Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41358558›Full record

ArticleHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2025

Optimal provision of opiate substitution therapy and needle and syringe programmes: a multi-method realist evaluation.

Peter McCulloch, April Shaw, Gail Gilchrist, Catriona Matheson, Margaret Maxwell, Joanne Neale, Gareth Myring, Hugh McLeod, Matt Hickman, Peter Vickerman and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 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

12 authors.

Peter McCullochSchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.ORCID 0009-0005-4241-5735
April ShawSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland.ORCID 0009-0001-4987-0555
Gail GilchristNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.ORCID 0000-0002-5616-6283
Catriona MathesonFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland.ORCID 0000-0002-7568-1125
Margaret MaxwellNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland.ORCID 0000-0003-3318-9500
Joanne NealeNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.ORCID 0000-0003-1502-5983
Gareth MyringPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.ORCID 0000-0002-7811-2091
Hugh McLeodPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.ORCID 0000-0002-2266-7303
Matt HickmanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.ORCID 0000-0001-9864-459X
Peter VickermanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.ORCID 0000-0002-8291-5890
Alison MunroSchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.ORCID 0000-0002-2350-8128
Steve MacGillivraySchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.ORCID 0000-0002-1933-6431

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The barriers and facilitators to engagement with Opiate Substitute Treatment and Needle and Syringe Provision need to be better understood to develop interventions to attract people into services. Objective(s): We conducted a multi-method realist evaluation to generate an in-depth theory of the factors that influence the optimal provision of services in terms of access, engagement, retention and successful exit. Design: Multi-method involving an online survey of United Kingdom drug and alcohol service commissioning leads and a meta-synthesis of qualitative literature (phase 1) to facilitate the development of an initial theory of optimal provision; and, in phase 2, a realist evaluation to test and refine the initial theory, involving in-depth interviews across three United Kingdom sites, with service commissioners, managers, staff and service users. We used routine treatment and staffing data to estimate the additional staff costs of implementing optimal service provision within one context of our refined theory. Results: Findings indicated that optimal provision could be understood with reference to five main contexts [(1) agency and empowerment, (2) self-esteem and respect, (3) knowledge and communication, (4) goals, needs and preferences and (5) resources and demands]. The analysis suggested that optimal provision could be facilitated via specific mechanisms of action, operating at the 'Systems level' (policy, legislation and funding) and 'Service level' (delivery of services, service pathways, staff roles and responsibilities and organisational culture). Our analysis also identified the potential importance of independent 'mediating mechanisms' (e.g. confidence, trust and self-efficacy) which can operate to increase the likelihood of successful service outcomes. A costing analysis estimated the costs associated with a smaller caseload for shared care workers and the implementation of a salary increment scheme at one of the study sites. Limitations: The survey sample size limited generalisability. There was a limited number of United Kingdom studies within the meta-synthesis. The findings of the realist evaluation highlight that provision was not optimised in the observed sites, limiting examples of best practice. However, the conceptual theory of optimal provision can direct future research to facilitate the development and implementation of optimal policy and practice. Conclusions: We have provided a rich understanding of the contexts, mechanisms and actions by which optimal delivery of Opiate Substitute Treatment and Needle and Syringe Provision services may increase the likelihood of successful service provision. A multiagency approach applying various mechanisms within the various contexts of optimal provision may need to be implemented to optimise the provision. Future work: Future research should focus on the development of a multiple-system toolkit or intervention to help drug services to implement optimal provision. More research is also needed to assess, the barriers and facilitators, that vulnerable underserved population and people from minority ethnic groups may face, and the mechanisms to improve provision for these populations. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020209646. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129798) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Needle-Exchange ProgramsOpiate Substitution TreatmentOpioid-Related DisordersSubstance Abuse, IntravenousHealth Services AccessibilityHumansState MedicineUnited KingdomHUMANSINTRAVENOUSNEEDLE-EXCHANGE PROGRAMSOPIATE ALKALOIDSSUBSTANCE ABUSESYRINGESUNITED KINGDOM

Identifiers

PMID41358558
PMCPMC12703564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.