Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37915058›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2023

Supervised on-site dosing in injectable opioid agonist treatment-considering the patient perspective. Findings from a cross-sectional interview study in two German cities.

Zoe Friedmann, Hans-Tilmann Kinkel, Claudia Kühner, Andreas Zsolnai, Inge Mick, Annette Binder

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zoe FriedmannCharité Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Medical University Hospital Charité Berlin), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. zoe.friedmann@charite.de.
Hans-Tilmann KinkelPraxiskombinat Neubau, Schwerpunktpraxis für Suchtmedizin (Outpatient Clinic for Addiction Medicine), Ruschestraße 103, 10365, Berlin, Germany.
Claudia KühnerSchwerpunktpraxis für Suchtmedizin Stuttgart (Outpatient Clinic for Addiction Medicine), Kriegsbergstraße 40, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany.
Andreas ZsolnaiSchwerpunktpraxis für Suchtmedizin Stuttgart (Outpatient Clinic for Addiction Medicine), Kriegsbergstraße 40, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany.
Inge MickDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Medical University Hospital Charité Berlin), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Annette BinderDepartment of General Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Addiction Medicine and Addiction Research Section, University Hospital Tuebingen, University of Tuebingen, Calwerstraße 14, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInjectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an effective option to support people living with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have not sufficiently benefitted from oral OAT. However, iOAT has been criticised based on theoretical and practical grounds for its dosing policies: Current regulations demand supervised, on-site application and require patients to frequently visit their treatment facility. The current study aims to investigate how patients experience on-site application and derive strategies to enhance the acceptability and effectiveness of iOAT-delivery.

methodsThis article is based on semi-structured interviews with 27 individuals currently or previously in iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT-clinics. We undertook an inductive qualitative content analysis, which included blinded, independent coding and the analysis of individual cases.

resultsComments regarding on-site application and daily visits to the clinic were grouped into positive and negative aspects, iOAT as the best alternative option, facilitators of daily visits, and suggestions for improvement. Positive aspects took the factors stability and social support in regard. Negative aspects ranged from general inconveniences to major impediments to individuals' daily lives and towards achieving psychosocial goals. Participants reported rigorous adherence to iOAT's treatment regime, often due to a perceived lack of alternative options. Meeting iOAT's demands was eased by the patients' coping-strategies and through facilitating measures implemented by iOAT-clinics. Despite acknowledgement of the potential detriments from easing regulations, take-home arrangements were frequently suggested by participants to improve iOAT.

conclusionsBeing required to attend the clinic for supervised iOAT-application is not experienced uniformly. While clinics can support their patients to cope with strict regulations, alternative approaches to iOAT-application should be considered to accommodate patients' individual needs. Examples from other treatment modalities (e.g., remote supervision and delivery services) might aid to reconcile individualisation while providing adequate safety measures and improve iOAT in the long term.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidOpioid-Related DisordersCitiesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansOpiate Substitution TreatmentQualitative ResearchAnalgesics, OpioidDosing policiesInjectable opioid agonist treatmentOpioid use disorderPatient perspectiveQualitative researchTake-home doses

Identifiers

PMID37915058
PMCPMC10619267
OpenAlexW4388111124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.