Contact tracing for hepatitis C: perspectives of people with experience of substance use and hepatitis C on intervention acceptability

Int J Drug Policy. 2026 Jul 4;155:105416. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2026.105416. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Chronic hepatitis C (HCV) is a major cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. In the UK, the principal risk factor for HCV is injecting drug use. The introduction of direct acting anti-virals (DAA’s) have transformed HCV care, with cure rates of over 95%. However, HCV is often asymptomatic, and reinfection is a concern. Modelling and real-life studies demonstrate the potential effectiveness of a contact tracing approach for finding people who have acquired HCV through injecting drug use. However, it is not used routinely in the UK. This qualitative study was undertaken to assess the acceptability of a contact tracing approach to identify people who have injected drugs with an index patient recently diagnosed with HCV.

METHODS: Twelve people with lived or living experience of injecting drug use and an HCV diagnosis were interviewed using semi-structured interview topic guides. Participants were purposefully selected according to the inclusion criteria and to ensure there was an even spread of male and female participants. Sekhon’s Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, incorporating seven components (affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity cost, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy) was used to analyse data from interview transcripts.

RESULTS: A sample of 12 people who inject drugs in the UK indicated that a contact tracing approach was acceptable across two components of Sekhon’s acceptability framework: affective attitude and ethicality. Participants broadly found the idea of tracing people who may be at risk of contracting HCV acceptable, and the approach aligned with their value systems. A contact tracing approach would help alleviate concerns about putting other people’s lives at risk through HCV transmission and was seen as a ‘sensible’ way of finding people at risk. However, there were caveats to this acceptability. Contact tracing approaches delivered by mainstream health, or governmental organisations increased burden, opportunity costs and perceived effectiveness of a contact tracing approach for HCV, particularly within contexts of exclusion and criminalisation of people who inject drugs. Burden and opportunity costs were also affected by individual experiences and risks of violence, sexual violence and abuse. There was a lack of knowledge of contact tracing approaches amongst respondents, leading to a lack of intervention coherence and misunderstandings of what contact tracing was and how it would work. Trusted relationships with NGOs and HCV specialist nurses reduced burden and increased confidence and ability (self-efficacy) to engage with a contact tracing approach.

CONCLUSION: People who inject drugs broadly perceive contact tracing as an acceptable method of finding people who are at risk of HCV. However, this acceptability is based on specific modes of delivery through trusted organisations. Findings further highlight the importance of naming and describing contact tracing approaches appropriately, as well as assessing and mitigating against potential risk to index patients, to increase self-efficacy and capacity to engage. Considering these findings, the potential for expanding existing contact tracing approaches should be explored to ensure the UK reaches and maintains its elimination targets.

PMID:42401029 | DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2026.105416