Challenges for the implementation of injectable opioid agonist treatment: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is a valuable, patient-centred, evidence based intervention. However, limited information exists on contextual factors that may support or hinder iOAT implementation and sustainability. This study aims to examine existing research on iOAT using diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone, focusing on identifying the key barriers and facilitators to its successful implementation. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the MEDLINE and PsycInfo databases (via Ovid) from inception to February 2024, supplemented by a comprehensive grey literature search. No restrictions were applied regarding publication type, year, or geographic location. Articles were independently screened by two reviewers. Eligible articles described the feasibility, implementation, and/or evaluation of iOAT in one or more countries, presenting perspectives on receiving, administering, or governing iOAT. RESULTS: Forty-four publications were selected for inclusion. Barriers identified through thematic analysis included public acceptance concerns such as medication diversion, increased crime, and the Honey-Pot effect. Legal and ethical challenges identified involved enacting changes in law to make certain substances available as a medically controlled options for treatment, and addressing patient consent issues. Negative media coverage and public controversies were found to undermine acceptance, and high start-up costs especially for security, facility access, and economic feasibility were seen as additional obstacles. Regulatory barriers and stringent protocols were the most frequently cited limiting factors by patients and providers. Facilitators included the integration of trial prescriptions into comprehensive drug policy strategies and publishing data for evidence-based debates, together with ethics committees ensuring compliance with ethical standards. Developing information strategies and addressing opponents' claims improved public perception. Cost-effectiveness evidence was found to support long-term implementation, while flexible treatment protocols, inclusive spaces, and affirming therapeutic relationships were seen as important facilitators to enhance patient engagement and treatment effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of iOAT requires balancing political and social acceptability with scientific integrity, alongside strategic communication and public outreach. Further research is needed to enhance the transferability of findings across diverse socio-political contexts and address key influencing factors associated with iOAT programs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».