Preferred stimulant safer supply and associations with methamphetamine preference among people who use stimulants in British Columbia: Findings from a 2021 cross-sectional survey

Factors associated with obtaining prescribed safer supply among people accessing harm reduction services: findings from a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

With growing rates of unregulated drug toxicity death and concerns regarding COVID-19 transmission among people who use drugs, in March 2020, prescribed safer supply guidance was released in British Columbia. This study describes demographic and substance use characteristics associated with obtaining prescribed safer supply and examines the association between last 6-month harm reduction service access and obtaining prescribed safer supply.

METHODS

Data come from the 2021 Harm Reduction Client Survey administered at 17 harm reduction sites across British Columbia. The sample included all who self-reported use of opioids, stimulants, or benzodiazepines in the prior 3 days (N = 491), given active use of these drugs was a requirement for eligibility for prescribed safer supply. The dependent variable was obtaining a prescribed safer supply prescription (Yes vs. No). The primary independent variables were access to drug checking services and access to overdose prevention services in the last 6 months (Yes vs. No). Descriptive statistics (Chi-square tests) were used to compare the characteristics of people who did and did not obtain a prescribed safer supply prescription. Multivariable logistic regression models were run to examine the association of drug checking services and overdose prevention services access with obtaining prescribed safer supply.

RESULTS

A small proportion (n = 81(16.5%)) of the sample obtained prescribed safer supply. After adjusting for gender, age, and urbanicity, people who reported drug checking services access in the last 6 months had 1.67 (95% CI 1.00-2.79) times the odds of obtaining prescribed safer supply compared to people who had not contacted these services, and people who reported last 6 months of overdose prevention services access had more than twice the odds (OR 2.08 (95% CI 1.20-3.60)) of prescribed safer supply access, compared to people who did not access these services.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the proportion of respondents who received prescribed safer supply was low, suggesting that this intervention is not reaching all those in need. Harm reduction services may serve as a point of contact for referral to prescribed safer supply. Additional outreach strategies and service models are needed to improve the accessibility of harm reduction services and of prescribed safer supply in British Columbia.

Motivators of and barriers to drug checking engagement in British Columbia, Canada: Findings from a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Responding to increasing rates of illicit drug toxicity mortality in British Columbia, regional health authorities introduced various types and models of drug checking services starting in 2016. Uptake has been gradual yet consistent, but motivators and barriers of service use have not been well-described.

METHODS

The British Columbia Harm Reduction Client Survey is a cross-sectional survey conducted at harm reduction sites across British Columbia. Data for the present findings were collected between March 2021 and January 2022. Participants (n = 537) were asked about their use of drug checking services and what prevented them from using available services. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of all participants, 519 (96.6 %) answered the survey question on drug checking with 144 (27.7 %) reporting having used services within six months. Participants highlighted barriers such as not knowing where to access services (21.0 %), or not having services in their area (10.0 %). Among people who did not report recent use of fentanyl, 49.6 % stated they would not use their drugs if they tested positive for fentanyl. Other harm reduction behaviors were positively associated with drug checking, such as use of overdose prevention sites (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.75, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.65, 4.59) and having a naloxone kit (AOR: 2.67, 95 %CI: 1.14, 6.28). Receipt of opioid agonist therapy in the previous six months was also positively associated with drug checking (AOR: 1.72, 95 %CI: 1.05, 2.83).

DISCUSSION

Drug checking uptake remains low in British Columbia, however this study identified desire for services among participants, suggesting a need for expanded drug checking services. Behavioral change was reported among a high proportion of people who said they would not use their drugs if they tested positive for fentanyl, meaning that immunoassay strips alone have utility in the context of a pervasive fentanyl supply.