Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40457846›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol review2025

Hydromorphone Hopes: A Qualitative Study of People Initiating Supervised Short-Acting Injectable Opioid Treatment in Australia.

Jake Rance, Vendula Belackova, James Bell, Adrian J Dunlop, Nadine Ezard, Marianne Jauncey, Nicholas Lintzeris, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes, Alison Ritter, Darren M Roberts and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Jake RanceUNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7782-1235
Vendula BelackovaUNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
James BellUNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5117-0216
Adrian J DunlopDrug and Alcohol Clinical Services Research, Hunter New England Health, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2394-5966
Nadine EzardUNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7495-8305
Marianne JaunceyUniting MSIC, Sydney, Australia.
Nicholas LintzerisDiscipline of Addiction Medicine, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5229-8257
Eugenia Oviedo-JoekesUniversity of British Columbia Centre for Health Evaluation, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3566-7097
Alison RitterDrug Policy Modelling Program, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9540-1920
Darren M RobertsUNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Craig RodgersAlcohol and Drug Service, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Krista J SiefriedUNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6534-3325
John StrangNational Addiction Centre, King's College London, London, UK.
Willem van den BrinkAmsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Carla TreloarUNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8230-0386

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1171781St Vincent's Hospital SydneyUniting NSW/ACT
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA growing body of qualitative scholarship has drawn attention to aspects of supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT) not captured in earlier clinical trial data, identifying treatment initiation as one such area. Crucial questions surrounding people's motivations, expectations and initial experiences of SIOT remain under-explored. This paper examines the first tranche of qualitative findings from participants of Australia's first-ever SIOT trial, the 'Feasibility of Opioid Injectable Treatment' (FOpIT) study. Noting the novelty of both SIOT and hydromorphone within the Australian context, we ask: what motivated people to participate in the trial and what were their early experiences of this new treatment and medication?

methodsFifteen semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with participants commencing hydromorphone.

resultsAlmost universally, participants expressed a strong desire for change in their lives, foregrounding their intention to cease or reduce their use of street heroin. For many, the appeal of SIOT was driven by prior, unsatisfactory experiences with standard opioid agonist treatment (methadone, buprenorphine). Early accounts of hydromorphone ranged from favourable comparisons to street heroin to noting its relative shortcomings. Nonetheless, a dominant narrative emerged of reduced or ceased use of street heroin within days of beginning the trial. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsUnderstanding the complexities surrounding SIOT initiation has clear implications for clinical practice, including the potential for improved treatment engagement, retention and outcomes. Accounts from FOpIT participants commencing SIOT revealed a diversity of motivations, hopes, goals and medication effects. The extent to which these are carried through to treatment outcomes is an area of ongoing research.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidHydromorphoneOpiate Substitution TreatmentOpioid-Related DisordersAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansInjectionsMaleMiddle AgedMotivationQualitative ResearchAnalgesics, OpioidHydromorphoneAustraliahydromorphoneimplementation trialqualitative studysupervised injectable opioid treatmenttreatment initiation

Identifiers

PMID40457846
PMCPMC12228013

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.