Dataset Information

Building healthcare provider relationships for patient-centered care: A qualitative study of the experiences of people receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) was designed as a pragmatic and compassionate approach for people who have not benefitted from medication assisted treatment with oral opioids (e.g., methadone). While, a substantial body of clinical trial evidence has demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of iOAT, considerably less is known about the patient-centered aspects of this treatment and their role in self-reported treatment goals and outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore participants' experiences in iOAT as they broadly relate to the domains of patient-centered care. A secondary goal was to explore how these experiences affected participants' self-reported treatment outcomes. METHODS:A qualitative methodology, and constructivist grounded theory approach, was used to guide sampling, data collection and analysis. A total of 30 in-depth interviews were conducted with people receiving iOAT in North America's first clinic. Audio-recordings for each semi-structured interview were transcribed and read repeatedly. The strategy of constant comparison was used through iterative stages of line-by-line, focused and theoretical coding until theoretical saturation was achieved. RESULTS:"Building healthcare provider relationships for patient-centered care in iOAT" was the emergent core concept. Healthcare provider relationships were established through two interrelated processes: 'Opening up' was attributed to the positive environment, and to feeling understood and supported by healthcare providers. 'Being a part of care' emerged as participants felt safe to ask for what was needed and had opportunities to collaborate in treatment decisions. These processes established a foundation in which participants experienced care that was responsive to their individual dose, health and psychosocial needs. CONCLUSIONS:The core concept suggested that therapeutic relationships were fundamental to experiences of patient-centered care in iOAT. When relationships were respectful and understanding, participants received individualized and holistic care in iOAT. These findings offer a valuable example of how therapeutic relationships can be strengthened in other substance use treatment settings, particularly when responding to the diverse treatment needs of clients.

SUBMITTER: Marchand K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6971856 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Building healthcare provider relationships for patient-centered care: A qualitative study of the experiences of people receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment.

Marchand Kirsten K Foreman Julie J MacDonald Scott S Harrison Scott S Schechter Martin T MT Oviedo-Joekes Eugenia E

Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy 20200120 1

<h4>Background</h4>Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) was designed as a pragmatic and compassionate approach for people who have not benefitted from medication assisted treatment with oral opioids (e.g., methadone). While, a substantial body of clinical trial evidence has demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of iOAT, considerably less is known about the patient-centered aspects of this treatment and their role in self-reported treatment goals and outcomes. The aim of this study was ...[more]

PMID: 31959189

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcross different types of oral Opioid Agonist Treatment for people with Opioid Use Disorder, receiving a dose that meets their needs is associated with better outcomes. Evidence also shows patients are more likely to receive an "adequate dose" when their prescribers are involving them in decision making. Neither of these findings have been studied in the context of injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment, which is the purpose of this study.MethodsThis study was a retrospective analysis of an 18-month prospective longitudinal cohort study of 131 people receiving injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment. In the 18-month study, observations were collected every two months for one year, and then once more at 18 months. At 6 months, participants were asked whether their dose was satisfactory to them (outcome variable). Generalized Estimating Equations were used, to account for multiple observations from each participant. The final multivariate model was built using a stepwise approach.ResultsFive hundred forty-five participant-observations were included in the analysis. Participant-observations were grouped by "dose is satisfactory" and "wants higher dose". From unadjusted analyses, participants were less likely to report being satisfied with their dose if they: were Indigenous, had worse psychological or physical health problems, had ever attempted suicide, were younger when they first injected any drug, were a current smoker, felt troubled by drug problems, gave their medication a lower "drug liking" score, and felt that their doctor was not including them in decisions the way they wanted to be. In the final multivariate model, all previously significant associations except for "current smoker" and "troubled by drug problems" were no longer significant after the addition of the "drug liking" score.ConclusionsPatients in injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment who are not satisfied with their dose are more likely to: be troubled by drug problems, be a current smoker, and report liking their medication less than dose-satisfied patients. Prescribers' practicing shared decision-making can help patients achieve dose-satisfaction and possibly alleviate troubles from drug problems. Additionally, receiving a satisfactory dose may be dependent on patients being able to access an opioid agonist medication (and formulation) that they like.

Project description:BackgroundEfforts to reduce opioid overdose fatalities have resulted in tapering (i.e., reducing or discontinuing) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experiences.ObjectiveTo explore patients' perspectives on opioid taper experiences to ultimately improve taper processes and outcomes.DesignQualitative study.ParticipantsPatients on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain who had undergone a reduction of opioid daily prescribed dosage of ≥50% in the past 2 years in two distinct medical systems and regions.ApproachFrom 2019 to 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, systematically coded, and analyzed to summarize the content and identify key themes regarding taper experiences overall and with particular attention to patient-provider relationships and provider communication during tapers.Key resultsParticipants (n=41) had lived with chronic pain for an average of 17.4 years (range, 3-36 years) and described generally adverse experiences with opioid tapers, the initiation of which was not always adequately justified or explained to them. Consequences of tapers ranged from minor to substantial and included withdrawal, mobility issues, emotional distress, exacerbated mental health symptoms, and feelings of social stigmatization for which adequate supports were typically unavailable. Narratives highlighted the consequential role of patient-provider relationships throughout taper experiences, with most participants describing significant interpersonal challenges including poor provider communication and limited patient engagement in decision making. A few participants identified qualities of providers, relationships, and communication that fostered more positive taper experiences and outcomes.ConclusionsFrom patients' perspectives, opioid tapers can produce significant physical, emotional, and social consequences, sometimes reducing trust and engagement in healthcare. Patient-provider relationships and communication influence patients' perceptions of the quality and outcomes of opioid tapers. To improve patients' experiences of opioid tapers, tapering plans should be based on individualized risk-benefit assessments and involve patient-centered approaches and improved provider communication.

Project description:BackgroundInjectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an emerging evidence-based option in the continuum of care for opioid use disorder in parts of Canada. Our study objective was to identify and describe iOAT programs operating during the ongoing opioid overdose crisis.MethodsWe conducted 2 sequential environmental scans. Programs were eligible to participate if they were in operation as of Sept. 1, 2018, and Mar. 1, 2019. Information was collected over 2-3 months for each scan (September-October 2018, March-May 2019). Programs that participated in the first scan and newly established programs were invited to participate in the second scan. The scans included questions about location, service delivery model, clinical and operational characteristics, numbers and demographic characteristics of clients, and program barriers and facilitators. Descriptive analysis was performed.ResultsWe identified 14 unique programs across the 2 scans. Eleven programs located in urban centres in British Columbia and Ontario participated in the first scan. At the time of the second scan, 2 of these programs were on hold and 2 of 3 newly established programs were in Alberta. The total capacity of all participating programs was 420 clients at most. Four service delivery models were identified; iOAT was most commonly integrated within existing health and social services. All programs offered hydromorphone, and 1 program also offered diacetylmorphine. In the first scan, 73% of clients (133/183) were male; the mean age of clients was 47 years. Limited capacity, pharmacy operations and lack of diacetylmorphine access were among the most frequently reported barriers. The most commonly reported facilitators included client-centred care, client relationships and access to other health and social support.InterpretationEvidence indicates that iOAT can be successfully implemented using diverse service delivery models. Future work should facilitate scale-up of this evidence-based treatment where gaps persist in high-risk communities.

Project description:IntroductionInjectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) with diacetylmorphine is an effective option for individuals previously considered non-responsive to opioid substitution treatment. Despite implementation in Canada and several European countries, relatively few eligible people choose to initiate iOAT. To better understand what encourages or deters prospective patients from initiating iOAT, the current study explores patients' perceptions on iOAT and how these influence therapy initiation in practice.MethodsWe conducted 34 semi-structured interviews with individuals currently in or eligible for iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT clinics. Transcripts were analysed following qualitative content analysis, with development of inductive categories and use of consensual coding. For member checking, we consulted individuals with lived experiences prior to data collection and publication.ResultsParticipants based their choice to initiate iOAT on the perceived implications of the treatment on one's daily life and individual recovery. Participants were encouraged to initiate iOAT due to the therapy's perceived potential in reducing cravings and substance use, its positive health consequences, and due to the image of iOAT as a path towards abstinence. Regarding deterring perceptions, participants feared a profound impairment of daily life due to factors such as the daily visits to the clinic, were concerned about whether iOAT would sufficiently promote or even impede one's recovery, and described negative health effects.ConclusionPerceptions found in this study profoundly influenced participants' decisions on iOAT enrolment and contextualize the previous literature. The study reveals the dynamic coexistence of different perceptions about iOAT and sheds light on the inner-group stigmatization of iOAT. Practitioners and future research should acknowledge the complexities found in the current study in order to exploit the full potential of effective treatment modalities such as iOAT.

Project description:Background and aimsEvidence from randomized controlled trials establishes that medication treatment with methadone and buprenorphine reduces opioid use and improves treatment retention. However, little is known about the role of such medications compared with non-medication treatments in mitigating overdose risk among US patient populations receiving treatment in usual care settings. This study compared overdose mortality among those in medication versus non-medication treatments in specialty care settings.DesignRetrospective cohort study using state-wide treatment data linked to death records. Survival analysis was used to analyze data in a time-to-event framework.SettingServices delivered by 757 providers in publicly funded out-patient specialty treatment programs in Maryland, USA between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2016.ParticipantsA total of 48 274 adults admitted to out-patient specialty treatment programs in 2015-16 for primary diagnosis of opioid use disorder.MeasurementsMain exposure was time in medication treatment (methadone/buprenorphine), time following medication treatment, time exposed to non-medication treatments and time following non-medication treatment. Main outcome was opioid overdose death during and after treatment. Hazard ratios were calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression. Propensity score weights were adjusted for patient information on sex, age, race, region of residence, marital and veteran status, employment, homelessness, primary opioid, mental health treatment, arrests and criminal justice referral.FindingsThe study population experienced 371 opioid overdose deaths. Periods in medication treatment were associated with substantially reduced hazard of opioid overdose death compared with periods in non-medication treatment [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.08-0.40]. Periods after discharge from non-medication treatment (aHR = 5.45, 95% CI = 2.80-9.53) and medication treatment (aHR = 5.85, 95% CI = 3.10-11.02) had similar and substantially elevated risks compared with periods in non-medication treatments.ConclusionsAmong Maryland patients in specialty opioid treatment, periods in treatment are protective against overdose compared with periods out of care. Methadone and buprenorphine are associated with significantly lower overdose death compared with non-medication treatments during care but not after treatment is discontinued.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pregnant women exposed chronically to opioids smoked more cigarettes per day (CPD) and had a higher nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR), 3-hydroxycotinine/cotinine, a biomarker of nicotine metabolism and clearance, than those not receiving opioids. We examined CPD and NMR in a group of pregnant smokers, a quarter of whom were receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT). AIMS AND METHODS:Pregnant smokers recruited to participate in a placebo-controlled trial of bupropion for smoking cessation provided a blood sample for measurement of NMR. RESULTS:Half (52.4%) of the 124 women with NMR data were African American. OAT-treated women (n = 34, 27.4%; 27 receiving methadone and 7 buprenorphine) were more likely to be white (79% vs. 30%, p < .001) and to have a lower mean PHQ-9 total score (2.91 [SD = 2.83] vs. 4.83 [SD = 3.82], p = .007). OAT-treated women reported smoking more CPD (9.50 [SD = 5.26] vs. 7.20 [SD = 3.65], p = .005) and had higher NMR (0.78 [SD = 0.36] vs. 0.56 [SD = 0.25], p = .001) than the non-OAT-treated group. In a linear regression analysis adjusting for race, depression severity, and CPD, NMR was greater in the OAT group (p = .025), among whom the daily methadone-equivalent dosage correlated with NMR (Spearman's ? = 0.49, p = .003). CONCLUSIONS:Consistent with the findings of Oncken et al. (2019), we found that OAT smokers smoked more and had higher NMR than non-OAT smokers. As higher NMR is associated with a reduced likelihood of smoking cessation, the effects on NMR of both pregnancy and OAT could contribute to a lower smoking cessation rate in pregnant smokers receiving chronic opioid therapy. IMPLICATIONS:We replicated the finding that the NMR is significantly greater among pregnant smokers receiving OAT than those not receiving this treatment for opioid use disorder. Furthermore, we found that the dosage of the OAT was significantly associated with the NMR level. These findings may contribute to a poorer response to smoking cessation treatment in pregnant women treated with OAT, particularly those receiving high-dose therapy, and raise the question of whether novel approaches are needed to treat smoking in this subgroup of pregnant smokers.

Project description:The Study to Assess Long-term Opioid Medication Effectiveness (SALOME) is a two-stage phase III, single site (Vancouver, Canada), randomized, double blind controlled trial designed to test if hydromorphone is as effective as diacetylmorphine for the treatment of long-term illicit opioid injection. Recruiting participants for clinical trials continues to be a challenge in medical and addiction research, with many studies not being able to reach the planned sample size in a timely manner. The aim of this study is to describe the recruitment strategies in SALOME, which offered appealing treatments but had limited clinic capacity and no guaranteed post-trial continuation of the treatments.SALOME included chronic opioid-dependent, current illicit injection opioid users who had at least one previous episode of opioid maintenance treatment. Regulatory approvals were received in June 2011 and recruitment strategies were implemented over the next 5 months. Recruitment strategies included ongoing open communication with the community, a consistent and accessible team and participant-centered screening. All applicants completed a pre-screening checklist to assess prerequisites. Applicants meeting these prerequisites were later contacted to commence the screening process.A total of 598 applications were received over the two-year recruitment period; 130 were received on the first day of recruitment. Of these applicants, 485 met prerequisites; however, many could not be found or were not reached before recruitment ended. For the 253 candidates who initiated the screening process, the average time lapse between application and screening date was 8.3 months (standard deviation [SD]?=?4.44) and for the 202 randomized to the study, the average processing time from initial screen to randomization was 25.9 days (SD?=?37.48; Median?=?15.0).As in prior trials offering injectable diacetylmorphine within a supervised model, recruiting participants for this study took longer than planned. The recruitment challenges overcome in SALOME were due to the high number of applicants compared with the limited number that could be randomized and treated. Our study emphasizes the value of integrating these strategies into clinical addiction research to overcome study-specific barriers.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01447212.

Dataset Information

Building healthcare provider relationships for patient-centered care: A qualitative study of the experiences of people receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment.

Publications

Building healthcare provider relationships for patient-centered care: A qualitative study of the experiences of people receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets