Preventing transitions to injecting amongst young people: What is the role of Needle and Syringe Programmes?

A systematic review of rural-specific barriers to medication treatment for opioid use disorder in the United States

BACKGROUND

Opioid-related deaths have risen dramatically in rural communities. Prior studies highlight few medication treatment providers for opioid use disorder in rural communities, though literature has yet to examine rural-specific treatment barriers.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review to highlight the state of knowledge around rural medication treatment for opioid use disorder, identify consumer- and provider-focused treatment barriers, and discuss rural-specific implications.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature using PsycINFO, Web of Science, and PubMed databases (January 2018). Articles meeting inclusion criteria involved rural samples or urban/rural comparisons targeting outpatient medication treatment for opioid use disorder, and were conducted in the U.S. to minimize healthcare differences. Our analysis categorized consumer- and/or provider-focused barriers, and coded barriers as related to treatment availability, accessibility, and/or acceptability.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles met inclusion, 15 which addressed consumer-focused barriers, while seven articles reported provider-focused barriers. Availability barriers were most commonly reported across consumer (n = 10) and provider (n = 5) studies, and included the lack of clinics/providers, backup, and resources. Acceptability barriers, described in three consumer and five provider studies, identified negative provider attitudes about addiction treatment, and providers' perceptions of treatment as unsatisfactory for rural patients. Finally, accessibility barriers related to travel and cost were detailed in four consumer-focused studies whereas two provider-focused studies identified time constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings consistently identified a lack of medication providers and rural-specific implementation challenges. This review highlights a lack of rural-focused studies involving consumer participants, treatment outcomes, or barriers impacting underserved populations. There is a need for innovative treatment delivery for opioid use disorder in rural communities and interventions targeting provider attitudes.

Frequent experience of discrimination among people who inject drugs: Links with health and wellbeing

BACKGROUND

Previous research has shown that people who inject drugs (PWID) experience discrimination on a regular basis. This study explores the relationships between discrimination against PWID and health and wellbeing.

METHODS

Data on discrimination against PWID and their health and wellbeing were drawn from the Illicit Drug Reporting System collected in Australia in 2016. The Personal Wellbeing Index was used to measure wellbeing, and the Kessler-10 scale was used to measure psychological distress. Experience of overdose, injecting related illnesses, diseases, and risky injecting behaviour were also assessed. We fitted multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for socio-demographic, imprisonment history, and drug-related factors.

RESULTS

Of the 796 participants included in the study, the majority who reported experiencing discrimination were male (65%), heterosexual (89%), and unemployed (89%). Thirty percent of the sample (n = 238) reported they had never experienced discrimination because of their injecting drug use. Seventeen percent of participants had not experienced discrimination in the twelve months prior to the interview, 24% experienced discrimination monthly, 16% experienced discrimination weekly, and 13% experienced discrimination daily or more. Frequent discrimination was associated with increased odds of overdosing, injecting related illnesses and diseases, mental health issues, and poor wellbeing. Among those who reported experiencing discrimination, females and those who identified as Indigenous were found to have poorer health and wellbeing outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlighted that frequent discrimination may lead to worse health and wellbeing among PWID. If our findings are supported by other research, policies aimed at reducing discrimination against PWID may be warranted or improved.

Implicit and explicit internalized stigma: Relationship with risky behaviors, psychosocial functioning and healthcare access among people who inject drugs

INTRODUCTION

People who inject drugs (PWID) are stigmatized by society. Over time people may begin to internalize the stigma about their group. This research examines how implicit and explicit internalized stigma among PWID relates to health care and treatment access, psychosocial functioning, and engagement in risky behaviors.

METHODS

PWID were recruited from a needle and syringe program (NSP) located in Sydney, Australia. Participants completed a survey examining explicit and implicit internalized stigma, risky behaviors (e.g., sharing injecting equipment, unprotected sex), health care and treatment access (e.g., comfort attending NSPs), and psychosocial functioning (e.g., mental health). Detailed demographic variables were also collected.

RESULTS

A total of 115 clients completed the measures. To the degree that participants had internalized the stigma about their group (measured explicitly), they felt less comfortable attending NSPs, had greater severity of dependence, and experienced more depressive symptoms. The implicit measure of internalized stigma was related to treatment engagement and needle sharing, although the direction of these effects was unexpected.

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights the importance of ongoing research into the implications of internalized stigma for PWID. Assessing both explicit and implicit internalized stigma appears to be beneficial as these are related to different health and behavioral outcomes.

From initiating injecting drug use to regular injecting: Retrospective survival analysis of injecting progression within a sample of people who inject drugs regularly

BACKGROUND

The initiation of injecting drug use and the commencement of a pattern of regular injecting are key milestones in injecting careers. The progression from initiation to regular injecting is a poorly understood period in these careers.

METHODS

Cross-sectional baseline data from a sample of people who inject drugs regularly (N=691), recorded the age at which participants initiated injecting drug use and the age they became regular (at least once per month) injectors. Survival analysis compared the rapidity of progression to regular injecting across sub-groups within the sample using bivariate log-rank testing and multivariable Cox regression.

RESULTS

Half of all participants progressed to regular injecting within 1 year of initiation and by the fourth year post-initiation, 91% had progressed. In bivariate analysis, there were significant differences in equality of hazards by sex (X(2)=7.75, p<0.01), from whom participants learnt to inject (X(2)=22.32, p<0.01) and the drug of injection initiation (X(2)=18.36; p<0.01). In the multivariable Cox model, only initiating injecting with heroin (HR=1.28; 95% CI: 1.09-1.50) compared with other drugs (predominantly methamphetamine) showed a significantly greater hazard, suggesting a faster progression to regular injecting.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that among our sample of eventual regular injectors, progression from initiation to regular injecting was rapid. By gaining a greater understanding of the dynamics of this progression, the ability to appropriately target interventions and future research is subsequently informed.

Factors associated with initiating someone into illicit drug injection

AIMS

Most people who inject drugs (PWID) were first initiated into injection by a current PWID. Few studies have examined PWID who assist others into drug injection. Our goal is to describe the prevalence of and risk factors for initiating someone into injection in the last 12 months.

METHODS

We recruited a cross-sectional sample of PWID (N=605) in California from 2011 to 2013. We examined bivariate and multivariate risk factors for initiating someone into injection with a focus on behaviors that might encourage injection initiation such as injecting in front of non-PWID, describing how to inject to non-PWID, and willingness to initiate someone into drug injection.

RESULTS

Having initiated someone into injection was reported by 34% of PWID overall and 7% in the last 12 months. Forty-four PWID had assisted 431 people into injection in the past year. Factors independently associated with initiating someone into injection in the last 12 months were self-reported likelihood of initiating someone in the future (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR]=7.09; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]=3.40, 14.79), having injected another PWID in past month (AOR=4.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.94, 8.47), having described how to inject to non-injectors (2.61; 95% CI=1.19, 5.71), and non-injection powder cocaine use in past month (AOR=4.97; 95% CI=2.08, 11.84) while controlling for study site.

CONCLUSION

Active PWID are important in facilitating the process of drug injection uptake. Interventions to reduce initiation should include efforts to change behaviors and intentions among PWID that are associated with injection uptake among others.

Route transition interventions: potential public health gains from reducing or preventing injecting

Multiple factors are implicated in the diffusion of injecting drug use (IDU), including individual and demographic characteristics, drug markets, economics, social networks and political and cultural environments. However, studies show that individual transitions away from injecting are possible, and that a recent diffusion of non-injecting routes of administration (NIROA) has occurred in several countries. Injecting is more risk-laden than other routes of drug administration, yet relatively little attention has been paid to reducing or preventing injecting drug use by promoting NIROA. This commentary reviews the case for, and examples of, 'route transition interventions' which seek to do this. These include: prescribing oral substitutes; providing non-injecting equipment; providing safer smoking facilities; and training individuals to prevent transitions to injecting, promote NIROA, or prevent the initiation of new injectors. These initiatives have the potential-as yet largely unrealised-to offer public health gains and empower people to control and manage their drug use. Further research is needed to secure commitments at all levels to support this approach.