Harm Reduction Journal最新文献

Background: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) offer a substantial harm reduction opportunity for adults who smoke and are unlikely to quit. However, a major concern about ENDS is their use by non-smoking youth, and particularly whether ENDS are acting as a "gateway" that leads youth to later start smoking cigarettes. However, evidence for the gateway hypothesis can be interpreted in alternative ways, e.g. that youth who have certain characteristics were already predisposed to use both ENDS and cigarettes ("common liability" explanation).

Aims: This commentary provides an evaluation of the gateway hypothesis that is accessible by a lay audience. This paper first reviews and evaluates the evidence interpreted as supporting the gateway hypothesis. Important alternative explanations (i.e., common liability) are discussed, as are different types of evidence (i.e., population-level trends) that can help differentiate between these competing explanations.

Overview: Evidence for the gateway hypothesis is based on the finding that youth who use ENDS are more likely to also smoke cigarettes. However, this evidence suffers from an important flaw: these studies fail to fully account for some youths' pre-existing tendency to use products containing nicotine, and inappropriately interpret the results as ENDS use causing some youth to smoke. Common liability studies suggest that ENDS use does not, in and of itself, directly cause youth to later smoke cigarettes, beyond their pre-existing tendency to use products containing nicotine. Population-level trends show that youth cigarette smoking declined faster after ENDS use became common, which contradicts the central prediction of the gateway hypothesis (i.e. that youth smoking would be more common following ENDS uptake, than otherwise be expected).

Conclusion: Evidence offered in support of the gateway hypothesis does not establish that ENDS use causes youth to also smoke cigarettes. Instead, this evidence is better interpreted as resulting from a common liability to use both ENDS and cigarettes. Population-level trends are inconsistent with the gateway hypothesis, and instead are consistent with (but do not prove) ENDS displacing cigarettes. Policies based on misinterpreting a causal gateway effect may be ineffective at best, and risk the negative unintended consequence of increased cigarette smoking.

Background: Syringe services programs (SSPs) are critical healthcare access points for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) who face treatment utilization barriers. Co-locating care for common psychiatric comorbidities, like posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), at SSPs may reduce harms and enhance the health of individuals with OUD. To guide the development of onsite psychiatric care at SSPs, we collected quantitative survey data on the prevalence of PTSD, drug use patterns, treatment experiences associated with a probable PTSD diagnosis, and attitudes regarding onsite PTSD care in a convenience sample of registered SSP clients in New York City.

Methods: Study participants were administered the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-5 (PCL-5) and asked about sociodemographic characteristics, current drug use, OUD and PTSD treatment histories, and desire for future SSP services using a structured interview. Probable PTSD diagnosis was defined as a PCL-5 score ≥ 31.

Results: Of the 139 participants surveyed, 138 experienced at least one potentially traumatic event and were included in the present analysis. The sample was primarily male (n = 108, 78.3%), of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity (n = 76, 55.1%), and middle-aged (M = 45.0 years, SD = 10.6). The mean PCL-5 score was 35.2 (SD = 21.0) and 79 participants (57.2%) had a probable PTSD diagnosis. We documented frequent SSP utilization, significant unmet PTSD treatment need, and high interest in onsite PTSD treatment.

Conclusions: Study findings point to the ubiquity of PTSD in people with OUD who visit SSPs, large gaps in PTSD care, and the potential for harm reduction settings like SSPs to reach people underserved by the healthcare system who have co-occurring OUD and PTSD.

In an era of escalating and intersectional crises, the toxic drug poisoning crisis stands out as a devastating and persistent phenomenon. Where we write from in British Columbia (BC), Canada, over 13,000 deaths have occurred in the eight years since the toxic drug poisoning crisis was declared a provincial health emergency. While many of these deaths have occurred in large urban centres, smaller rural communities in British Columbia are also grappling with the profound impacts of the toxic drug poisoning crisis and are struggling to provide adequate support for their vulnerable populations. In response to these challenges, the Walk With Me research project has emerged in the Comox Valley of Vancouver Island, BC, employing community-engaged methodologies grounded in pluralist knowledge production. Walk With Me seeks to understand the unique manifestations of the toxic drug poisoning crisis in small communities, identifying local harm reduction interventions that can foster community resilience, and aiming to catalyze sustainable change by amplifying the voices of those directly affected by the crisis to advocate for policy changes. This paper outlines the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of the Walk With Me project as a harm reduction initiative, which holds community partnerships and diverse ways of knowing at its heart. It presents the community-engaged research framework used by the project to address overlapping health and social crises, offering practical examples of its application in various research projects across sites and organizations. The paper concludes with a reflection on the impacts of Walk With Me to date, highlighting the lessons learned, challenges encountered, and opportunities for future research and action. Overall, this article captures the urgent need for community-engaged approaches to address the toxic drug poisoning crisis and other multidimensional crises facing society, particularly in smaller and rural communities, underscoring the potential for meaningful change through collaborative, grassroots efforts.

Background: Efforts to distribute naloxone have equipped more people with the ability to reverse opioid overdoses but people who use drugs are often reluctant to call 911 due to concerns for legal repercussions. Rural communities face unique challenges in reducing overdose deaths compared to urban communities, including limited access to harm reduction services as well as greater concerns about stigma and privacy.

Methods: The Rural Opioid Initiative was funded in 2017 to better understand the health-related harms associated with the opioid crisis in rural US communities and consists of eight studies spanning ten states and 65 counties. Each study conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with people who use drugs to understand contextual factors influencing drug use and health behaviors. We analyzed qualitative data from seven studies with data available at the time of analysis to understand peer response to overdose.

Results: Of the 304 participants interviewed, 55% were men, 70% were white, 80% reported current injection drug use, and 60% reported methamphetamine use. Similar to what has been found in studies focused on urban settings, people who use drugs in rural communities use a range of strategies to reverse overdoses, including non-evidence-based approaches. Several reported that multiple doses of naloxone are needed to reverse overdose. Three themes emerged around the willingness to call 911, including (1) hesitancy to call 911 for fear of legal consequences, (2) negative perceptions or experiences with law enforcement officers, and (3) efforts to obtain medical intervention while avoiding identification/law enforcement involvement.

Conclusion: People who use drugs employ multiple strategies to attempt overdose reversal, including non-evidence-based approaches. Greater education about the most effective and least harmful strategies is needed. Reluctance to call 911 is rooted in concerns about potential legal consequences as well as perceptions about law enforcement officers, which may be heightened in rural communities where people who use drugs are more easily identified by law enforcement. People who use drugs will go to great strides to connect their peers to needed medical services, suggesting that comprehensive interventions to reduce interactions with law enforcement officers and eliminate legal consequences for reporting overdoses are critical.

Background: Cannabis was legalised for medical purposes in 2016. Uptake was initially slow, but since 2019 there has been a large increase in the number of Australians who have been prescribed cannabis for medical reasons. Yet a significant number of consumers continue to treat their medical conditions via illicitly-sourced cannabis. Little is known about how these two groups of medical cannabis consumers differ.

Methods: The anonymous Cannabis-As-Medicine Survey 2022-2023 (CAMS-22) was available for completion online from December 2022 to April 2023 to adult Australians who had used cannabis to treat a medical condition in the previous year. Recruitment occurred through social media, consumer forums, and medical practices. Questions included demographic characteristics, patterns of cannabis use, conditions treated, and self-rated effectiveness.

Results: Of the 3323 respondents included in these analyses, 2352 (73%) mainly used prescribed medical cannabis, 871 (27%) mainly used illicit. Prescribed users were significantly more likely than illicit users to have had their health condition diagnosed (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.2), to consume their cannabis via oral (OR = 1.9; CI 1.5, 2.4) or vaporised (OR = 5.2; CI 4.0, 6.8) routes, and to be sure of the composition of their medical cannabis (OR = 25.0; CI 16.7, 50.0). Prescribed users were significantly less likely to have used cannabis non-medically before medical use (OR = 0.6, CI 0.5, 0.7), consume cannabis via smoked routes (OR = 0.2, CI 0.1, 0.2), and to report any side effects (OR = 0.1; CI 0.1, 0.2). The most common conditions among both prescribed and illicit users were pain (37%), mental health (36%), and sleep (15%) conditions. Prescribed users were significantly more likely to use cannabis to mainly treat a pain (OR = 1.3; CI 1.1, 1.5) or sleep condition (OR = 1.4; CI 1.1, 1.7) and less likely to treat a mental health condition (OR = 0.8; CI 0.7, 0.9). There were no between-group differences in effectiveness with 97% saying medical cannabis had improved their symptoms.

Conclusions: From a harm-reduction perspective there is much to recommend prescribed medical cannabis; it has fewer side-effects than illicit, is used more safely (oral or vaporised versus smoked routes), gives consumers greater certainty regarding the composition and quality of their medicine, and does not risk exposure to the criminal justice system. Of concern, however, is the apparent willingness of prescribers to prescribe for indications for which there is limited evidence of efficacy, such as mental health and sleep conditions.

The opioid epidemic remains one of the largest public health crises in North America to date. While there have been many diverse strategies developed to reduce the harms associated with substance use, these are primarily concentrated within a few large urban centers. As a result, there have been increased calls for equitable access to harm reduction services for those who cannot or choose not to access in-person harm reduction services. In December 2020, Canada's National Overdose Response Service (NORS) a telephone based overdose response hotline and virtual supervised consumption service, was established in collaboration with various agencies and people with lived and living experience of substance use (PWLLE) across Canada to expand access to harm reduction services using novel Opioid Response Technology. In this manuscript we explore the lessons learned from the establishment and continued operation of the service exploring topics related to the initial establishment of the service, securing a phone line, routing technology, EMS dispatch solutions, peer and volunteer recruitment, legal and ethical support, policy and procedure development, securing funding, and marketing. Furthermore, we detail how this service has grown and changed in response to the various needs of service users.

Background: People in Connecticut are now more likely to die of a drug-related overdose than a traffic accident. While Connecticut has had some success in slowing the rise in overdose death rates, substantial additional progress is necessary.

Methods: We developed, verified, and calibrated a mechanistic simulation of alternative overdose prevention policy options, including scaling up naloxone (NLX) distribution in the community and medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who are incarcerated (MOUD-INC) and in the community (MOUD-COM) in a simulated cohort of people with OUD in Connecticut. We estimated how maximally scaling up each option individually and in combinations would impact 5-year overdose deaths, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years. All costs were assessed in 2021 USD, employing a health sector perspective in base-case analyses and a societal perspective in sensitivity analyses, using a 3% discount rate and 5-year and lifetime time horizons.

Results: Maximally scaling NLX alone reduces overdose deaths 20% in the next 5 years at a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); if injectable rather than intranasal NLX was distributed, 240 additional overdose deaths could be prevented. Maximally scaling MOUD-COM and MOUD-INC alone reduce overdose deaths by 14% and 6% respectively at favorable ICERS. Considering all permutations of scaling up policies, scaling NLX and MOUD-COM together is the cost-effective choice, reducing overdose deaths 32% at ICER $19,000/QALY. In sensitivity analyses using a societal perspective, all policy options were cost saving and overdose deaths reduced 33% over 5 years while saving society $338,000 per capita over the simulated cohort lifetime.

Conclusions: Maximally scaling access to naloxone and MOUD in the community can reduce 5-year overdose deaths by 32% among people with OUD in Connecticut under realistic budget scenarios. If societal cost savings due to increased productivity and reduced crime costs are considered, one-third of overdose deaths can be reduced by maximally scaling all three policy options, while saving money.