Rebecca Kathleen Metcalfe, Sophia Dobischok, Nick Bansback, Scott MacDonald, David Byres, Julie Lajeunesse, Scott Harrison, Bryce Koch, Blue Topping, Terry Brock, Julie Foreman, Martin Schechter, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes
{"title":"Client preferences for the design and delivery of injectable opioid agonist treatment services: Results from a best-worst scaling task.","authors":"Rebecca Kathleen Metcalfe, Sophia Dobischok, Nick Bansback, Scott MacDonald, David Byres, Julie Lajeunesse, Scott Harrison, Bryce Koch, Blue Topping, Terry Brock, Julie Foreman, Martin Schechter, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes","doi":"10.1111/add.16620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Clinical trials support injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom other pharmacological management approaches are not well-suited. However, despite substantial research indicating that person-centered care improves engagement, retention and health outcomes for individuals with OUD, structural requirements (e.g. drug policies) often dictate how iOAT must be delivered, regardless of client preferences. This study aimed to quantify clients' iOAT delivery preferences to improve client engagement and retention.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional preference elicitation survey.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>124 current and former iOAT clients.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Participants completed a demographic questionnaire package and an interviewer-led preference elicitation survey (case 2 best-worst scaling task). Latent class analysis was used to identify distinct preference groups and explore demographic differences between preference groups.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Most participants (n = 100; 81%) were current iOAT clients. Latent class analysis identified two distinct groups of client preferences: (1) autonomous decision-makers (n = 73; 59%) and (2) shared decision-makers (n = 51; 41%). These groups had different preferences for how medication type and dosage were selected. Both groups prioritized access to take-home medication (i.e. carries), the ability to set their own schedule, receiving iOAT in a space they like and having other services available at iOAT clinics. Compared with shared decision-makers, fewer autonomous decision-makers identified as a cis-male/man and reported flexible preferences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) clients surveyed in Vancouver, Canada, appear to prefer greater autonomy than they currently have in choosing OAT medication type, dosage and treatment schedule.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":"2139-2150"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16620","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: Clinical trials support injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom other pharmacological management approaches are not well-suited. However, despite substantial research indicating that person-centered care improves engagement, retention and health outcomes for individuals with OUD, structural requirements (e.g. drug policies) often dictate how iOAT must be delivered, regardless of client preferences. This study aimed to quantify clients' iOAT delivery preferences to improve client engagement and retention.
Setting: Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Participants: 124 current and former iOAT clients.
Measurements: Participants completed a demographic questionnaire package and an interviewer-led preference elicitation survey (case 2 best-worst scaling task). Latent class analysis was used to identify distinct preference groups and explore demographic differences between preference groups.
Findings: Most participants (n = 100; 81%) were current iOAT clients. Latent class analysis identified two distinct groups of client preferences: (1) autonomous decision-makers (n = 73; 59%) and (2) shared decision-makers (n = 51; 41%). These groups had different preferences for how medication type and dosage were selected. Both groups prioritized access to take-home medication (i.e. carries), the ability to set their own schedule, receiving iOAT in a space they like and having other services available at iOAT clinics. Compared with shared decision-makers, fewer autonomous decision-makers identified as a cis-male/man and reported flexible preferences.
Conclusions: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) clients surveyed in Vancouver, Canada, appear to prefer greater autonomy than they currently have in choosing OAT medication type, dosage and treatment schedule.
期刊介绍：
Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines.
Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries.
Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
