To synthesize and determine the relative effectiveness of diverse opioid agonist treatment (OAT) medications, including injectables, for opioid use disorder (OUD). We searched EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) (CRD42018109469) and previously published systematic reviews of head-to-head trials of OAT medications. The primary outcome was treatment retention, and secondary outcomes included days of opioid use, days of cocaine use, and proportion of participants involved in criminalized activities. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) and corresponding 95

Connection and resilience are critical to the health and wellbeing of Indigenous Peoples who use drugs (IPWUD): connection to family, cultural supports, safer coping mechanisms and circles of care. Urban IPWUD are more likely to face multiple harms from emergency public health restrictions alongside ongoing toxic drug and housing crises in British Columbia. This paper aims to amplify the experiences of urban IPWUD as they navigated the COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding public health response in Vancouver and Prince George, BC. Nineteen semi-structured interviews were completed with Indigenous Peoples enrolled in the Cedar Project COVID-19 Study in Vancouver (n = 9) and Prince George (n = 10). Interpretive description was adapted to identify themes across participants’ stories. Emerging themes were brought back to participants for member checking using iterative techniques. Interviews were conducted in person between March-May 2022. The median age of participants was 36, with 37% men and 63% women. Four themes were identified: 1) Enduring impacts of colonialism worsened pandemic-related stress for Indigenous Peoples, led to 2) Cycles of isolation, uncertainty and crisis destabilized Indigenous Peoples, and 3) Fear and Trauma-Driven Distrust amplified experiences of grief and loss amidst conflicting public health protocols. However, 4) Resilience and connection were important buffers against pandemic-related harm. Urban IPWUD face ongoing public health emergencies that threaten daily security, safety, and health. This study demonstrated the complex ways Indigenous People navigated COVID-19 and concurrent emergencies, and the challenges they faced. These findings shed light on the ongoing discrimination against urban IPWUD, and reiterate that they are the experts in their own needs and determining how to best survive and thrive through health emergencies.

Across different types of oral Opioid Agonist Treatment for people with Opioid Use Disorder, receiving a dose that meets their needs is associated with better outcomes. Evidence also shows patients are more likely to receive an “adequate dose” when their prescribers are involving them in decision making. Neither of these findings have been studied in the context of injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment, which is the purpose of this study. This study was a retrospective analysis of an 18-month prospective longitudinal cohort study of 131 people receiving injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment. In the 18-month study, observations were collected every two months for one year, and then once more at 18 months. At 6 months, participants were asked whether their dose was satisfactory to them (outcome variable). Generalized Estimating Equations were used, to account for multiple observations from each participant. The final multivariate model was built using a stepwise approach. Five hundred forty-five participant-observations were included in the analysis. Participant-observations were grouped by “dose is satisfactory” and “wants higher dose”. From unadjusted analyses, participants were less likely to report being satisfied with their dose if they: were Indigenous, had worse psychological or physical health problems, had ever attempted suicide, were younger when they first injected any drug, were a current smoker, felt troubled by drug problems, gave their medication a lower “drug liking” score, and felt that their doctor was not including them in decisions the way they wanted to be. In the final multivariate model, all previously significant associations except for “current smoker” and “troubled by drug problems” were no longer significant after the addition of the “drug liking” score. Patients in injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment who are not satisfied with their dose are more likely to: be troubled by drug problems, be a current smoker, and report liking their medication less than dose-satisfied patients. Prescribers’ practicing shared decision-making can help patients achieve dose-satisfaction and possibly alleviate troubles from drug problems. Additionally, receiving a satisfactory dose may be dependent on patients being able to access an opioid agonist medication (and formulation) that they like.

Identifying typical doses of existing opioid use disorder medications, such as injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), can support client and program needs, and potentially increase iOAT expansion. Longitudinal data from participants in a cohort study (n = 131), along with clinic dispensation records from August 2014 to April 2020, were used to examine physician prescribed as well as used doses of injectable diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone. Dosage groups, by medication and prescribed dose per session, were created for both hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine. A total of 534, 522 injections were registered during the study period among 129 participants. Mean received diacetylmorphine doses ranged from 106 to 989 mg per day, with most clients using 125-262 mg per session (mean 192.99 mg) and attending 2.40 sessions per day. Mean received hydromorphone doses ranged from 51.09 to 696.06 mg per day, with the majority using 88-154 mg per session (mean 121.32 mg; 2.43 sessions). Average daily doses remained stable overtime and, while mid-range doses were most typical, participants used the whole spectrum of allowable dose prescriptions. Evidence supporting typical doses of iOAT can be integrated into program planning to better allow providers and prescribers to anticipate program needs and engage in individualized care.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Clinical trials support injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom other pharmacological management approaches are not well-suited. However, despite substantial research indicating that person-centered care improves engagement, retention and health outcomes for individuals with OUD, structural requirements (e.g. drug policies) often dictate how iOAT must be delivered, regardless of client preferences. This study aimed to quantify clients' iOAT delivery preferences to improve client engagement and retention. DESIGN:Cross-sectional preference elicitation survey. SETTING:Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS:124 current and former iOAT clients. MEASUREMENTS:Participants completed a demographic questionnaire package and an interviewer-led preference elicitation survey (case 2 best-worst scaling task). Latent class analysis was used to identify distinct preference groups and explore demographic differences between preference groups. FINDINGS:Most participants (n = 100; 81%) were current iOAT clients. Latent class analysis identified two distinct groups of client preferences: (1) autonomous decision-makers (n = 73; 59%) and (2) shared decision-makers (n = 51; 41%). These groups had different preferences for how medication type and dosage were selected. Both groups prioritized access to take-home medication (i.e. carries), the ability to set their own schedule, receiving iOAT in a space they like and having other services available at iOAT clinics. Compared with shared decision-makers, fewer autonomous decision-makers identified as a cis-male/man and reported flexible preferences. CONCLUSIONS:Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) clients surveyed in Vancouver, Canada, appear to prefer greater autonomy than they currently have in choosing OAT medication type, dosage and treatment schedule.

Background Addressing inadequacies in the implementation of existing evidence-based approaches into practice, such as injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), is imperative for the management of opioid use disorder. With the expansion of iOAT, stakeholder perspectives are needed to inform program optimization. This study aimed to understand stakeholder and provider perspectives on iOAT care and how it can be improved to better meet service users' needs.Methods Semi-structured interviews (n = 11), email correspondence (n = 2), a focus group (n = 4), and one regional meeting were conducted with iOAT stakeholders to receive feedback on how iOAT can better meet service users' needs. Qualitative analysis employed a thematic and interpretive description approach to identify key themes, presented as a thematic summary.Results Stakeholder narratives highlight the importance they attribute to client autonomy, individualized care, tensions between providers and the system (policies, governing structures, etc., that establish, facilitate and determine how iOAT is delivered in Canada) as well as power dynamics between providers and service users.Conclusion IOAT providers and stakeholders surveyed in this study are committed to seeing the needs of service users met but often feel constrained by system-level regulations that influence power dynamics between providers and service users. Findings underline pragmatic suggestions to advance person-centered care as a way to make iOAT accessible and individualized.

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented relaxation of restrictions on take-home doses in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). We conducted a mixed methods systematic review to explore the impact of these changes on program effectiveness and client experiences in OAT. METHODS:The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022352310). From Aug.-Nov. 2022, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the grey literature. We included studies reporting quantitative measures of retention in treatment, illicit substance use, overdose, client health, quality of life, or treatment satisfaction or using qualitative methods to examine client experiences with take-home doses during the pandemic. We critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesized quantitative data using vote-counting by direction of effect and presented the results in harvest plots. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. We used a convergent segregated approach to integrate quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS:Forty studies were included. Most were from North America (23/40) or the United Kingdom (9/40). The quantitative synthesis was limited by potential for confounding, but suggested an association between take-home doses and increased retention in treatment. There was no evidence of an association between take-home doses and illicit substance use or overdose. Qualitative findings indicated that take-home doses reduced clients' exposure to unregulated substances and stigma and minimized work/treatment conflicts. Though some clients reported challenges with managing their medication, the dominant narrative was one of appreciation, reduced anxiety, and a renewed sense of agency and identity. The integrated analysis suggested reduced treatment burden as an explanation for improved retention and revealed variation in individual relationships between take-home doses and illicit substance use. We identified a critical gap in quantitative measures of patient-important outcomes. CONCLUSION:The relaxation of restrictions on take-home doses was associated with improved client experience and retention in OAT. We found no evidence of an association with illicit substance use or overdose, despite the expansion of take-home doses to previously ineligible groups. Including patient-important outcome measures in policy, program development, and treatment planning is essential to ensuring that decisions around take-home doses accurately reflect their value to clients.

BACKGROUND:Historical restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder have generated considerable debate. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the perceived risks and benefits of daily clinic attendance and led to widespread policy reform, creating an unprecedented opportunity to explore the impact of more flexible prescribing. We conducted a qualitative systematic review to synthesize the evidence on providers' experiences with relaxing restrictions on take-home doses of medications prescribed for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022360589; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). From Sept.-Nov. 2022, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the grey literature from 2020 onward. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they used qualitative methods to investigate providers' experiences with relaxed restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. We appraised study quality using the CASP qualitative checklist and used thematic synthesis and GRADE-CERQual to synthesize the results. RESULTS:We retrieved 13 articles representing 11 studies. Six were conducted in the United States and most focused on changes to methadone treatment. Providers' experiences with increased flexibilities around take-homes were broadly positive, despite widespread initial concern over client safety and the potential for medication misuse. For a small number of providers, concerns about diversion were a specific manifestation of more general unease with loss of control over clients and the treatment process. Most providers appreciated increased flexibilities and described them as enabling more individualized, person-centered care. CONCLUSION:Our findings support the continuation of flexibilities around take-homes and demonstrate that regulations and policies that reduce flexibility around take-homes conflict with person-centered approaches to care. Stronger guidance and support from professional regulatory agencies may help increase uptake of flexibilities around take-homes.

Introduction: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an evidence-based treatment that serves an important minority of people with opioid use disorder who require specialized care. Unique to iOAT care is the consistency with which clients access treatment (up to three times daily), a condition that creates repeated opportunities for health care engagement. To date, no study has examined therapeutic relationships in this life saving, nurse-led treatment that can have lasting implications in the equitable delivery of other forms of addictions care.Methods: This study used grounded theory to generate a dynamic framework for therapeutic relationship building in iOAT. Researchers collected semi-structured interviews from registered nurses working in iOAT sites (n=24) form January 2020 through June 2022. The study analyzed collected data through a constant comparative analysis; explored through open, axial, and selective coding; and assessed in a conditional relationship matrix. The team reviewed key findings with stakeholders through formalized processes of engagement to confirm saturation of coding categories. Throughout data collection and analysis, researchers integrated feedback from additional knowledge users and member checking. Reported findings adhered to the COREQ1 standardized checklist.Results: We identified five interrelated categories that created a distinct culture of care for iOAT nurses: Ways of Knowing, Personal Investment, Leveraging Empathy, Finding Flexibility, and Collaborating to Overcome. Through creating a safe, nonjudgmental environment, nurses establish therapeutic relationships that build trust to identify client needs outside of medication administration. In turn, nurses participate in team-based problem solving to advocate for client needs. If nurses cannot find flexibility within and outside of the health care system to improve client engagement, tensions can arise and therapeutic relationships can be strained.Conclusions: Therapeutic relationships are an integral part of building and maintaining trust with a population that has been precariously involved with other forms of health care. Nurses make a substantial effort to create a safe and nonjudgmental environment to manifest a culture of care that bridges client needs and program access. Without the expansion of access to iOAT programs and their embedded services, nurses are limited in their ability to provide individualized care for clients with diverse needs.

Purpose: A significant portion of the economic consequences of untreated Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) relate to individuals' involvement in the criminal justice system. The present study uncovers if treatment with iOAT is related to the number of criminal charges amongst participants, what type of crime participants were involved in, and the frequency with which participants were victims of crime. This study contributes to the body of research on the effectiveness of iOAT reducing criminal involvement.Patients and Methods: This is a secondary analysis of police record data obtained from the Vancouver Police Department over a three-year period during the Study to Assess Longer-term Opioid Medication Effectiveness clinical trial. The data was obtained from participants (N = 192) enrolled in the trial through a release of information form.Results: During the three-year period, most charges (45.6%) were property offences, and 25.5% of participants were victims of crime. Participants with no treatment prior to randomization into the SALOME trial were 2.61 (95% CI = 1.64-4.14) more likely to have been charged with a crime than during the iOAT state.Conclusion: IOAT can reduce individuals' involvement with the criminal justice system and is thus a crucial part of the continuum of care. Addiction should be conceptualized as a healthcare rather than criminal issue.

Population Medicine considers the following types of articles:• Research Papers -reports of data from original research or secondary dataset analyses.• Review Papers -comprehensive, authoritative, reviews within the journal's scope.These include both systematic reviews and narrative reviews.• Short Reports -brief reports of data from original research.• Policy Case Studies -brief articles on policy development at a regional or national level.• Study Protocols -articles describing a research protocol of a study.• Methodology Papers -papers that present different methodological approaches that can be used to investigate problems in a relevant scientific field and to encourage innovation.• Methodology Papers -papers that present different methodological approaches that can be used to investigate problems in a relevant scientific field and to encourage innovation.

Background To support public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, oral opioid agonist treatment (OAT) take-home doses were expanded in Western countries with positive results. Injectable OAT (iOAT) take-home doses were previously not an eligible option, and were made available for the first time in several sites to align with public health measures. Building upon these temporary risk-mitigating guidelines, a clinic in Vancouver, BC continued to offer two of a possible three daily doses of take-home injectable medications to eligible clients. The present study explores the processes through which take-home iOAT doses impacted clients’ quality of life and continuity of care in real-life settings. Methods Three rounds of semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted over a period of seventeen months beginning in July 2021 with eleven participants receiving iOAT take-home doses at a community clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia. Interviews followed a topic guide that evolved iteratively in response to emerging lines of inquiry. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then coded using NVivo 1.6 using an interpretive description approach. Results Participants reported that take-home doses granted them the freedom away from the clinic to have daily routines, form plans, and enjoy unstructured time. Participants appreciated the greater privacy, accessibility, and ability to engage in paid work. Furthermore, participants enjoyed greater autonomy to manage their medication and level of engagement with the clinic. These factors contributed to greater quality of life and continuity of care. Participants shared that their dose was too essential to divert and that they felt safe transporting and administering their medication off-site. In the future, all participants would like more accessible treatment such as access longer take-home prescriptions (e.g., one week), the ability to pick-up at different and convenient locations (e.g., community pharmacies), and a medication delivery service. Conclusions Reducing the number of daily onsite injections from two or three to only one revealed the diversity of rich and nuanced needs that added flexibility and accessibility in iOAT can meet. Actions such as licencing diverse opioid medications/formulations, medication pick-up at community pharmacies, and a community of practice that supports clinical decisions are necessary to increase take-home iOAT accessibility.

BACKGROUND:Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is effective for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet little is known about client preferences for accessing iOAT (e.g., with diacetylmorphine, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, fentanyl, etc.). Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a preference elicitation method from health economics that has never been applied to addiction care broadly, or iOAT specifically. We describe the stages of developing a BWS scale that assesses iOAT clients' treatment delivery preferences to inform program planning and maximize healthcare efficiency.METHODS:We underwent several steps to reveal the relevant attributes/levels and design the scale structure. An initial list of potential attributes and levels was established from a literature review and prior qualitative data. Then, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with clients (n=21) on their iOAT preferences to confirm the attributes and prioritize/include new ones. Next, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with iOAT experts and stakeholders to receive their input on the draft list of attributes and levels. A BWS profile case design was piloted with iOAT clients (n=18) from different sites during a think aloud interview. After several rounds of revisions, the final version was tested by iOAT clients (n=2) before the scale was launched.RESULTS:We developed a person-centered scale that assesses current and former iOAT clients' most and least wanted aspects of iOAT delivery. The final version yielded 7 unique attributes: choice of medication, choice of dose, convenience, location & space, scheduling & routines, staff & training, and types of services offered.CONCLUSION:This scale can help expand iOAT programs in a way that is person-centered, rapid, and affordable. The methodology is a guide for other regions with similar populations who aim to develop strong quantitative methodologies that prioritize client collaboration.

Objectives: Adolescent girls and young women younger than 25 years (AGYW) account for disproportionate HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa. Impacts of war in Northern Uganda continue to affect HIV-related health and wellbeing of young people postconflict. Prevalence and incidence of HIV infection were estimated, and factors associated with HIV prevalence among sexually active AGYW in Northern Uganda were investigated. Methods: Cango Lyec is a cohort involving conflict-affected populations in Northern Uganda. Nine randomly selected communities in Gulu, Nwoya, and Amuru districts were mapped. House-to-house census was conducted. Consenting participants aged 13–49 years were enrolled over 3 study rounds (2011–2015), of whom 533 were AGYW and had ever had sex. Data were collected on trauma, depression, and sociodemographic–behavioral characteristics. Venous blood was taken for HIV and syphilis serology. Multivariable logistic regression determined baseline factors associated with HIV prevalence. Results: HIV prevalence among AGYW was 9.7% (95% CI: 7.3 to 12.6). AGYW living in Gulu (adjusted risk ratio, aRR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.12 to 5.51) or Nwoya (aRR: 2.65; 95% CI: 1.03 to 6.83) were more likely than in Amuru to be living with HIV. Having self-reported genital ulcers (aRR: 1.93; 95% CI: 0.97 to 3.85) or active syphilis (aRR: 3.79; 95% CI: 2.35 to 6.12) was associated with increased risk of HIV infection. The likelihood of HIV was higher for those who experienced sexual violence in the context of war (aRR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.21 to 4.62) and/or probable depression (aRR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.08 to 3.54). HIV incidence was 8.9 per 1000 person-years. Conclusion: Ongoing legacies of war, especially gender violence and trauma, contribute to HIV vulnerability among sexually active AGYW. Wholistic approaches integrating HIV prevention with culturally safe initiatives promoting sexual and mental health in Northern Uganda are essential.

Racism continues to drive health disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. This study focuses on racism experienced by young Indigenous people who have used drugs in British Columbia (BC), and predictors of interpersonal racism. Cedar Project is a community-governed cohort study involving young Indigenous people who use drugs in Vancouver and Prince George, BC. This cross-sectional study included data collected between August 2015-October 2016. The Measure of Indigenous Racism Experiences (MIRE) scale was used to assess experiences of interpersonal racism across 9 unique settings on a 5-point Likert scale, collapsing responses into three categories (none/low/high). Multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine associations between key variables and interpersonal racism. Among 321 participants, 79% (n = 255) experienced racism in at least one setting. Thirty two percent (n = 102) experienced high interpersonal racism from police, governmental agencies (child 'welfare', health personnel), and in public settings. Ever having a child apprehended (AOR:2.76, 95%CI:1.14-6.65), probable post-traumatic stress (AOR:2.64; 95%CI:1.08-6.46), trying to quit substances (AOR:3.69; 95%CI:1.04-13.06), leaving emergency room without receiving treatment (AOR:3.05; 95%CI:1.22-7.64), and having a traditional language spoken at home while growing up (AOR:2.86; 95%CI:1.90-6.90) were associated with high interpersonal racism. Among women, experiencing high interpersonal racism was more likely if they lived in Prince George (AOR:3.94; 95%CI:1.07-14.50), ever had a child apprehended (AOR:5.09; 95%CI:1.50-17.30), and had probable post-traumatic stress (AOR:5.21; 95%CI:1.43-18.95). Addressing racism experienced by Indigenous peoples requires immediate structural systemic, and interpersonal anti-racist reforms.

Background Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, overdose rates in North America have continued to rise, with more than 100,000 drug poisoning deaths in the past year. Amidst an increasingly toxic drug supply, the pandemic disrupted essential substance use treatment and harm reduction services that reduce overdose risk for people who use drugs. In British Columbia, one such treatment is injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), the supervised dispensation of injectable hydromorphone or diacetylmorphine for people with opioid use disorder. While evidence has shown iOAT to be safe and effective, it is intensive and highly regimented, characterized by daily clinic visits and provider–client interaction—treatment components made difficult by the pandemic. Methods Between April 2020 and February 2021, we conducted 51 interviews with 18 iOAT clients and two clinic nurses to understand how the pandemic shaped iOAT access and treatment experiences. To analyze interview data, we employed a multi-step, flexible coding strategy, an iterative and abductive approach to analysis, using NVivo software. Results Qualitative analysis revealed the ways in which the pandemic shaped clients’ lives and the provision of iOAT care. First, client narratives illuminated how the pandemic reinforced existing inequities. For example, socioeconomically marginalized clients expressed concerns around their financial stability and economic impacts on their communities. Second, clients with health comorbidities recognized how the pandemic amplified health risks, through potential COVID-19 exposure or by limiting social connection and mental health supports. Third, clients described how the pandemic changed their engagement with the iOAT clinic and medication. For instance, clients noted that physical distancing guidelines and occupancy limits reduced opportunities for social connection with staff and other iOAT clients. However, pandemic policies also created opportunities to adapt treatment in ways that increased patient trust and autonomy, for example through more flexible medication regimens and take-home oral doses. Conclusion Participant narratives underscored the unequal distribution of pandemic impacts for people who use drugs but also highlighted opportunities for more flexible, patient-centered treatment approaches. Across treatment settings, pandemic-era changes that increase client autonomy and ensure equitable access to care are to be continued and expanded, beyond the duration of the pandemic.

Download This Paper Open PDF in Browser Add Paper to My Library Share: Permalink Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely Copy URL Copy DOI

Introduction: Though double-blind studies have indicated that hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine produce similar effects when administered through injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) programs, participant preference may influence some aspects of medication dispensation such as dose. Methods: This is a retrospective longitudinal analysis. Participants (n = 131) were previously enrolled in a double-blind clinical trial for iOAT who continued to receive treatment in an open-label follow up study. Data included medication dispensation records from 2012 to 2020. Using linear regression and paired t-tests, average daily dose totals of hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine were examined comparatively between double-blind and open-label periods. A subgroup analysis explored dose difference by preference using the proxy, blinding guess, a variable used to facilitate the measurement of treatment masking during the clinical trial by asking which medication the participant thought they received. Results: During the open-label period, participants prescribed diacetylmorphine received 49.5 mg less than during the double-blind period (95% CI -12.6,-86.4). Participants receiving hydromorphone did not see a significant dose decrease. Participants who guessed they received hydromorphone during the clinical trial, but learned they were on diacetylmorphine during the open-label period, saw a decrease in total daily dose of 78.3 mg less (95% CI - 134.3,-22.4) during the open-label period. Conclusion: If client preference is considered in the treatment of chronic opioid use disorder, clients may be able to better moderate their dose to suit their individual needs. Together with their healthcare providers, clients can participate in their treatment trajectories collaboratively to optimize client outcomes and promote person-centered treatment options.

Purpose Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). To our knowledge, no research has systematically studied client preferences for accessing iOAT. Incorporating preferences could help meet the heterogenous needs of clients and make addiction care more person-centred. This paper presents a pilot study of a best-worst scaling (BWS) preference elicitation survey that aimed to assess if the survey was feasible and accessible for our population and to test that the survey could gather sound data that would suit our planned analyses. Patients and Methods Current and former iOAT clients (n = 18) completed a BWS survey supported by an interviewer using a think-aloud approach. The survey was administered on PowerPoint, and responses and contextual field notes were recorded manually. Think-aloud audio was recorded on Audacity. Results Clients’ feedback fell into five categories: framing of the task, accessibility, conceptualization of attributes and levels, formatting, and behaviour predicting questions. Survey repetitiveness was the most consistent feedback. The data simulation showed that 100 responses should provide an adequate sample size. Conclusion This pilot demonstrates the type of analysis that can be done with BWS in our population, suggests that such analysis is feasible, and highlights the importance of the interviewer and participant working side-by-side throughout the task.