METHODS: Participants from nine federal prisons with PNEP completed focus groups using nominal group technique, a rapid mixed-method consensus strategy. Responses were generated, rank-ordered, and prioritized by each stakeholder group. We identified the highest-ranking responses (≥10 % of the overall votes) to questions about barriers and facilitators to PNEP uptake.
RESULTS: Between September 2023 and February 2024, 16 focus groups were conducted with 118 participants (n = 51 correctional officers; n = 67 healthcare workers). Among correctional officers, the top perceived barriers were bullying from peers (22 %), fear of being targeted by correctional officers (14 %), and fear of repercussions due to drug use (13 %). The top facilitators were safe injection sites (30 %), provision of wrap-around services (16 %), and education of correctional officers (10 %). Among healthcare workers, the top perceived barriers were lack of confidentiality (16 %), fear of being targeted by correctional officers (12 %), and a long and complex application process (11 %). The top facilitators were education of correctional officers (29 %), delivery of PNEP by an external provider (15 %), automatic approval for participation in the PNEP (13 %), and safe injection sites (12 %).
CONCLUSION: Multiple modifiable barriers and solutions to improving PNEP uptake in Canadian federal prisons were identified by correctional employees. Both participant groups identified the potential for safe injection sites and education to correctional officers as enabling PNEP uptake. These data will inform Canadian efforts to improve engagement and to expand PNEP coverage.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review searching MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO for studies published from January 2000 to March 2019. Reference lists and conference proceedings were hand-searched. Observational and intervention studies were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Of 13 373 records identified, 11 studies from Australia, Europe, Malaysia and the United States were included. All studies had at least a serious risk of bias, largely due to confounding and selection bias, making it difficult to draw causal conclusions from the evidence. Ten studies provided data on the association between current OAT use and recent HIV testing. Six showed a positive association, while four provided little evidence of an association: pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.28-2.27. Looking at having ever been on OAT and having ever been HIV tested, seven studies showed a positive association and three showed either weak or no evidence of an association: pooled OR = 3.82, 95% CI = 2.96-4.95.
CONCLUSIONS: Opioid agonist therapy may increase uptake of HIV testing among people who inject drugs, providing further evidence that opioid agonist therapy improves the HIV treatment care cascade.