PubMed2026
BACKGROUND: There is substantial literature on opioid treatment program (OTP) formulations and how they relate to the pharmacotherapy service user experience. As a newer formulation, less is known about service user experiences of long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB). The aim of this scoping review is to map the qualitative evidence and gaps in the literature on service user experiences and perspectives of LAIB. METHODS: Our search strategy included Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Web Science, and citation chaining, from January 2016 to June 2025. Studies were included if reporting qualitative descriptions of LAIB service user experiences of treatment for opioid dependence, inclusive of qualitative, mixed methods (description of qualitative data only), case reports and English language. Articles were screened by two reviewers. A living experience first author led the analysis using inductive coding and thematic analysis, to produce a descriptive summary of synthesised findings alongside key study characteristics and quality appraisal, adhering to the Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. RESULTS: After screening 838 titles/abstracts and reviewing 150 full texts, 40 studies met the eligibility criteria. All were conducted in high income countries, principally the US (n=12); Australia (n=10); and England and Wales (n=9). We identified five themes: Navigating LAIB treatment; Embodied and relational effects of LAIB; Impact and role of the service provider; Narratives of harm reduction and recovery; Stigma and criminalisation. LAIB was commonly experienced as increasing convenience, stability and freedom from daily supervised dosing, enabling improved work, travel, privacy and social participation. Reduced clinic/dosing contact often lessened enacted stigma and treatment burden. However, experiences were heterogenous. Some participants described injection-site discomfort, uncertainty about dose adequacy, reduced flexibility once injected, and ambivalence about LAIB effects. There was inconsistency in LAIB service user reports on service connection, isolation and psychosocial support. Treatment experiences were strongly shaped by provider practices. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore the need for integrated, flexible, harm-reduction oriented and person-centred LAIB treatment models that prioritise choice, autonomy and therapeutic relationships to maximise benefit for service users. However, evidence of LAIB service user experiences is concentrated in high-income countries, and the absence of perspectives from low- and middle-income country settings represents a substantial gap in the evidence base.