Search

Abstract Background Retention in substance use treatment is essential to treatment success. While programmatic factors are known to influence retention, less is known about the role of involuntary discharges from drug or alcohol treatment programs. Therefore, we sought to identify the prevalence of and factors associated with involuntary discharge due to ongoing substance use. Methods Data were derived from two community-recruited prospective cohort studies of people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses were used to identify variables associated with involuntary discharge from treatment programs due to ongoing substance use. Results Between June 2017 and March 2020, 1487 participants who accessed substance use treatment and completed at least one study interview were included in this study. Involuntary discharge from a treatment program due to ongoing substance use was reported by 41 (2.8%) participants throughout the study, with 23 instances reported at baseline and another 18 reported during study follow-up. In a multivariable GEE analysis, involuntary discharge was positively associated with homelessness (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 3.22, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI]: 1.59–6.52), daily injection drug use (AOR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.06–3.32) and recent overdose (AOR = 2.50, 95% CI 1.38–4.53), and negatively associated with age (AOR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.90–0.96). In sub-analyses, participants have most commonly been discharged from in-patient treatment centres (52.2%), recovery houses (28.3%) and detox programs (10.9%), and for using heroin (45.5%) and/or crystal methamphetamine (36.4%). Conclusions While involuntary discharge was a relatively rare occurrence, those who were discharged due to active substance use possessed several markers of risk, including high-intensity injection drug use, homelessness, and recent non-fatal overdose. Our findings highlight the need for increased flexibility within treatment programs to account for those who re-initiate or continue to use substances during treatment.

Abstract Background People who use drugs experience pain at two to three times the rate of the general population and yet continue to face substantial barriers to accessing appropriate and adequate treatment for pain. In light of the overdose crisis and revised opioid prescribing guidelines, we sought to identify factors associated with being denied pain medication and longitudinally investigate denial rates among people who use drugs. Methods We used multivariable generalized estimating equations analyses to investigate factors associated with being denied pain medication among people who use drugs reporting pain in three prospective cohort studies in Vancouver, Canada. Analyses were restricted to study periods in which participants requested a prescription for pain from a healthcare provider. Descriptive statistics detail denial rates and actions taken by participants after being denied. Results Among 1168 participants who requested a prescription for pain between December 2012 and March 2020, the median age was 47 years and 63.0% were male. Among 4,179 six-month observation periods, 907 (21.7%) included a report of being denied requested pain medication. In multivariable analyses, age was negatively associated with prescription denial (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.97–0.99), while self-managing pain (AOR = 2.48, 95%CI:2.04–3.00), experiencing a non-fatal overdose (AOR = 1.51, 95%CI:1.22–1.88), engagement in opioid agonist therapy (AOR = 1.32, 95%CI:1.09–1.61), and daily use of heroin or other unregulated opioids (AOR = 1.32, 95%CI:1.05–1.66) were positively associated with being denied. Common actions taken (n = 895) after denial were accessing the unregulated drug supply (53.5%), doing nothing (30.6%), and going to a different doctor/emergency room (6.1%). The period following the introduction of new prescribing guidelines was not associated with a change in denial rates. Conclusions A substantial proportion of people who use drugs continue to be denied prescriptions for pain, with such denial associated with important substance use-related harms, including non-fatal overdose. Guidelines specific to the pharmaceutical management of pain among people who use drugs are needed.

Abstract Background Settings throughout Canada and the USA continue to experience crises of overdose death due to the toxic unregulated drug supply. Injecting drugs alone limits the potential for intervention and has accounted for a significant proportion of overdose deaths, yet the practice remains understudied. We sought to examine the practice of injecting alone among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Vancouver, Canada. Methods Data were derived from two prospective cohorts of people who use drugs between June 2016 and November 2018. This analysis was restricted to participants who, in the previous 6 months, reported any injection drug use. Rates of injecting alone were categorized as always, usually, sometimes, or occasionally. We fit a multivariable generalized linear mixed model to identify factors associated with injecting drugs alone. Results Among 1070 PWID who contributed 3307 observations, 931 (87%) reported injecting alone at least once during the study period. In total, there were 729 (22%) reports of always injecting alone, 722 (21.8%) usually, 471 (14.2%) sometimes, 513 (15.5%) occasionally, and 872 (26.4%) never. In a multivariable model, factors positively associated with injecting drugs alone included male sex (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20–2.37), residence in the Downtown Eastside neighbourhood (AOR 1.43; 95% CI 1.08–1.91), binge drug use (AOR 1.36; 95% CI 1.08–1.72), and experiencing physical or sexual violence or both (AOR 1.43; 95% CI 1.00–2.03). Protective factors included Indigenous ancestry (AOR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52–0.98) and being in a relationship (AOR 0.30; 95% CI 0.23–0.39). Conclusion We observed that injecting alone, a key risk for overdose mortality, was common among PWID in Vancouver. Our findings underline the need for additional overdose prevention measures that are gender-specific, culturally appropriate, violence- and trauma-informed, and available to those who inject alone.

Abstract Background People who use drugs (PWUD) are known to fear calling emergency medical services (EMS) for drug overdoses. In response, drug-related Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs) have been widely adopted in the USA and Canada to encourage bystanders to call emergency medical services (EMS) in the event of a drug overdose. However, the effect of GSLs on EMS-calling behaviours has been understudied. We sought to identify factors associated with EMS-calling, including the enactment of the Canadian GSL in May 2017, among PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, a setting with an ongoing overdose crisis. Methods Data were derived from three prospective cohort studies of PWUD in Vancouver in 2014–2018. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with EMS-calling among PWUD who witnessed an overdose event. An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was employed to assess the impact of GSL on monthly prevalence of EMS-calling. Results Among 540 eligible participants, 321 (59%) were males and 284 (53%) reported calling EMS. In multivariable analysis, ever having administered naloxone three or more times (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–3.74) and residence in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) neighbourhood of Vancouver (AOR 1.96; 95% CI 1.23–3.13) were positively associated with EMS-calling, while living in a single occupancy hotel (SRO) was negatively associated with EMS-calling (AOR 0.51; 95% CI 0.30–0.86). The post-GSL enactment period was not associated with EMS-calling (AOR 0.81; 95% CI 0.52–1.25). The ITS found no significant difference in the monthly prevalence of EMS-calling between pre- and post-GSL enactment periods. Conclusion We observed EMS being called about half the time and the GSL did not appear to encourage EMS-calling. We also found that individuals living in SROs were less likely to call EMS, which raises concern given that fatal overdose cases are concentrated in SROs in our setting. The link between many naloxone administrations and EMS-calling could indicate that those with prior experience in responding to overdose events were more willing to call EMS. Increased efforts are warranted to ensure effective emergency responses for drug overdoses among PWUD.