"No home to take methadone to": Experiences with addiction services during the COVID-19 pandemic among survivors of opioid overdose in Boston

Introduction: We conducted a qualitative study to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on experiences with addiction treatment and harm reduction services.

Methods: The study recruited participants from Boston, Massachusetts, aged 18-65 who had a history of opioid use disorder and overdose, from a parent study (REpeated dose Behavioral intervention to reduce Opioid Overdose, REBOOT) to participate between August and October 2020. In-depth individual interviews explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on addiction service experiences. We conducted a grounded content analysis that examined codes related to addiction service access and engagement during the pandemic to compare and categorize participants according to their experiences.

Results: The study enrolled twenty participants. The mean age was 42 years; most identified as white (n = 16); ten participants identified as men, nine as cis-gender women, and one as a trans-gender woman. Participants described their experiences with COVID-19-driven changes to addiction care (methadone take homes, televisits for either buprenorphine or behavioral health services, and syringe service outreach) access and engagement as: 1) liberating (n = 7), 2) destabilizing (n = 8), or 3) unjust (n = 5). Participants in the liberating group found adaptations allowed for increased flexibility, freedom, and safety from COVID-19. This group was mostly housed and had strong social supports that facilitated participation in adapted treatment programs. COVID-19-related changes to addiction treatment disrupted routine and community supports among those in the destabilizing group. Participants in the unjust group felt that adaptations exacerbated inequities as a lack of housing and other social supports prohibited them from benefiting from the relaxed restrictions to methadone or buprenorphine. This group was mostly unhoused and found that adaptations did not adequately mitigate other inequities worsened by public health mandates for unhoused people who use drugs.

Conclusion: Relaxed restrictions on medications for opioid use disorder created opportunities for improved patient-centered care. Concrete measures that address service barriers, such as phone or transportation access, may have reduced destabilizing and unjust experiences reported by our participants. However, addiction care inequities will persist if drivers of marginalization, specifically a lack of housing, remain unaddressed.