ArticleHarm reduction journal2025
Desirable treatment or a problematic drug scene? - An interview study of patients' and professionals' views on the risks and benefits of liberalized opioid agonist treatment.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOpioid agonist treatment (OAT) is a highly effective treatment option for people with opioid use disorder. The potent medications used create dilemmas regarding low or high thresholds to access treatment, patient autonomy and regulations. OAT in Scania County in the south of Sweden has seen the implementation of regulatory changes resulting in liberalization through a patient choice model and increased access to treatment. In this setting, in which OAT has developed from high threshold to low threshold because of policy changes at both national and local levels, we aimed to analyze how patients and staff view the risks and benefits of OAT.
methodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with 32 OAT patients and 15 OAT staff in Malmö, Sweden. We analyzed the data with a thematic analysis approach.
resultsPatients reported that OAT helped them to "stabilize" their lives although many felt a sense of being locked into treatment, which acted as a barrier to normalization. A significant risk was being offered illicit drugs by patients and dealers when visiting the clinic. Patients who had enrolled in OAT before liberalization found current guidelines too lenient and expressed worry that persons being enrolled were too young. Staff viewed liberalization with some ambivalence, with a positive view of increased access to OAT, although they had worries about the enrollment of young patients and difficulties supporting patients with ongoing drug use. Staff also viewed the sale of drugs in and outside of clinics as a significant problem. Some staff viewed medicines as the most important aspect of OAT, while others positioned the social support as most important.
conclusionsPatient and staff perspectives were relatively congruent as they highlighted substantial risks regarding drug dealing at OAT clinics and were ambivalent toward the liberalization of OAT guidelines and the increased access to OAT. Liberalization impacted both patients and staff in their everyday lives and in professional practice, in a setting where OAT is both a desirable treatment and sometimes the basis of a problematic drug scene.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.