While rates of opioid overdose deaths in North American have increased exponentially in recent years, most overdoses are not fatal, especially when witnesses are present and can intervene. Previous research has found that some people who use drugs [PWUDs] trained in overdose response might cut social ties with frequent overdosers, leading to more solitary opioid use and risk of death if someone overdoses alone. To examine the phenomenon of social distancing of people who overdose frequently, we used data from fifty-two in-depth qualitative interviews collected in Southern California with PWUDs who had recently witnessed an opioid overdose. Transcripts were reviewed and coded thematically, using the Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) to conceptualize the observed phenomenon. ITT outlines how realistic and symbolic threats are experienced by a group. We found that while some participants acknowledged the role of adulterated street drugs in overdoses, individualized blame was nonetheless imposed. Accusations of careless drug use practices fostered negative stereotyping towards frequent overdosers. This was attributed to the need to summon 911 for rescue, which often resulted in police dispatch. The intergroup relationship between police and PWUDs is precarious as police pose realistic threats onto PWUDs - such as incarceration, eviction, and manslaughter charges - leading to intragroup anxiety among PWUDs about future overdose events, and labelled frequent overdosers as liabilities. These threats, and inter/intra-group conflict, explained one reason how and why non-fatal overdoses led to social distancing events. People who overdose frequently were also accused of breaking the norm of drug user surreptitiousness; a symbolic threat that endangered the group due to police exposure. Social distancing might dampen exposure to the protective effect of peer-led interventions such as take-home naloxone programs, increasing risk of overdose death. This phenomenon highlights how intergroup dynamics are driving intragroup processes. Suggestions for tailoring public health interventions are discussed.

Background

In response to the opioid crisis, over the last 10 years substantial strides have been made to increase the availability of evidence-based treatments for opioid use disorder, in particular buprenorphine maintenance, in the United States. Despite these worthwhile efforts, uptake rates of evidence-based treatment remain relatively low. As part of a broader study of opioid misuse, we examined proximity to evidence-based treatment as a potential barrier to treatment access.

Methods

In 2017-2018, we surveyed 218 individuals misusing prescription opioids or using street opioids in three Southern Californian counties. The study calculated driving distance from place of residence to the closest treatment provider offering buprenorphine or methadone treatment for opioid use disorders.

Results

Median distance to providers was 3.8 km (2.4 miles). Seventy one (33%) participants had received some form of treatment in the last 3 months; however, only 26 (40%) of these had received buprenorphine or methadone maintenance treatment. Participants receiving treatment at the time of their interview were traveling an average 16.8 km (10.4 miles) to reach treatment, indicating that as a group this population was both willing and able to seek and engage with treatment.

Conclusions

In the suburban and exurban communities in which our study was based, our findings suggest that simple physical proximity to providers of evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder is no longer a critical barrier. Other barriers to uptake of buprenorphine or methadone maintenance treatment clearly remain and need to be addressed.

Disclaimer

Findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Introduction

Research identifying pathways to heroin use has typically been conducted among urban populations. This study examined heroin initiation following pharmaceutical opioid use in three suburban/exurban Southern California counties.

Methods

Interviewer-administered surveys collected data among 330 participants (65.9 % male; 63.9 % non-Hispanic white) whose initial use of any opioid was a pharmaceutical opioid. Retrospective discrete-time survival analysis identified predictors of heroin initiation, measured as self-reported age of first heroin use.

Results

Median age of first pharmaceutical opioid use was 17 years; 50.6 % initially acquired pharmaceutical opioids from an illicit source, 56.7 % first used pharmaceutical opioids for recreational purposes, and 86 % initiated heroin use. Average time from first pharmaceutical opioid use to first heroin use was 8.2 years. Drug/alcohol treatment (adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR]: 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.50, 0.88) was associated with delayed time to heroin initiation. Obtaining opioids from non-medical sources (aHR: 2.21, 95 % CI: 1.55, 3.14) was associated with accelerated time to heroin initiation. Reporting supply problems with obtaining pharmaceutical opioids (e.g., unable to acquire pharmaceutical opioids) was associated with accelerated time to heroin initiation, but the magnitude of this effect was dependent on one's history of methamphetamine use (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Time to heroin initiation following pharmaceutical opioid use was accelerated among those reporting supply problems and delayed among those with exposure to substance use treatment. Interventions interrupting supply of opioids might benefit from coordination with evidence-based medication-assisted treatment to minimize the risk of transitioning to heroin use, particularly among those with a long history of non-prescribed pharmaceutical opioid use.

Background

12-step programs aim to address drug-related harms, like opioid overdose, via abstinence. However, abstaining from opioids can diminish tolerance, which increases risk for overdose death upon resumption. A recent study found that desire to abstain from drugs inhibited willingness to participate in take-home naloxone programming, which was linked to perceptions of harm reduction strategies being tied to drug use. In the present study, we uncovered a similar phenomenon occurring among newly-abstinent participants who were refusing to carry naloxone.

Methods

This study is an analysis of broader qualitative data collected throughout Southern California among persons who use opioids, including those recently abstinent. Preliminary analysis revealed that those newly abstinent refused to accept naloxone at the end of interviews, and so we began probing about this (N=44). We used thematic analysis and author positionality to explicate the emergent phenomenon and applied social identity theory to conceptualize findings.

Results

Mechanisms underlying naloxone refusal included its tie to a drug-using identity that newly-abstinent participants were attempting to retire. Carrying naloxone was also viewed as pointless due to doubt of witnessing an overdose again. Furthermore, the thought of being equipped with naloxone was not believed to be congruent with an abstinent identity, e.g. "me carrying it [naloxone] is making me feel like I'm going to be hanging out with people that are doing it [using drugs]."

Conclusion

Recent detoxification heightens vulnerability to overdose, which other newly-abstinent peers might be positioned to respond to as bonds are formed through 12-step identity formation. However, naloxone is often refused by this group due to perceived 12-step identity clash. While some treatment spaces distribute naloxone, 12-step identity associated behavioral expectations appear to conflict with this strategy. Reframing these disconnects is essential for expanding the lifesaving naloxone community safety net.