Patient-centred care and patient engagement to inform the use of psychosocial interventions with opioid substitution treatment: another path for Day & Mitcheson to follow

Caregivers' Attitudes Toward Treatment Length for Persons in Swedish Opioid Agonist Treatment. A Qualitative Interview Study

Although opioid agonist treatment (OAT) has several beneficial effects, the issue of optimal treatment length remains unresolved. It is plausible that caregivers' attitudes toward treatment length are of importance to whether, how and when tapering off will take place. In this study, we investigated caregivers' attitudes toward treatment length by interviewing 15 caregivers from a variety of professions working in seven OAT treatment programs in Sweden. Data were analyzed using applied thematic analysis. The participants were generally hesitant concerning the idea of tapering off. Few of them had experiences of patients tapering off successfully. Many of them never brought up the subject unless the patient did so her-/himself. Only younger, socially stable patients were perceived to be suitable for tapering off. Participants also expressed a need among staff for education and ethical discussions on treatment length. A person-centered focus may be promoted by recurrently discussing treatment goals and by co-operating with patients to map the recovery capital of those interested in tapering. To further support caregivers in developing person-centered care, more knowledge of opioid use disorder and professional and interprofessional discussions of caregivers' own attitudes and beliefs are paramount.

Provider experiences with relaxing restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Historical restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder have generated considerable debate. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the perceived risks and benefits of daily clinic attendance and led to widespread policy reform, creating an unprecedented opportunity to explore the impact of more flexible prescribing. We conducted a qualitative systematic review to synthesize the evidence on providers' experiences with relaxing restrictions on take-home doses of medications prescribed for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022360589; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). From Sept.-Nov. 2022, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the grey literature from 2020 onward. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they used qualitative methods to investigate providers' experiences with relaxed restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. We appraised study quality using the CASP qualitative checklist and used thematic synthesis and GRADE-CERQual to synthesize the results.

RESULTS

We retrieved 13 articles representing 11 studies. Six were conducted in the United States and most focused on changes to methadone treatment. Providers' experiences with increased flexibilities around take-homes were broadly positive, despite widespread initial concern over client safety and the potential for medication misuse. For a small number of providers, concerns about diversion were a specific manifestation of more general unease with loss of control over clients and the treatment process. Most providers appreciated increased flexibilities and described them as enabling more individualized, person-centered care.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the continuation of flexibilities around take-homes and demonstrate that regulations and policies that reduce flexibility around take-homes conflict with person-centered approaches to care. Stronger guidance and support from professional regulatory agencies may help increase uptake of flexibilities around take-homes.

Patient-centered quality measurement for opioid use disorder: Development of a taxonomy to address gaps in research and practice

Background: Evidence-based treatment is provided infrequently and inconsistently to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). Treatment guidelines call for high-quality, patient-centered care that meets individual preferences and needs, but it is unclear whether current quality measures address individualized aspects of care and whether measures of patient-centered OUD care are supported by evidence. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan of OUD care quality to (1) evaluate patient-centeredness in current OUD quality measures endorsed by national agencies and in national OUD treatment guidelines; and (2) review literature evidence for patient-centered care in OUD diagnosis and management, including gaps in current guidelines, performance data, and quality measures. We then synthesized these findings to develop a new quality measurement taxonomy that incorporates patient-centered aspects of care and identifies priority areas for future research and quality measure development. Results: Across 31 endorsed OUD quality measures, only two measures of patient experience incorporated patient preferences and needs, while national guidelines emphasized providing patient-centered care. Among 689 articles reviewed, evidence varied for practices of patient-centered care. Many practices were supported by guidelines and substantial evidence, while others lacked evidence despite guideline support. Our synthesis of findings resulted in EQuIITable Care, a taxonomy comprised of six classifications: (1) patient Experience and engagement, (2) Quality of life; (3) Identification of patient risks; (4) Interventions to mitigate patient risks; (5) Treatment; and (6) Care coordination and navigation. Conclusions: Current quality measurement for OUD lacks patient-centeredness. EQuIITable Care for OUD provides a roadmap to develop measures of patient-centered care for OUD.

Patients’ Perspectives on Coming Off Opioid Agonist Treatment: A Qualitative Study

Aims:

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) programs are life-saving, as they reduce opioid use, overdoses, and criminal activities. Disadvantages reported with long-term OAT include side effects of the medication, especially on cognitive ability and sexual function, which may discourage potential participants. Many of those who participate in OAT have a desire to come off treatment. The aims of this study were to explore patients’ thoughts about coming off OAT and to investigate their perceptions of what support they would need in order to realize a planned withdrawal from OAT.

Methods:

A qualitative interview study with semi-structured interviews, using applied thematic analysis. Persons with experiences of participating in OAT were invited from Swedish programs and a private Facebook community.

Results:

Fifteen persons, with a mean of 9.6 (±6.4) years of treatment experience, were included. The participants underlined the need for a patient-centered focus within the treatment. They wanted to be regarded as capable of deciding if, when, and how a planned ending was to take place. They also called for staff to be supportive in making such decisions. Participants recommended staff to be sensitive to the needs of the specific patient and to have strategies for coming off OAT that could be adjusted for the single person.

Conclusions:

OAT programs need to be continually updated and adapted to the persons who can benefit from them. Applying a person-centered, holistic perspective would enhance the quality of the treatment by emanating from individual goals. Regulatory guidelines need to take into account research on patient experiences and perspectives on coming off.

Forty-eight years of research on psychosocial interventions in the treatment of opioid use disorder: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Mapped the sources and types of evidence available on psychosocial interventions in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), with and without pharmacotherapies.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched for research published until July 1, 2019. Included studies were coded on publication characteristics, evidence sources, treatment settings and modalities, study populations and patient characteristics, intervention(s) offered to patients, research questions addressed in experimental studies, and outcomes investigated.

RESULTS

We identified 305 empirical studies of 54,607 patients. Most studies (64 %; n = 194) compared psychosocial interventions to alternative treatment(s) (183 RCTs and 11 quasi-experiments) while 28 % (n = 86) used observational designs, and 8% (n = 25) used qualitative methods. Trials infrequently investigated effects of stand-alone psychosocial interventions without pharmacotherapies (20% of all RCTs). Regardless of research question or study design, program retention and illicit drug use were the most common outcomes investigated (> 81% of all studies and RCTs), typically among longstanding male heroin users attending specialty outpatient addiction services. Studies rarely examined (a) OUD treatment in general health care or prescription OUD (each < 6 % of all studies and RCTs), (b) effects of social assistance (employment, education, social support) and harm reduction (each < 6 % of studies; < 7 % of RCTs), and (c) health-related quality of life and satisfaction with care (each < 10 % and < 15 % of all studies and RCTs, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Scant evidence is available on the putative rehabilitative effects of psychosocial interventions, either as stand-alone treatments or in an adjunct role to pharmacotherapies.