analysis of methadone utilization in Kyrgyz prisons.

HIV incidence continues to increase in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), in large part due to non-sterile injection drug use, especially within prisons. Therefore, medication-assisted therapy with opioid agonists is an evidence-based HIV-prevention strategy. The Kyrgyz Republic offers methadone within its prison system, but uptake remains low. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a framework for identifying people who would potentially benefit from methadone, intervening to identify OUD as a problem and methadone as a potential solution, and providing referral to methadone treatment. Using an SBIRT framework, we screened for OUD in Kyrgyz prisons among people who were within six months of returning to the community (n = 1118). We enrolled 125 people with OUD in this study, 102 of whom were not already engaged in methadone treatment. We conducted a pre-release survey followed by a brief intervention (BI) to address barriers to methadone engagement. Follow-up surveys immediately after the intervention and at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after prison release assessed methadone attitudes and uptake. In-depth qualitative interviews with 12 participants explored factors influencing methadone utilization during and after incarceration. Nearly all participants indicated favorable attitudes toward methadone both before and after intervention in surveys; however, interest in initiating methadone treatment remained very low both before and after the BI. Qualitative findings identified five factors that negatively influence methadone uptake, despite expressed positive attitudes toward methadone: (1) interpersonal relationships, (2) interactions with the criminal justice system, (3) logistical concerns, (4) criminal subculture, and (5) health-related concerns.

Methadone within prison and linkage to and retention in treatment upon community release for people with opioid use disorder in Kyrgyzstan: Evaluation of a national program.

BACKGROUND: HIV incidence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) continues to increase, primarily among people who inject drugs (PWID) and people in prisons. In Kyrgyzstan, an estimated 35% of people in prison are PWID, and 10% have been diagnosed with HIV. In 2008, Kyrgyzstan became the first country in EECA to provide free and voluntary methadone in prisons. We examine the impact of this national program on methadone within prison as well as linkage to and retention in treatment upon release to the community. METHODS: Administrative data from a national methadone registry with de-identified information were assessed retrospectively. We examined the delivery of methadone services, including the duration of treatment both within prison and after release, for all prisoners who were prescribed methadone in Kyrgyz prisons from 2008 to 2018. Reasons for discontinuing methadone, HIV status and methadone dose are also analyzed. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2018, nine of Kyrgyzstan's 16 prisons offered methadone, and 982 incarcerated people initiated methadone within prison. Prisoners prescribed methadone were mostly male (96.2%), in their mid-30s (mean=34.9 years), and had been incarcerated for a relatively long time (mean = 44.1 months); their mean treatment duration in prison was 12.5 months, and 31.6% had HIV. A subsample (N = 645; 65.7%) of these were released to the community. Of these 645 people, 356 (55.2%) were not taking methadone at the time of release, 128 (19.8%) were on methadone and continued it after release, and the remainder (N=161, 25.0%) were on methadone at the time of release, but subsequently discontinued it, most within the first 7 days after release. Among those continuing methadone, 14.8% (N=19) remained on treatment ≥ 12 months. Independent correlates of linkage to methadone after release included positive HIV status (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)=1.55; p = 0.033), receipt of methadone before their incarceration (aHR=2.01; p = 0.039), and receipt of methadone at the time of release (aHR = 20.81; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: This is the first evaluation of within-prison methadone treatment in EECA. Uptake of methadone within prison and retention in treatment after release were both low. Continuous maintenance of treatment throughout incarceration is an opportunity to optimize HIV prevention and link patients to methadone post-release.