Identifying the most common barriers to opioid agonist treatment in an Australian setting

An international comparative policy analysis of opioid use disorder treatment in primary care across nine high-income jurisdictions

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) and opioid-related harms are current health priorities in many high-income countries such as Canada. Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is an effective evidence-based treatment for OUD, but access is often limited.

AIMS

To describe and compare OUD treatment policies across nine international jurisdictions, and to understand how they are situated within their primary care and health systems.

METHODS

Using policy documents, we collected data on health systems, drug use epidemiology, drug policies, and OUD treatment from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and Taiwan. We used the health system dynamics framework and adapted definitions of low- and high-threshold treatment to describe and compare OUD treatment policies, and to understand how they may be shaped by their health systems context.

RESULTS

Broad similarities across jurisdictions included the OAT pharmacological agents used and the need for supervised dosing; however, preferred OAT, treatment settings, primary care and specialist physicians' roles, and funding varied. Most jurisdictions had elements of lower-threshold treatment access, such as the availability of treatment through primary care and multiple OAT options, but the higher-threshold criteria of supervised dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

From the Canadian perspective, there are opportunities to improve accessibility of OUD care by drawing on how different jurisdictions incorporate multidisciplinary care, regulate OAT medications, remunerate healthcare professionals, and provide funding for services.

Measuring the importance of different barriers to opioid agonist treatment using best-worst scaling in an Australian setting

OBJECTIVE

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), however several client barriers to OAT are reported. Client importance of these barriers using economic preference elicitation measures have not been identified. This paper determines the most important OAT barriers using best-worst scaling (BWS) and compares the results of BWS to Likert scale.

METHODS

Cross-sectional self-completed survey with 191 opioid dependent clients who attended Australian needle and syringe sites. Participants were presented 15 Likert scale barriers and 15 BWS barrier scenarios. The BWS data was presented using count analysis, multinomial logit and mixed logit models. The ranking of barrier items was completed using three BWS methods and one Likert scale method, with share preference results (BWS) or mean scores (Likert) used to rank the 15 barriers.

RESULTS

The most important client barriers were 'enjoy using opioids', 'lack of support services' and 'hard to access'. The four ranking methods produced different barrier rankings for the most important barriers, but similar results for the least important barriers.

CONCLUSION

Policies around OAT as a harm reduction approach, increased support services and increased availability of OAT services would be beneficial in improving OAT uptake. Comparing BWS and Likert methods produced different highest ranked barriers, indicating the method used to identify preferences has significant implications on the type of intervention prioritised.

Male patients' preferences for opioid use treatment programs

BACKGROUND

A patient-centered approach to the treatment of substance use is helpful in achieving positive treatment outcomes. This study aimed to explore male patients' preferences for opioid use treatments.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in Isfahan, a city in the center of Iran. The study sample included 64 male participants who had started treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Using a purposive maximum variation sampling procedure, seven treatment centers were selected as interview venues. The semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted in a private room in the selected centers. A hybrid inductive/deductive approach was used to thematize the interview transcripts.

RESULTS

A total of three themes and 13 subthemes on opioid treatment preferences were identified: treatment concerns (anonymity, social stigma, fear of treatment distress, and family concerns), treatment attributes (treatment cost, location of the treatment center, treatment period, frequency of attendance, informed treatment, and treatment personnel), and treatment type (maintenance or abstinence and residential and community treatments). The study showed that all treatment programs were perceived to have their own strengths and weaknesses.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that patients with OUD carefully compare the positive and negative aspects of existing treatment programs, and they consider a treatment program to be a package of favorable and non-favorable qualities. The identified themes could inform policymakers about the treatment preferences of male patients and provide an opportunity to promote better treatment options for OUD.