MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412021767 · doi:10.1186/s12954-025-01262-4

Barriers and facilitators to injectable opioid agonist treatment engagement within a structural vulnerability context: a qualitative study of patient experiences in Vancouver, Canada

2025· article· en· W4412021767 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Samara Mayer, Nadia Fairbairn, Al Fowler, Jade Boyd, Thomas Kerr, Ryan McNeil

Bibliographic record

VenueHarm Reduction Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaBritish Columbia Centre on Substance UseUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHealth psychologyContext (archaeology)Vulnerability (computing)Qualitative researchGrounded theoryMedicinePsychologyNursingPublic healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Amidst a sustained drug poisoning crisis, there is growing recognition in Canada of the need to expand injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT). iOAT is an intensive treatment that involves the daily self-administration of hydromorphone or diacetylmorphine under healthcare provider supervision, typically accompanied by other health and social services. While this treatment has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing drug use-related risks, high threshold characteristics may also create barriers to engagement. This study examined patients' experiences of barriers and facilitators to iOAT with attention to how social and structural factors (e.g., housing vulnerability, poverty) shape program engagement. METHODS: This study draws on qualitative interviews and fieldwork observations with people accessing four iOAT programs in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside neighbourhood from May 2018 to November 2019. Data included baseline and follow-up interviews and approximately 50 h of observational fieldwork. Analysis leveraged a structural vulnerability lens to examine how social and structural factors shape people's engagement with iOAT. RESULTS: Participants highlighted how improved access to health and social services, compassionate and relational care, and flexible and individualized approaches to treatment delivery that addresses and accounts for the structural vulnerabilities facilitated engagement in treatment. However, dosing supervision, operational capacity and medication formulation were experienced as barriers to treatment. These barriers were magnified by structural vulnerabilities such as housing instability and mobility challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings highlight how people navigate the barriers and facilitators to iOAT engagement in light of the structural vulnerabilities they experience. Adaptations to and ongoing support for iOAT programs may help to facilitate engagement and should focus on equity-oriented and patient- centered treatment models that includes the integration of social supports, support for relational care and treatment planning that supports patient autonomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarm Reduction JournalSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207