Understanding concurrent stimulant use among people on methadone: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Opioid-related overdoses are an epidemic in North America, prompting a greater use of medications for opioid use disorder, such as methadone. Although many people work toward overall drug abstinence while on methadone, a sub-population of people with and without histories of polysubstance use engage in stimulant use while on methadone treatment. This study explores motivations for concurrent stimulant and methadone use in a street-involved drug-using population. DESIGN AND METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 39 people on methadone in Vancouver, Canada. Participants were recruited from among the participants in two community-based prospective cohort studies consisting of HIV-positive and HIV-negative people who use drugs. Interview transcripts were analysed using an inductive and iterative approach. RESULTS: Our analysis identified three primary themes. First, participants articulated how stimulants were used to counter the sedating effects of methadone and enable them to engage in daily and survival activities (e.g. income generation). Second, participants described increased stimulant use to compensate for reduced stimulant intoxication while taking methadone. Finally, participants described the desire to achieve intoxication on stimulants once stable on methadone, as their substance use treatment goals did not involve drug abstinence. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Among a street-involved drug-using population in which people do not have abstinence-based treatment goals, there are several functional reasons to use stimulants concurrently while on methadone. A deeper and more nuanced understanding of substance use motivators may contribute to further research and inform policy and guideline changes that support low threshold and harm reduction-focused methadone treatment programs and other interventions to reduce drug-related harms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".