Search

BACKGROUND:Ecological research suggests that increased access to cannabis may facilitate reductions in opioid use and harms, and medical cannabis patients describe the substitution of opioids with cannabis for pain management. However, there is a lack of research using individual-level data to explore this question. We aimed to investigate the longitudinal association between frequency of cannabis use and illicit opioid use among people who use drugs (PWUD) experiencing chronic pain. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This study included data from people in 2 prospective cohorts of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, who reported major or persistent pain from June 1, 2014, to December 1, 2017 (n = 1,152). We used descriptive statistics to examine reasons for cannabis use and a multivariable generalized linear mixed-effects model to estimate the relationship between daily (once or more per day) cannabis use and daily illicit opioid use. There were 424 (36.8%) women in the study, and the median age at baseline was 49.3 years (IQR 42.3-54.9). In total, 455 (40%) reported daily illicit opioid use, and 410 (36%) reported daily cannabis use during at least one 6-month follow-up period. The most commonly reported therapeutic reasons for cannabis use were pain (36%), sleep (35%), stress (31%), and nausea (30%). After adjusting for demographic characteristics, substance use, and health-related factors, daily cannabis use was associated with significantly lower odds of daily illicit opioid use (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.74, p < 0.001). Limitations of the study included self-reported measures of substance use and chronic pain, and a lack of data for cannabis preparations, dosages, and modes of administration. CONCLUSIONS:We observed an independent negative association between frequent cannabis use and frequent illicit opioid use among PWUD with chronic pain. These findings provide longitudinal observational evidence that cannabis may serve as an adjunct to or substitute for illicit opioid use among PWUD with chronic pain.

Objective: The stigmatisation of incarceration has significant negative effects on the health and well-being of individuals and communities. At the University of British Columbia in Canada, an undergraduate course on prison health included instruction by people with lived experience of incarceration as part of a teaching approach aimed to reduce stigma. In this study, we sought to understand the impact of this course as described by students. Design: Qualitative interviews with students who completed the course in 2017 were conducted by another former student of the course. Interviews were transcribed and interpretive descriptive methods were used to elucidate findings. Results: Nine former students participated in the study, eight (89%) were women and the median age was 23 years. Analysis yielded the following themes: (1) learning from people with lived experience, (2) de-mystifying through knowledge and understanding, (3) broadened perspectives and self-reflection, (4) future choices and actions and (5) changing views on incarceration. Conclusion: Findings suggest that approaches to address stigma in teaching prison health in an undergraduate course provided students with a deepened understanding of health inequities and determinants of health; increased feelings of compassion and interest in health equity for populations impacted by incarceration; and fostered opportunities for reflection, critical thinking and broadened perspectives.

To explore the transition from correctional facilities to community among women living with HIV in Vancouver, Canada, we interviewed 19 recently incarcerated women and 6 service providers. Findings highlighted heightened risk of violence at release, a lack of immediate supports, challenges accessing safe housing and addictions treatment, and interruptions in HIV treatment and care. In the face of structural barriers, women blamed themselves for not being able to break the cycle of incarceration. There is a critical need for enhanced pre-release planning with a priority on housing and substance use services, alongside supports that are trauma-and violence-informed and culturally safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In many jurisdictions, policies restrict access to Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) in correctional facilities. Receipt of OAT during incarceration is associated with reduced risk of fatal overdose after release but little is known about the effect on nonfatal overdose. This study aimed to examine the association between OAT use during incarceration and nonfatal overdose in the 30 days following release. Methods and findings: Using linked administrative healthcare and corrections data for a random sample of 20% of residents of British Columbia, Canada we examined releases from provincial correctional facilities between January 1, 2015 –December 1, 2018, among adults (aged 18 or older at the time of release) with Opioid Use Disorder. We fit Andersen-Gill models to examine the association between receipt of OAT in custody and the hazard of nonfatal following release. We conducted secondary analyses to examine the association among people continuing treatment initiated prior to their arrest and people who initiated a new episode of OAT in custody separately. We also conducted sex-based subgroup analyses. In this study there were 4,738 releases of 1,535 people with Opioid Use Disorder. In adjusted analysis, receipt of OAT in custody was associated with a reduced hazard of nonfatal overdose (aHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41, 0.74). This was found for prescriptions continued from community (aHR 0.49, 95%CI 0.36, 0.67) and for episodes of OAT initiated in custody (aHR 0.58, 95%CI 0.41, 0.82). The effect was greater among women than men. Conclusions: OAT receipt during incarceration is associated with a reduced hazard of nonfatal overdose after release. Policies to expand access to OAT in correctional facilities, including initiating treatment, may help reduce harms related to nonfatal overdose in the weeks following release. Differences in the effect seen among women and men indicate a need for gender-responsive policies and programming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]