Methodological Concerns About a Mental Health Nursing Curriculum Redesign: A Call for Empirical Evidence and Statistical Transparency.

People with opioid use disorder (OUD) often encounter the Criminal Justice System (CJS), with one Australian study showing 37% experience incarceration at least once within a two‐year period []. The CJS can serve as a vital point of healthcare contact for this population who may otherwise infrequently seek medical care []. Opioid agonist treatment (OAT), including buprenorphine and methadone, provides a longer and more stable duration of action than shorter‐acting opioids like heroin. However, traditional oral OAT requires frequent (often daily or second‐daily) dosing. This presents challenges within the CJS due to resource limitations and medication diversion risks and often results in under‐treatment of OUD []. Long‐acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) formulations, Buvidal and Sublocade, were introduced in Australia in 2019 and 2020 respectively []. LAIB has many potential advantages over shorter‐acting OAT, including improved accessibility, adherence, safety and economic benefits []. During COVID‐19, LAIB prescribing surged in both the general population [] and some CJS settings [, ]. While studies on LAIB in general populations have identified barriers to use for some patients, including perceptions of reduced medication efficacy and duration and reduced social interactions [, , , , , ], research on its application within the CJS remains scant []. Two US studies have addressed the qualitative perspectives of treatment in the CJS with recently released participants [, ], but neither included currently incarcerated participants. To address this evidence gap, we aimed to explore perspectives on LAIB within the CJS, including comparisons to short‐acting formulations of OAT. The Understanding NSW Long‐Acting Opioids in Custody‐Treatment (UNLOC‐T) study was approved by the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network; the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council Human Research Ethics Committees (Protocol JH File no. G561/17 and HREC/18/JH/3), and the Corrective Services NSW. Voluntary, written and informed consent was obtained. Results from the study were not provided directly to the study population due to feasibility issues.