Correlates of public support toward federal funding for harm reduction strategies

How to save a life: Public awareness of a national mass media take home naloxone campaign, and effects of exposure to campaign components on overdose knowledge and responses

BACKGROUND

Take home naloxone (THN) programmes are effective at reducing opioid related mortality, but require high levels of distribution, including to the general public. Mass media campaigns can be effective in improving public understanding of a topic and encouraging behavior change. Whilst mass media campaigns focusing on naloxone have been developed internationally, there is a lack of research on their potential impact. We investigated the effects of components of a recent national mass media campaign (Scotland, UK) designed to improve public awareness of drug related deaths, and readiness to intervene.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional online experimental study with a randomized design, conducted with a nationally representative sample. Participants (N = 1551; 52.6% female; age 46.1±16.5 years) were assessed on overdose knowledge and readiness to intervene after presentation of eight combinations of campaign components.

RESULTS

Compared to a basic campaign description, exposure to all types of campaign component were associated with higher overdose knowledge (p < .001), but not knowledge of what to do in response to an overdose (p = .374), or readiness to intervene (p= .286). The greatest effects were associated with a media rich audio-visual resource (animated video with a popular song on the soundtrack, and narrated by a well-known actor).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that harm reduction is an appropriate topic for large-scale mass media campaigns. However, effects may be limited to knowledge and awareness raising in the general public, and may be related to the types of media used. Audience segmentation is important and more general messaging about drug related deaths may be more appropriate for the majority of audiences.

Effectively engaging faith-based leaders on syringe services programs: U.S. pastors' knowledge, perceptions, and questions

OBJECTIVE

To identify faith-based leaders' (FBLs') knowledge, perceptions, and questions about syringe services programs (SSPs).

METHODS

We conducted a one-time, national online survey of 461 Christian FBLs August-September 2022.

RESULTS

56% of FBLs agreed they support having SSPs in their communities; only 7% strongly disagreed. We identified 15 main questions FBLs have about SSPs. We found statistically significant differences based on FBL Protestant affiliations. Mainline FBLs are more knowledgeable about SSPs, likely to believe a larger number of SSP services would benefit their community, supportive of SSPs, interested in data related to SSPs, and likely to look to local public health officials to shape their opinions on SSPs compared with non-mainline FBLs.

CONCLUSIONS

SSP advocates can address questions that FBLs have about SSPs before beginning outreach. By understanding common Protestant denominational affiliations, advocates can focus initial engagement efforts on FBLs in their communities who are more likely to support SSPs. Our findings suggest that local public health officials can influence FBLs' opinions about SSPs.

Community Support for Harm Reduction and Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder

As the opioid epidemic continues, availability of evidence-based strategies for harm reduction and treatment in communities is critical to reduce overdose and other consequences of opioid use disorder. Community members' support of harm reduction and treatment services is needed for new programs and to maintain existent programs. This study sought to understand beliefs and attitudes associated with support for three community-based strategies to address opioid misuse and addiction: naloxone, needle exchange, and medication-assisted treatment. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with 545 adults. Results of the survey showed that participants supported all three strategies, with the strongest support for medication-assisted treatment. Multiple regression showed that stigma and perceived stigma were significant predictors for all three strategies, with inverse relationships. Stigmatizing beliefs predicted less support while perceiving stigma among others was associated with greater support for the strategies. Normative beliefs also significantly predicted support for all three strategies, such that stronger belief that others were supportive of each strategy was associated with greater support for that strategy. Other predictors varied across the three strategies. Support for harm reduction and treatment programs in communities affected by the opioid epidemic may be bolstered by reducing stigma and increasing normative beliefs. Stronger support for medication-assisted treatment may be leveraged and extended to harm reduction strategies. Results of our study contribute insights for bolstering community support for harm reduction and treatment, which is vital for adoption and maintenance of these important programs.

How do we understand the value of drug checking as a component of harm reduction services? A qualitative exploration of client and provider perspectives

BACKGROUND

Mortality related to opioid overdose in the U.S. has risen sharply in the past decade. In California, opioid overdose death rates more than tripled from 2018 to 2021, and deaths from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl increased more than seven times in those three years alone. Heightened attention to this crisis has attracted funding and programming opportunities for prevention and harm reduction interventions. Drug checking services offer people who use drugs the opportunity to test the chemical content of their own supply, but are not widely used in North America. We report on qualitative data from providers and clients of harm reduction and drug checking services, to explore how these services are used, experienced, and considered.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth semi-structured key informant interviews across two samples of drug checking stakeholders: "clients" (individuals who use drugs and receive harm reduction services) and "providers" (subject matter experts and those providing clinical and harm reduction services to people who use drugs). Provider interviews were conducted via Zoom from June-November, 2022. Client interviews were conducted in person in San Francisco over a one-week period in November 2022. Data were analyzed following the tenets of thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We found that the value of drug checking includes but extends well beyond overdose prevention. Participants discussed ways that drug checking can fill a regulatory vacuum, serve as a tool of informal market regulation at the community level, and empower public health surveillance systems and clinical response. We present our findings within three key themes: (1) the role of drug checking in overdose prevention; (2) benefits to the overall agency, health, and wellbeing of people who use drugs; and (3) impacts of drug checking services at the community and systems levels.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to growing evidence of the effectiveness of drug checking services in mitigating risks associated with substance use, including overdose, through enabling people who use and sell drugs to test their own supply. It further contributes to discussions around the utility of drug checking and harm reduction, in order to inform legislation and funding allocation.

Understanding the barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining Mobile Overdose Response Services from the perspective of Canadian key interest groups: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Unregulated supply of fentanyl and adulterants continues to drive the overdose crisis. Mobile Overdose Response Services (MORS) are novel technologies that offer virtual supervised consumption to minimize the risk of fatal overdose for those who are unable to access other forms of harm reduction. However, as newly implemented services, they are also faced with numerous limitations. The aim of this study was to examine the facilitators and barriers to the adoption of MORS in Canada.

METHODS

A total of 64 semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2021 and April 2022. Participants consisted of people who use substances (PWUS), family members of PWUS, health care professionals, harm reduction workers, MORS operators, and members of the general public. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify the major themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Respondents revealed that MORS facilitated a safe, anonymous, and nonjudgmental environment for PWUS to seek harm reduction and other necessary support. It also created a new sense of purpose for operators to positively contribute to the community. Further advertising and promotional efforts were deemed important to increase its awareness. However, barriers to MORS implementation included concerns regarding privacy/confidentiality, uncertainty of funding, and compassion fatigue among the operators.

CONCLUSION

Although MORS were generally viewed as a useful addition to the currently existing harm reduction services, it's important to monitor and tackle these barriers by engaging the perspectives of key interest groups.

Unit costs of needle and syringe program provision: a global systematic review and cost extrapolation

BACKGROUND

Needle and syringe programs (NSPs) are effective at preventing HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) among people who inject drugs (PWID), yet global coverage is low, partly because governments lack data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of NSP in their countries to plan and fund their responses. We conducted a global systematic review of unit costs of NSP provision to inform estimation of cost drivers and extrapolated costs to other countries.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to extract data on the cost per syringe distributed and its cost drivers. We estimated the impact of country-level and program-level variables on the cost per syringe distributed using linear mixed-effects models. These models were used to predict unit costs of NSP provision, with the best performing model used to extrapolate the cost per syringe distributed for 137 countries. The total cost for a comprehensive NSP (200 syringes per PWID/year) was also estimated for 68 countries with PWID population size estimates.

RESULTS

We identified 55 estimates of the unit cost per syringe distributed from 14 countries. Unit costs were extrapolated for 137 countries, ranging from $0.08 to $20.77 (2020 USD) per syringe distributed. The total estimated spend for a high-coverage, comprehensive NSP across 68 countries with PWID size estimates is $5 035 902 000 for 10 887 500 PWID, 2.1-times higher than current spend.

CONCLUSION

Our review identified cost estimates from high-income, upper-middle-income, and lower-middle-income countries. Regression models may be useful for estimating NSP costs in countries without data to inform HIV/HCV prevention programming and policy.

The effects of race and class on community-level stigmatization of opioid use and policy preferences

BACKGROUND

With opioid use and overdose rates continuing to plague minority communities in the U.S., we explored whether a geographic community's racial composition and social class affect how opioid use in the community is stigmatized and what policy preferences arise in response.

METHODS

We use case vignettes in a randomized, between-subjects study (N = 1478) with a nation-wide survey. The vignettes describe a community where opioids are harmfully used, varying whether the community was (1) wealthy or poor, (2) predominantly Black or White and (3) facing prevalent use of painkillers or heroin. We tested how these variables affect public stigmatization of opioid use (measured with ratings of responsibility, dangerousness, sympathy, concern, anger, and disappointment) preferred levels of social distance from communities with opioid use (measured with responses to questions about living, working, and interacting in the community), and policy preferences for responding to opioid use (measured with levels of support for providing a safe-consumption site in the community, treating drug use in the community punitively, treating drug use in the community as an illness, and funding drug treatment in the community through income redistribution).

RESULTS

Compared to wealthy communities with opioid use, poor communities with opioid use were less stigmatized in terms of responsibility, sympathy, concern, anger, and disappointment; they were also met with less support for punitiveness, more support for treating drug use as an illness, and preferences for greater social distance. Compared to White communities with opioid use, Black communities with opioid use were less stigmatized in terms of responsibility, and they were met with stronger preferences to not live and work there and with reduced support for using income redistribution to provide drug treatment for people in the community. Poor-Black communities with opioid use were also perceived to be more dangerous than both poor-White and wealthy-Black communities with opioid use.

CONCLUSION

These results point to class- and race-based territorial stigma affecting how communities with opioid use are judged and whether policies for providing communities with treatment are supported.

A conceptual framework for how structural changes in emerging acute substance use service models can reduce stigma of medications for opioid use disorder

Stigma toward people taking medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is prevalent, harmful to the health and well-being of this population, and impedes MOUD treatment resource provision, help-seeking, and engagement in care. In recent years, clinicians have implemented new models of MOUD-based treatment in parts of the United States that integrate buprenorphine initiation into emergency departments and other acute general medical settings, with post-discharge linkage to office-based treatment. These service models increase access to MOUD and they have potential to mitigate stigma toward opioid use and MOUD. However, the empirical literature connecting these emerging service delivery models to stigma outcomes remains underdeveloped. This paper aims to bridge the stigma and health service literatures via a conceptual model delineating how elements of emerging MOUD service models can reduce stigma and increase behavior in pursuit of life goals. Specifically, we outline how new approaches to three key processes can counter structural, public, and self-stigma for this population: (1) community outreach with peer-to-peer influence, (2) clinical evaluation and induction of MOUD in acute care settings, and (3) transition to outpatient maintenance care and early recovery. Emerging service models that target these three processes can, in turn, foster patient empowerment and pursuit of life goals. There is great potential to increase the well-being of people who use opioids by reducing stigma against MOUD via these structural changes.

Framing harm reduction as part of an integrated approach to reduce drug overdose: A randomized message testing experiment in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, 2022

OBJECTIVES

Low public support impedes widespread adoption of harm reduction services in the U.S. There are growing efforts to implement integrated programs offering harm reduction services alongside other services for people who use drugs. We tested how messages depicting integrated programs influence audience attitudes about harm reduction.

METHODS

A nine-group randomized experiment (N=3,181) embedded in a national survey of U.S. adults tested how factual and narrative messages describing programs integrating harm reduction, addiction treatment, and/or other services to reduce overdose influenced respondents' attitudes about harm reduction, relative to a comparison message defining harm reduction. The survey was fielded from September 16^th to September28th, 2022 using the NORC Amerispeak probability-based online survey panel. The survey response rate was 74%. Measures included perceived effectiveness of standalone and integrated harm reduction programs, willingness to have a harm reduction program in the neighborhood or person using harm reduction services as a neighbor, and support for increasing government spending on harm reduction services.

RESULTS

54.4% of respondents viewing the comparison message defining harm reduction reported that an integrated approach including harm reduction, addiction treatment, and other services is effective at reducing overdose, compared to 63.6%-69.1% of respondents viewing messages describing integrated programs (p<0.05). Messages depicting either standalone harm reduction or integrated programs lowered respondents' willingness to have a harm reduction program in their neighborhood, particularly when the messages depicted a Black person, versus a White person, benefiting from harm reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Messages depicting programs offering integrated services including but not limited to harm reduction may heighten audience endorsement of the effectiveness of such an approach but lower willingness to have a harm reduction program in the neighborhood.

Public support for safer supply programs: analysis of a cross-sectional survey of Canadians in two provinces

OBJECTIVES

Canada's ongoing drug poisoning crisis has contributed to unprecedented rates of morbidity and mortality. Health Canada has funded safer supply pilot programs to help connect people who use drugs to pharmaceutical grade medications that reduce their reliance on a toxic drug supply. However, most provinces, including Alberta and Saskatchewan, have not endorsed these initiatives. We explored public support for safer supply programs in these two Canadian provinces and identified predictors of support for this policy option.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data were examined from an online panel survey that included measures assessing views on policy responses to substance use and addiction. A total of 1602 adults were recruited during March 2021. We used descriptive statistics to characterize support for safer supply programs in Alberta and Saskatchewan and multinominal logistic regression analysis to examine predictors of public support for safer supply.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents (AB: 63.5% and SK: 56.3%) supported safer supply programs that replace illegal street drugs with pharmaceutical alternatives for those unable to stop using. Predicted probabilities show a greater probability of support for safer supply among those with higher education and those leaning left on the political spectrum.

CONCLUSION

A majority of Canadians from Alberta and Saskatchewan supported provincial government efforts to expand safer supply, suggesting a lack of public support is not the main barrier to implementation. Efforts at mobilizing this public opinion are needed to scale up and facilitate evaluation of this drug poisoning response.

'We don't live in a harm reduction world, we live in a prohibition world': tensions arising in the design of drug alerts

BACKGROUND

Drug alerts designed for health and community workforces have potential to avert acute harms associated with unpredictable illicit drug markets, by preparing workers to respond to unusual drug-related events, and distribute information to service users. However, the design of such alerts is complicated by diverse needs of individuals, and broader socio-political contexts. Here, we discuss the tensions that arose in the process of co-designing drug alert templates with health and community workers.

METHODS

We conducted five in-depth digital co-design workshops with 31 workers employed in alcohol and other drug and urgent care settings. Our approach to analysis was informed by Iterative Categorisation and reflexive thematic analysis methods.

RESULTS

We identified five key tensions. First, there is a need to provide comprehensive information to meet the information needs of a diverse group of workers with varying knowledge levels, while also designing alerts to be clear, concise, and relevant to the work of individuals. Second, it is important that alerts do not create 'information overload'; however, it is also important that information should be available to those who want it. Third, alert design and dissemination must be perceived to be credible, to avoid 'alert scepticism'; however, credibility is challenging to develop in a broader context of criminalisation, stigmatisation, and sensationalism. Fourth, alerts must be carefully designed to achieve 'intended effects' and avoid unintended effects, while acknowledging that it is impossible to control all potential effects. Finally, while alerts may be intended for an audience of health and community workers, people who use drugs are the end-users and must be kept front of mind in the design process.

CONCLUSIONS

The co-design process revealed complexities in designing drug alerts, particularly in the context of stigmatised illicit drug use, workforce diversity, and dissemination strategies. This study has highlighted the value of developing these important risk communication tools with their target audiences to ensure that they are relevant, useful, and impactful. The findings have informed the development of our drug alert prototypes and provide local context to complement existing best-practice risk-communications literature.

Effects of media representations of drug related deaths on public stigma and support for harm reduction

BACKGROUND

Drug related deaths (DRD) are at historically high levels in the United Kingdom (UK), but some approaches that have the potential to reduce risk of mortality remain controversial. Public support makes an important contribution to drug policy development but there are high levels of public stigma towards people who use drugs (PWUD), and this is partly shaped by media representations. We investigated whether depiction of the characteristics of decedents represented in news articles about DRD was associated with differences in stigmatising attitudes and support for harm reduction policy.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional online study with a randomised design, conducted with a nationally representative sample (UK). Participants (N = 1280) were randomly presented with one of eight simulated news stories that reported on a DRD that differed with respect to drug (ecstasy or heroin), and the gender (male or female) and age (younger or older) of the decedent. Data were analysed using MANOVA.

RESULTS

Data were obtained for 1248 participants (51.0% female; mean age 45.7±15.4). Stigma was higher towards depictions of male, older, and heroin deaths (all p < .001). Harm reduction support was higher in those participants seeing older compared to younger subjects (p = .035), and the older ecstasy decedent compared to younger decedent (p = .029).

CONCLUSION

Presentation of some types of DRD are associated with higher public stigma towards the decedent than others. Those groups developing agenda-setting activities designed to reduce stigma or foster public support for harm reduction policies should consider the different ways in which audiences may respond to the depiction and framing of DRD in news media.

Philanthropic donor perspectives about providing harm reduction services for people living with HIV/AIDS in a hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Hospital-based harm reduction services are needed to reduce drug-related harms, facilitate retention in care, and increase medical treatment adherence for people who use drugs. Philanthropic donor support plays a key role in delivering such innovative services which might fall outside current funding streams. However, little is known about how the principles, implementation, and practice of harm reduction services, which are often highly stigmatized, may impact donor behaviours. We explored this issue within Casey House, a speciality hospital in Toronto, Canada.

METHODS

Our mixed methods study utilized an explanatory sequential design. A convenience sample of n = 106 philanthropic individual donors, recruited via email, completed an anonymous web-based survey, between July and October 2020, which assessed their knowledge of harm reduction services and the potential impact of implementing new hospital-based harm reduction services on donors' future support. Following this, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with n = 12 of the donors who completed a survey and volunteered to be interviewed. Interviews examined donors' perspectives about harm reduction and their hopes/concerns for such programming at Casey House. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and participatory-based thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Survey data show a high level of support for hospital-based harm reduction services, with participants reporting that they "strongly agree/agree" with providing harm reduction equipment (85%), supervised consumption services (82%), and prescription opioid treatment (76%) at Casey House. A majority of participants (66%) claimed that implementing new harm reduction services at the hospital would not impact their future donation, while 6% said they would be less inclined to donate. Interview participants were supportive of harm reduction services at Casey House, recognizing the benefits of providing such services for hospital clients and the wider community. However, some spoke of the potential impact that implementing hospital-based harm reduction services may have on "other" donors who might be opposed. Although some believed harm reduction services should be fully funded by the government, most saw a role for donors in supporting such services.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show support of hospital-based harm reduction services among philanthropic donors and provide insight into how donor support may be affected when such services are introduced.

'It's the same thing as giving them CPR training': rural first responders' perspectives on naloxone

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Harm Reduction grant program expanded access to several harm reduction strategies to mitigate opioid overdose fatalities, including expanding access to naloxone. Interviews with first responders in a frontier and remote (FAR) state were conducted to understand their job responsibilities in relation to overdose response and prevention and their perceptions of training laypersons to administer naloxone. This study includes 22 interviews with law enforcement, EMS and/or fire personnel, and members of harm reduction-focused community organizations. The study finds widespread support for increasing access to naloxone and training laypersons in naloxone administration throughout Montana, due to rural first responders' inability to meet the needs of residents and an overall lack of resources to address addiction and the effects of fentanyl. Participants from harm reduction-focused community organizations convey support for training lay persons, but also illuminate that real and perceived cultural opposition to harm reduction strategies could reduce the likelihood that laypeople enroll in naloxone training. This study adds to the literature because it focuses on first responders in a FAR area that would benefit from layperson naloxone education and administration training due to its geographic expansiveness and the area's overall lack of access to medications for opioid use disorder or other treatment services. Expanding harm reduction approaches, like increasing access and training laypersons to administer naloxone, might be FAR residents' best chance for surviving an opioid overdose.

Differences in the attitudes towards the opioid crisis between metropolitan and rural counties in Central Texas: Secondary data analysis using cross-sectional data

•

Poorer access to opioid use disorder care reported in rural than in urban areas.

•

Less supports for syringe exchange programs in rural than in urban areas.

•

Important to tailor efforts to address opioid use disorder in rural and urban areas.

This study examined metropolitan and rural differences regarding concerns about opioid misuse and support for different strategies to reduce opioid use disorder risk in areas not designated as high-risk. This study used cross-sectional data from a regional community health assessment, which was collected in 2019 using a combination of stratified random sampling and clinic-based purposive sampling in Central Texas. The secondary data included 430 and 270 respondents from metropolitan and rural (not metropolitan) counties, respectively. The primary outcomes were perceived concern about the opioid crisis, perceived likelihood of getting addiction treatment, and support for strategies to reduce opioid use disorder risks. Multiple multivariable regression models were used to examine metropolitan and rural differences in the outcome variables after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, race, marital status, education, and household income. Respondents were about 58 years old on average. A majority were female (60%), non-Hispanic (88%), and White (83%). About 60% of rural and metropolitan respondents were concerned about opioid use and misuse in their community. After adjusting for respondents’ demographic characteristics, rural respondents were significantly less likely to perceive that individuals are getting the needed opioid use disorder treatment (aOR = 0.69, P = 0.031). Rural respondents were also significantly less supportive for legalizing syringe service programs in their communities (aOR = 0.71, P = 0.044) than metropolitan respondents. Differing attitudes by respondents from metropolitan and rural areas indicate the importance of tailoring prevention and mitigation efforts to address opioid use disorder in advance of an impending public health crisis.

The Opioid Epidemic and the State of Stigma: A Pennsylvania Statewide Survey

Background: The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis. Among initiatives surrounding treatment and prevention, opioid use disorder (OUD) stigma has emerged as a subject for intervention. Objectives: This study examines overall results and demographic differences of three subscales of a public stigma survey instrument: general attitudes, social distance, and treatment availability and effectiveness. Methods: A statewide sample of Pennsylvanian adults (N = 1033) completed an online survey about the opioid epidemic. Weighted percentage level of agreement was reported for each item. To determine significant differences in responding across demographic groups (gender, race, and urban/rural status), multiple one-way ANOVAs were analyzed. Significant differences in the level of agreement and disagreement (p < .05) were reported. Results: The majority of respondents agreed that the opioid epidemic is a problem and that anyone can become addicted to opioids; however, many Pennsylvanians still disagree that OUD is a medical disorder and continue to endorse social distance beliefs of people with OUD. Most participants agreed that there are effective treatments available, and that recovery was possible; however, a large portion of participants were unsure whether specific treatments are effective. Subscale mean differences were significant for gender and age. Conclusions/Importance: Findings highlight that stigmatized attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs about individuals who use opioids are still prevalent and that uncertainty remains about the effectiveness of OUD treatment. OUD interventions should use targeted messaging in order to impact the ongoing opioid crisis.

Harm Reduction Policy Support among Students at Two U.S. Universities

Background: The U.S. is undergoing an opioid overdose crisis. Harm reduction (HR) policies are associated with decreased overdose deaths and incidence of communicable diseases, yet legality of HR policies differs across U.S. jurisdictions. College student perceptions of HR policies are underexplored, even though their voting behavior has increased in recent years. We sought to compare their support of different HR policies and to explore relationships between demographic characteristics and support for HR policies. Methods: We collected cross-sectional, convenience sample survey data from undergraduate students at two large public universities, one in the Midwest and one in the Southeast, during Fall 2018/Spring 2019. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and logistic regressions. Results: The final sample included 1,263 respondents. Good Samaritan laws (n = 833, 66%) and naloxone distribution (n = 476, 37.7%) were most commonly supported, while heroin maintenance treatment (n = 232, 18.4%) and heroin decriminalization (n = 208, 16.5%) were least supported. Democrat/liberal or less religious/spiritual respondents supported HR policies more than their Republican/conservative or religious/spiritual counterparts. Midwestern students were more likely to support syringe services programs. Conclusion: HR education initiatives could target religious and/or Republican/conservative students, as they have lower HR support. Among HR policies, Good Samaritan policies may be easiest to pass in college communities.

Police Officers' addiction frameworks and policy attitudes

Police officers have frequent encounters with people who use drugs, either by making an arrest for a drug-related offense or responding to a drug overdose call. Yet, little is known about how police officers view drug addiction - as a disease, a moral failure, or something else - and how their frameworks for conceptualizing addiction impact their attitudes toward drug policies, including the use of naloxone. This research examined police officers' adherence to a moralistic addiction framework in relation to their support for treatment-oriented drug policies. Officers (N = 618) were surveyed about their beliefs on drug policy and the extent to which drug addiction was a product of one's morals or related to social or biological reasons. Results found that approximately 22% of the variance in drug policy attitudes could be explained by addiction frameworks and control variables. Officers who embraced a biological perspective of addiction were more supportive of policies that expanded treatment, including access to naloxone, and less punitive sanctions. Those with stronger moralistic views were less supportive of expanding treatment initiatives and endorsed expanding punitive sanctions. Officer age and education was positively related with expanding treatment and naloxone use while exposure to overdoses was negatively related to policy support. These results demonstrate that officers' frameworks about drug addiction play an important role in drug policy attitudes and, by extension, how they might interact with people who use drugs.

The intersection of gender and drug use-related stigma: A mixed methods systematic review and synthesis of the literature

BACKGROUND

Substance use-related stigma is a significant barrier to care among persons who use drugs (PWUD). Less is known regarding how intersectional identities, like gender, shape experiences of substance use-related stigma. We sought to answer the following question: Do men or women PWUD experience more drug use stigma?

METHODS

Data were drawn from a systematic review of the global, peer-reviewed scientific literature on substance use-related stigma conducted through 2017 and guided by the Stigma and Substance Use Process Model and PRISMA guidelines. Articles were included in the present analysis if they either qualitatively illustrated themes related to the gendered nature of drug use-related stigma, or quantitatively tested the moderating effect of gender on drug use-related stigma.

RESULTS

Of the 75 studies included, 40 (53 %) were quantitative and 35 (47 %) were qualitative. Of the quantitative articles, 22 (55 %) found no association between gender and drug use-related stigma, 4 (10 %) identified women who use drugs (WWUD) were more stigmatized, and 2 (5 %) determined men who use drugs (MWUD) were more stigmatized. In contrast, nearly all (34; 97 %) of the qualitative articles demonstrated WWUD experienced greater levels of drug use-related stigma.

CONCLUSION

The quantitative literature is equivocal regarding the influence of gender on drug use-related stigma, but the qualitative literature more clearly demonstrates WWUD experience greater levels of stigma. The use of validated drug use-related stigma measures and the tailoring of stigma scales to WWUD are needed to understand the role of stigma in heightening the disproportionate harms experienced by WWUD.

Public support for harm reduction: A population survey of Canadian adults

We described public views toward harm reduction among Canadian adults and tested a social exposure model predicting support for these contentious services, drawing on theories in the morality policy, intergroup relations, addiction, and media communication literatures. A quota sample of 4645 adults (18+ years), randomly drawn from an online research panel and stratified to match age and sex distributions of adults within and across Canadian provinces, was recruited in June 2018. Participants completed survey items assessing support for harm reduction for people who use drugs (PWUD) and for seven harm reduction interventions. Additional items assessed exposure to media coverage on harm reduction, and scales assessing stigma toward PWUD (α = .72), personal familiarity with PWUD (α = .84), and disease model beliefs about addiction (α = .79). Most (64%) Canadians supported harm reduction (provincial estimates = 60% - 73%). Five of seven interventions received majority support, including: outreach (79%), naloxone (72%), drug checking (70%), needle distribution (60%) and supervised drug consumption (55%). Low-threshold opioid agonist treatment and safe inhalation interventions received less support (49% and 44%). Our social exposure model, adjusted for respondent sex, household income, political views, and education, exhibited good fit and accounted for 17% of variance in public support for harm reduction. Personal familiarity with PWUD and disease model beliefs about addiction were directly associated with support (βs = .07 and -0.10, respectively), and indirectly influenced public support via stigmatized attitudes toward PWUD (βs = 0.01 and -0.01, respectively). Strategies to increase support for harm reduction could problematize certain disease model beliefs (e.g., "There are only two possibilities for an alcoholic or drug addict-permanent abstinence or death") and creating opportunities to reduce social distance between PWUD, the public, and policy makers.

French People's positions on supervised injection facilities for drug users

BACKGROUND

Supervised injection facilities have been set-up in many countries to curb the health risks associated with unsafe injection practices. These facilities have, however, been met with vocal opposition, notably in France. As harm reduction policies can only succeed to the extent that people agree with them, this study mapped French people's opinions regarding the setting-up of these facilities.

METHOD

A sample of 318 adults--among them health professionals--were presented with 48 vignettes depicting plans to create a supervised injection facility in their town. Each vignette contained three pieces of information: (a) the type of substance that would be injected in the facility (amphetamines only, amphetamines and cocaine only, or amphetamines, cocaine and heroin), (b) the type of staff who would be working in the facility (physicians and nurses, specially trained former drug users, specially trained current drug users, or trained volunteers recruited by the municipality), and (c) the staff members' mission (to be present and observe only, technical counselling about safe injection, counselling about safe injection and hygiene, or counselling and encouragement to follow a detoxification program).

RESULTS

Through cluster analysis, three qualitatively different positions were found: Not very acceptable (20%), Depends on staff and mission (49%), and Always acceptable (31%). These positions were associated with demographic characteristics--namely gender, age and political orientation.

CONCLUSION

French people's positions regarding supervised injection facilities were extremely diverse. One type of facility would, however, be accepted by a large majority of people: supervised injection facilities run by health professionals whose mission would be, in addition to technical and hygienic counselling, to encourage patrons to enter detoxification or rehabilitation programs.

Opposition to Nonprescription Naloxone Access: Measurement and Psychosocial Predictors

Background: Access of naloxone has been increased in recent years, yet opposition to unrestricted availability persists. Objectives: To validate a measure of opposition to the policy of nonprescription naloxone and foster a better understanding of the characteristics of individuals who oppose such a policy. Methods: Respondents from a crowdsource platform (N = 621) responded to an instrument developed to assess opposition to nonprescription naloxone. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relationship of the opposition scale with measures of social distance, belief in a just world, right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO), perceptions of the degree of threat to the nation presented by opioid users, past exposure to opioid misuse, and conservative political ideology. Results: A 9-item measure of opposition emerged (α=.96). Opposition to nonprescription naloxone was generally associated with construct validation variables as expected. In a regression analysis that adjusted for demographic characteristics, opposition was most strongly related to authoritarianism, the perception that opioid users present a threat to our nation, the belief that we live in a just world, social dominance orientation, greater perceived social distance between self and opioid users, and past experiences with users. Opposition scores differentiated those who supported versus opposed specific policies regarding naloxone access and were particularly high among Republicans. Most respondents did not oppose policies on nonprescription naloxone access. Conclusions/Importance: The instrument developed provides a reliable and valid tool that enables future investigations into understanding and overcoming the psychological, social, and political foundations of opposition to expanded naloxone access.

The value of harm reduction for injection drug use: A clinical and public health ethics analysis

The US is facing dual public health crises related to opioid overdose deaths and HIV. Injection drug use is fueling both of these epidemics. The War on Drugs has failed to stem injection drug use and has contributed to mass incarceration, poverty, and racial disparities. Harm reduction is an alternative approach that seeks to decrease direct and indirect harms associated with drug use without necessarily decreasing drug consumption. Although overwhelming evidence demonstrates that harm reduction is effective in mitigating harms associated with drug use and is cost-effective in providing these benefits, harm reduction remains controversial and the ethical implications of harm reduction modalities have not been well explored. This paper analyzes harm reduction for injection drug use using the core principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice from both clinical ethics and public health ethics perspectives. This framework is applied to harm reduction modalities currently in use in the US, including opioid maintenance therapy, needle and syringe exchange programs, and opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution. Harm reduction interventions employed outside of the US, including safer injection facilities, heroin-assisted treatment, and decriminalization/legalization are then discussed. This analysis concludes that harm reduction is ethically sound and should be an integral aspect of our nation's healthcare system for combating the opioid crisis. From a clinical ethics perspective, harm reduction promotes the autonomy of, prevents harms to, advances the well-being of, and upholds justice for persons who use drugs. From a public health ethics perspective, harm reduction advances health equity, addresses racial disparities, and serves vulnerable, disadvantaged populations in a cost-effective manner.

Public support for safe consumption sites and syringe services programs to combat the opioid epidemic

We examine Americans' support for two evidence-based harm reduction strategies - safe consumption sites and syringe exchange programs - and their attitudes about individuals who use opioids. We conducted a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults in July-August 2017 (N = 1004). We measured respondents' support for legalizing safe consumption sites and syringe services programs in their communities and their attitudes toward people who use opioids. We used ordered logistic regression to assess how stigmatizing attitudes toward people who use opioids, political party identification, and demographic characteristics correlated with support for the two harm reduction strategies. Twenty-nine percent of Americans supported legalizing safe consumption sites and 39% supported legalizing syringe services programs. Respondents reported high levels of stigmatizing attitudes toward people who use opioids: 16% of respondents were willing to have a person using opioids marry into their family and 28% were willing to have a person using opioids start working closely with them on a job, and 27% and 10% of respondents rated persons who use opioids as deserving (versus worthless) and strong (versus weak). Stigmatizing attitudes were associated with lower support for legalizing safe consumption sites and syringe services programs. Democrats and Independents were more likely than Republicans to support both strategies. Stigmatizing attitudes toward people who use opioids are a key modifiable barrier to garnering the public support needed to fully implement evidence-based harm reduction strategies to combat the opioid epidemic. Dissemination and evaluation of stigma reduction campaigns are a public health priority.

Internalized stigma as an independent risk factor for substance use problems among primary care patients: Rationale and preliminary support

BACKGROUND

Little is known about internalized stigma among primary care patients, and whether the presence of internalized stigma is related to the severity of substance use problems independent of substance use-related variables. We sought to examine the relationship between internalized stigma and substance use problems among primary care patients with opioid or alcohol use disorders (OAUDs).

METHODS

We present baseline data from 393 primary care patients who were enrolled in a study of collaborative care for OAUDs. Regression analyses examined the relationship between internalized stigma and substance use problems, controlling for demographics, psychiatric comorbidity, and quantity/frequency of use.

RESULTS

The majority of participants reported thinking, at least sometimes, that they "have permanently screwed up" their lives (60%), and felt "ashamed" (60%), and "out of place in the world" (51%) as a result of their opioid or alcohol use. Higher internalized stigma was significantly related to more substance use problems (β=2.68, p<0.01), even after the effects of covariates were accounted for. Stigma added 22%, out of 51% total variance explained, leading to a significant improvement in prediction of substance use problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Among this group of primary care patients with OAUDs, rates of internalized stigma were comparable to those reported in specialty substance use treatment settings. Consistent with extant specialty care literature, our results suggest that internalized stigma may be a unique contributor that is associated with treatment outcomes, such as substance use problems, among primary care patients with OAUDs.

Towards greater understanding of addiction stigma: Intersectionality with race/ethnicity and gender

BACKGROUND

In spite of the significant burden associated with substance use disorders, especially among persons who inject drugs (PWIDs), most affected individuals do not engage with any type of formal or informal treatment. Addiction stigma, which is represented by negative social attitudes toward individuals who use alcohol and/or other drugs, is one of the barriers to care that is poorly understood. The current study: a) assessed implicit (indirect and difficult to consciously control) and explicit (consciously controlled) beliefs about PWIDs among visitors to a public web site; and b) experimentally investigated the effects of ethnicity/race and gender on those implicit and explicit beliefs.

METHODS

N=899 predominantly White (70%) and women (62%) were randomly assigned to one of six target PWIDs conditions: gender (man/woman) x race/ethnicity (White, Black, Latino/a). Participants completed an Implicit Association Test and explicit assessment of addiction stigma.

RESULTS

Participants implicitly associated PWIDs (especially Latino/a vs. White PWIDs) with deserving punishment as opposed to help (p=0.003, d=0.31), indicating presence of addiction stigma-related implicit beliefs. However, this bias was not evident on the explicit measure (p=0.89). Gender did not predict differential implicit or explicit addiction stigma (p=0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to explicit egalitarian views towards PWIDs, participants' implicit beliefs were more in line with addiction stigma. If replicated and clearer ties to behavior are established, results suggest the potential importance of identifying conditions under which implicit bias might influence behavior (even despite explicit egalitarian views) and increase the likelihood of discrimination towards PWIDs.