Applications of research evidence during processes to acquire approvals for syringe services program implementation in rural counties in Kentucky

Lessons Learned Implementing Syringe Services Programs at Rural Health Departments in Kentucky

Until recently, most syringe services programs (SSPs) in the United States operated in metropolitan areas. This study explores how SSP implementers at rural health departments in Kentucky secured support for SSP operations. In late 2020, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 18 people involved with rural SSP implementation in Kentucky. Participants were asked to reflect on their experiences building support for SSP operations among rural health department staff and community members. Participants reported that attitudes and beliefs about SSP implementation among rural health department staff shifted quickly following engagement in educational activities and interaction with SSP clients. Participants explained that successful SSP implementation at rural health departments required sustained educational activities among community members and authorizing authorities. Future work should explore how rural communities may advocate for low-threshold and evidence-based policies that support the provision of harm reduction services.

Were Needles Everywhere?: Differing Views on Syringe Waste and Disposal Associated With Needs-Based Syringe Services Programs Among Community Partners and Persons Who Inject Drugs

BACKGROUND

Community concerns surrounding syringe waste are a common barrier to syringe services program (SSP) implementation. In Kanawha County, West Virginia, community opposition to SSPs resulted in the closure of needs-based SSPs prior to and during an HIV outbreak among persons who inject drugs (PWID). This qualitative analysis examines views of PWID and community partners on syringe waste and disposal associated with needs-based SSPs.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews with 26 PWID and 45 community partners (medical and social service providers, law enforcement personnel, policymakers, and religious leaders) were conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Code summaries described participants' views on syringe waste and disposal and needs-based SSPs.

RESULTS

Community partners and PWID who favored needs-based SSPs reported that needs-based SSPs had not affected or reduced syringe waste. Conversely, community partners who favored one-to-one exchange models and/or barcoded syringes described needs-based SSPs increasing syringe waste. Community partners often cited pervasive community beliefs that SSPs increased syringe waste, risk of needlesticks, drug use, and crime. Community partners were unsure how to address syringe waste concerns and emphasized that contradictory views on syringe waste posed barriers to discussing and implementing SSPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants' views on whether syringe waste was associated with needs-based SSPs often aligned with their support or opposition for needs-based SSPs. These differing views resulted in challenges finding common ground to discuss SSP operations amid an HIV outbreak among PWID. SSPs might consider addressing syringe waste concerns by expanding syringe disposal efforts and implementing community engagement and stigma reduction activities.

Perceptions of COVID-19 risk during the pandemic: perspectives from people seeking medication for opioid use disorder

INTRODUCTION

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had devastating consequences for persons with opioid use disorder (OUD). Yet, little is known about how people seeking treatment for OUD perceive the risks of COVID-19 and how their perception interplays with their health behaviours.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted from September 2021 to March 2022 with 32 patients seeking medication treatment for OUD (MOUD) in Southern California. All interviews were conducted virtually and lasted between one and two hours. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two qualitative researchers independently conducted a content analysis of the transcripts to identify themes.

RESULTS

Three primary themes were identified: (1) perceptions and beliefs about COVID-19 susceptibility and severity; (2) perceptions of COVID-19 risk compared to substance use behaviours; and (3) vaccine hesitancy. Participants were mixed in their beliefs of susceptibility to contracting COVID-19 and the severity of the disease if contracted. Some participants reported taking precautions to mitigate their chances of acquiring COVID-19, and other participants reported that COVID was not a big concern as substance use took priority. For many of the participants, COVID-19 concerns were overshadowed by the risk of overdosing on substances and other risky substance use behaviour. Most of the participants (n = 23; 72%) had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine by the time of the interview, but over half (n = 19; 59%) expressed vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy was driven by concerns about the unknown long-term side effects and potential interactions of the vaccine with MOUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides insight into COVID-19 prevention measures as well as vaccination perceptions and hesitancy among people who received treatment for OUD.Key messagesParticipants expressed diverse perceptions of the seriousness of COVID-19, with some taking precautions to mitigate their chances of acquiring COVID-19 and others perceiving that the risk of contracting COVID-19 was less than the risk of overdosing.Substance use, social isolation, vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 risk behaviours should be studied as co-occurring phenomena that have potentially overlapping relationships that can influence behaviours that impact health and well-being.

Factors associated with receptive injection equipment sharing among people who inject drugs: findings from a multistate study at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Receptive injection equipment sharing (i.e., injecting with syringes, cookers, rinse water previously used by another person) plays a central role in the transmission of infectious diseases (e.g., HIV, viral hepatitis) among people who inject drugs. Better understanding these behaviors in the context of COVID-19 may afford insights about potential intervention opportunities in future health crises.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines factors associated with receptive injection equipment sharing among people who inject drugs in the context of COVID-19.

METHODS

From August 2020 to January 2021, people who inject drugs were recruited from 22 substance use disorder treatment programs and harm reduction service providers in nine states and the District of Columbia to complete a survey that ascertained how the COVID-19 pandemic affected substance use behaviors. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with people who inject drugs having recently engaged in receptive injection equipment sharing.

RESULTS

One in four people who inject drugs in our sample reported having engaged in receptive injection equipment sharing in the past month. Factors associated with greater odds of receptive injection equipment sharing included: having a high school education or equivalent (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.14, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.24, 3.69), experiencing hunger at least weekly (aOR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.01, 3.56), and number of drugs injected (aOR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.02, 1.30). Older age (aOR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.94, 1.00) and living in a non-metropolitan area (aOR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.18, 1.02) were marginally associated with decreased odds of receptive injection equipment sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

Receptive injection equipment sharing was relatively common among our sample during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings contribute to existing literature that examines receptive injection equipment sharing by demonstrating that this behavior was associated with factors identified in similar research that occurred before COVID. Eliminating high-risk injection practices among people who inject drugs requires investments in low-threshold and evidence-based services that ensure persons have access to sterile injection equipment.

Law enforcement and syringe services program implementation in rural counties in Kentucky: a qualitative exploration

BACKGROUND

Existing research in urban areas has documented a multitude of ways in which law enforcement may affect risks for bloodborne infectious disease acquisition among people who inject drugs (PWID), such as via syringe confiscation and engaging in practices that deter persons from accessing syringe services programs (SSPs). However, limited work has been conducted to explore how law enforcement may impact SSP implementation and operations in rural counties in the United States. This creates a significant gap in the HIV prevention literature given the volume of non-urban counties in the United States that are vulnerable to injection drug use-associated morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

This study explores the influence of law enforcement during processes to acquire approvals for SSP implementation and subsequent program operations in rural Kentucky counties.

METHODS

From August 2020 to October 2020, we conducted eighteen in-depth qualitative interviews among persons involved with SSP implementation in rural counties in Kentucky (USA). Interviews explored the factors that served as barriers and facilitators to SSP implementation and operations, including the role of law enforcement.

RESULTS

Participants described scenarios in which rural law enforcement advocated for SSP implementation; however, they also reported police opposing rural SSP implementation and engaging in adverse behaviors (e.g., targeting SSP clients) that may jeopardize the public health of PWID. Participants reported that efforts to educate rural law enforcement about SSPs were particularly impactful when they discussed how SSP implementation may prevent needlestick injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that there are multiple ways in which rural SSP implementation and subsequent operations in rural Kentucky counties are affected by law enforcement. Future work is needed to explore how to expeditiously engage rural law enforcement, and communities more broadly, about SSPs, their benefits, and public health necessity.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on syringe services programs in rural Kentucky

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) exacerbated risks for adverse health consequences among people who inject drugs by reducing access to sterile injection equipment, HIV testing, and syringe services programs (SSPs). Several decades of research demonstrate the public health benefits of SSP implementation; however, existing evidence primarily reflects studies conducted in metropolitan areas and before the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic affected SSP operations in rural Kentucky counties.

METHODS

In late 2020, we conducted eighteen in-depth, semi-structured interviews with persons (10 women, 8 men) involved in SSP implementation in rural Kentucky counties. The interview guide broadly explored the barriers and facilitators to SSP implementation in rural communities; participants were also asked to describe how COVID-19 affected SSP operations.

RESULTS

Participants emphasized the need to continue providing SSP-related services throughout the pandemic. COVID-19 mitigation strategies (e.g., masking, social distancing, pre-packing sterile injection equipment) limited relationship building between staff and clients and, more broadly, the pandemic adversely affected overall program expansion, momentum building, and coalition building. However, participants offered multiple examples of innovative solutions to the myriad of obstacles the pandemic presented.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted SSP operations throughout rural Kentucky. Despite challenges, participants reported that providing SSP services remained paramount. Diverse adaptative strategies were employed to ensure continuation of essential SSP services, demonstrating the commitment and ingenuity of program staff. Given that SSPs are essential for preventing adverse injection drug use-associated health consequences, further resources should be invested in SSP operations to ensure service delivery is not negatively affected by co-occurring crises.