Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Tinkering with care: Implementing extended-release buprenorphine depot treatment for opioid dependence

K. Lancaster, S. Gendera, C. Treloar, T. Rhodes, J. Shahbazi, M. Byrne, Suzanne Nielsen, L. Degenhardt, M. Farrell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13   Link opens in a new tab Citations (SciVal)

Abstract

We examine how extended-release buprenorphine depot (BUP-XR) is put to use and made to work in implementation practices, attending to how care practices are challenged and adapted as a long-acting technology is introduced into service in opioid agonist treatment (OAT) in Australia. Our approach is informed by ideas in science and technology studies (STS) emphasising the irreducible entanglement of care practices and technology, and in particular the concept of ‘tinkering’ as a practice of adaptation. To make our analysis, we draw on qualitative interview accounts (n = 19) of service providers involved in BUP-XR implementation across five sites. Our analysis considers the disruptive novelty of BUP-XR. Tinkering to make a novel technology work in practice slows down the expectation of implementation in relation to transformative innovation, despite the promise of dramatic or rapid change. Tinkering allowed for more open relations, for new care practices that departed from the routine and familiar, opening potential for how BUP-XR could be put to use and made to work in its new situation, and as its situation evolved along-with its implementation. Flexibility and openness of altering relations was, however, at times, held in tension with inflexibility and closure. This analysis identifies a concern for what is made present and what is made absent in the altered care network affected by BUP-XR, with the multiple effects of supervised daily dosing practices thrown into relief as they become absented. Tinkering to implement BUP-XR locally connects with a broader assemblage of trial and movement in the constitution of treatment. The introduction of long-acting technologies prompts new questions about embedded implementation practices, including supervised dosing, urinalysis, the time and place of psychosocial support, and how other social aspects of care might be recalibrated in drug treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Article number104359
JournalInternational Journal of Drug Policy
Volume126
Early online date20 Feb 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Apr 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors

Funding

This study was supported by an Externally Sponsored Collaborative Research grant from Indivior PLC. Indivior contributed to the study design and analysis plan of the clinical parent study (Farrell et al. 2022) but not this qualitative study; Indivior had no role in collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The Centre for Social Research in Health at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Australian Government. KL is supported by the UNSW Scientia scheme, and an Australian Research Council DECRA fellowship (DE230100642). TR is supported by the UNSW SHARP scheme. LD is supported by an NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship (1135991) and a US National Institute of Health (NIH) National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) grant (R01DA1104470). The authors thank the study participants for their contribution to research, as well as current and past researchers and staff, and the CoLAB Study Team. We acknowledge the following people: Jude Byrne (Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League, Canberra, Australia), Mahshid Tamaddoni (Data manager, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney, Australia); Madeline News, Zoe Griffin, Zein Ali (research assistants, NDARC, UNSW Sydney, Australia); Jason Gascoigne (study coordinator, DASSA, South Australia, Australia), Mariana Nasr, Adelaine Nyau, Rebecca Lewis, Linda Broadbent, Xiu Qin Lim, Raphela Van Der Laan, Natasha Kuller, Jessica Leonard, Tammy Dix, James Buchanan, Duncan Tyson (Clinic staff, DASSA, Adelaide, Australia); Teodora Zanesheva-Karamanlieva (study coordinator, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia), Tom Kural, Linda Hotong (Clinic Staff, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia); Bonny Puszka (study coordinator, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia), Alison Blazey, Esther Han, Helena Cheung, Bernard Chiuarah, Jenny Trinh Lee, Ariana McCauley, Leanne Walsh, Jan Armstrong, Nouvelle Thwaites, Ivy Kwon (clinic staff, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia); Rachael Skews (study coordinator, Frankston Healthcare, Melbourne, Australia), Lionel Kok, Belinda Smith, Naren Morris (clinic staff, Frankston Healthcare, Melbourne, Australia); Danielle Cassar, Teresa Fitzmaurice (study coordinator, Western Health hospital, Melbourne, Australia), Anthony Hew, Shani Pavia, Dimce Kotevski, Fiona Goodwin, Marcus Forsythe, David Silkoff, Tracy Wrigley (Clinic staff, Western Health hospital, Melbourne, Australia); Susan Hazelwood, Louise Go (study coordinator, Newcastle Pharmacotherapy Service, Newcastle, Australia), Michelle Hall, Callen Farmer, Cathy Cochrane, Anthony Winmill, Sally McKenna, Stacey Weedon, Tarun Yadav (Newcastle Pharmacotherapy Service, Newcastle, Australia). We also acknowledge and thank our colleagues on the CoLAB Protocol Steering Committee: Briony Larance, Suzanne Nielsen, Gregory Dore, Jason Grebely, Adrian Dunlop, Nicholas Lintzeris, Robert Ali, Marian Shanahan, Mike McDonough, Mark Montebello, Craig Rodgers, Sione Crawford. The authors declare that they have obtained ethics approval from an appropriately constituted ethics committee/institutional review board where the research entailed animal or human participation. The study received ethical approval from St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/SVH/221) and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03809143). This research received funding from the following sources, This study was supported by an Externally Sponsored Collaborative Research grant from Indivior PLC. Indivior contributed to the study design and analysis plan of the clinical parent study (Farrell et al. 2022) but not this qualitative study; Indivior had no role in collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The Centre for Social Research in Health at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Australian Government. KL is supported by the UNSW Scientia scheme, and an Australian Research Council DECRA fellowship (DE230100642). TR is supported by the UNSW SHARP scheme. LD is supported by an NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship (1135991) and a US National Institute of Health (NIH) National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) grant (R01DA1104470). This study was supported by an Externally Sponsored Collaborative Research grant from Indivior PLC. Indivior contributed to the study design and analysis plan of the clinical parent study ( Farrell et al., 2022 ) but not this qualitative study; Indivior had no role in collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The Centre for Social Research in Health at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Australian Government. KL is supported by the UNSW Scientia scheme, and an Australian Research Council DECRA fellowship (DE230100642). TR is supported by the UNSW SHARP scheme. LD is supported by an NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship (1135991) and a US National Institute of Health (NIH) National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) grant (R01DA1104470).

FundersFunder number
Belinda Smith
Bonny Puszka
DASSA
Jason Gascoigne
Lionel Kok
Newcastle Pharmacotherapy ServiceNCT03809143, HREC/18/SVH/221
Susan Hazelwood
Teodora Zanesheva-Karamanlieva
National Institutes of Health
National Institute on Drug AbuseR01DA1104470
Australian Government
Australian Research CouncilDE230100642
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia1135991
Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government
University of New South Wales
Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre

    UN SDGs

    This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

    1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
      SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

    Keywords

    • Care
    • Extended-release buprenorphine depot
    • Implementation practices
    • Innovation
    • Opioid pharmacotherapy
    • Tinkering

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Medicine (miscellaneous)
    • Health Policy

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Tinkering with care: Implementing extended-release buprenorphine depot treatment for opioid dependence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this