“Like being put on an ice floe and shoved away”: A qualitative study of the impacts of opioid-related policy changes on people who take opioids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To characterize the impacts of policies intended to improve opioid prescribing and prevent opioid-related overdose and death on individuals who take opioids. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using focus groups with 48 adults aged 18 years and over who had experience taking opioids. Participants were recruited from across Ontario, Canada, and separate focus groups were held for individuals taking opioids for chronic pain and individuals taking opioids for other reasons. We drew upon stigma theory to interpret participants' accounts. RESULTS: Following analysis and interpretation, we generated three themes describing the impacts of recently implemented opioid-related policies and harm reduction interventions on people who take opioids: 'propagating stigma: addict as dominant status', 'loss of autonomy' and 'producing/reproducing structural vulnerabilities'. Specifically, participants characterize an environment in which 'addict' has become the dominant social identity ascribed to people who take opioids, and where relationships with providers have become strained as participants perceive themselves to be powerless when decisions regarding opioid use and pain management are made. These shifts in identity and relationships had negative repercussions when help-seeking and exposed larger vulnerabilities related to poverty and criminalization. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of opioid-related policies had unintended consequences for people who take opioids. Potential measures for mitigating these consequences include ensuring that people who take opioids are involved in all facets of policy development and implementation, integrating peer workers into the care of these individuals, and respecting patient agency when decisions about pain management and opioid use are made.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".