The POP (Permanent Supportive Housing Overdose Prevention) Study: protocol for a hybrid type 3 stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial

A community-academic partnership to develop an implementation support package for overdose prevention in permanent supportive housing

INTRODUCTION

The overdose crisis in the U.S. disproportionately impacts people experiencing homelessness. Permanent supportive housing (PSH) - permanent, affordable housing with voluntary support services - is an effective, evidence-based intervention to address homelessness. However, overdose risk remains high even after entering PSH for individual and structural reasons. In this study, we aimed to refine a set of evidence-based overdose prevention practices (EBPs) and an associated implementation support package for PSH settings using focus groups with PSH tenants, frontline staff, and leaders.

METHODS

Our community-academic team identified an initial set of overdose EBPs applicable for PSH through research, public health guidance, and a needs assessment. We adapted these practices based on feedback from focus groups with PSH leaders, staff, and tenants. Focus groups followed semi-structured interview guides developed using the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) framework constructs of inner context, outer context, and bridging factors related to overdose prevention and response.

RESULTS

We conducted 16 focus groups with 40 unique participants (14 PSH tenants, 15 PSH staff, 11 PSH leaders); focus groups were held in two iterative rounds and individuals could participate in one or both rounds. Participants were diverse in gender, race, and ethnicity. Focus group participants were enthusiastic about the proposed EBPs and implementation strategies, while contributing unique insights and concrete suggestions to improve upon them. The implementation support package contains an iteratively refined PSH Overdose Prevention (POP) Toolkit with 20 EBPs surrounding overdose prevention and response, harm reduction, and support for substance use treatment and additional core implementation strategies including practice facilitation, tenant-staff champion teams, and learning collaboratives.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript describes how robust community-academic partnerships and input from people with lived experience as tenants and staff in PSH informed adaptation of evidence-based overdose prevention approaches and implementation strategies to improve their fit for PSH settings. This effort can inform similar efforts nationally in other settings serving highly marginalized populations. We are currently conducting a randomized trial of the refined overdose prevention implementation support package in PSH.

Using drugs alone in single room occupancy housing: Understanding environmental drivers of overdose risk

BACKGROUND

Across North America most overdose deaths occur in housing, largely due to individuals using drugs alone. In cities, fatalities are disproportionately concentrated in low-income housing, including single room occupancy (SRO) housing. While research has highlighted how SROs operate as risk environments for various poor outcomes, there has been little attention to specific drug use practices (i.e., using alone) associated with overdose vulnerability in these spaces. This study explores how environmental contexts of SROs shape overdose risks, with specific attention to practices of using drugs alone.

METHODS

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 people who use drugs (PWUD) living in Vancouver SROs. Interviews covered topics such as social-structural environments of housing, drug use practices, and housing-based harm reduction. Thematic analysis drew on the intersectional risk environment framework.

RESULTS

Narratives positioned SROs as extensions of public space, with similar expectations of risks and behaviours as in public spaces. For some participants, using alone in their room was characterized as a practice in claiming privacy within the context of a public existence. Participants highlighted how certain features of SRO's social-structural environments were routinely leveraged against them (e.g., security cameras, staff surveillance), suggesting using alone as a tactic to minimize risks of hyper-surveillance and punitive policies. Further, participants discussed using alone as "safer," describing how this practice mitigated place-based risks of social-structural harms (e.g., violence, criminalization) in ways that eclipsed overdose risk.

CONCLUSION

Using drugs alone may be understood as a spatial negotiation of vulnerability to diverse harms produced by environmental contexts of SROs. Interventions accounting for broader contextual factors (e.g., improvements housing quality/quantity, providing a safer supply of drugs) that render using alone as instrumental to survival, and that reduce the implicit threat of punishment from intensive surveillance and control practices are critical to reduce vulnerability to overdose and other harms.

Radical hospitality: Innovative programming to build community and meet the needs of people who use drugs at a government-sanctioned overdose prevention site in San Francisco, California

BACKGROUND

The Tenderloin Center (TLC), a multi-service center where people could receive or be connected to basic needs, behavioral health care, housing, and medical services, was open in San Francisco for 46 weeks in 2022. Within a week of operation, services expanded to include an overdose prevention site (OPS), also known as safe consumption site. OPSs have operated internationally for over three decades, but government-sanctioned OPSs have only recently been implemented in the United States. We used ethnographic methods to understand the ways in which a sanctioned OPS, situated in a multi-service center, impacts the lives of people who use drugs (PWUD).

METHODS

We conducted participant observation and in-depth interviews June-December 2022. Extensive field notes and 39 in-depth interviews with 24 TLC guests and 15 TLC staff were analyzed using an inductive analysis approach. Interviewees were asked detailed questions about their experiences using and working at the TLC.

RESULTS

TLC guests and staff described an atmosphere where radical hospitality-welcoming guests with extraordinary warmth, generosity, and unconditional acceptance-was central to the culture. We found that the co-location of an OPS within a multi-service agency (1) allowed for the culture of radical hospitality to flourish, (2) yielded a convenient one-stop shop model, (3) created a space for community building, and (4) offered safety and respite to guests.

CONCLUSIONS

The co-location of an OPS within a multi-service drop-in center is an important example of how such an organization can build positive sociality among PWUD while protecting autonomy and reducing overdose mortality. Overdose response and reversal is an act of relational accountability in which friends, peers, and even strangers intervene to protect and revive one another. This powerful intervention was operationalized as an anti-oppressive, horizontal activity through radical hospitality with a built environment that allowed PWUD to be both social and safe.

Using alone at home: What's missing in housing-based responses to the overdose crisis?

BACKGROUND

Against the backdrop of North America's overdose crisis, most overdose deaths are occurring in housing environments, largely due to individuals using drugs alone. Overdose deaths in cities remain concentrated in marginal housing environments (e.g., single-room occupancy housing, shelters), which are often the only forms of housing available to urban poor and drug-using communities. This commentary aims to highlight current housing-based overdose prevention interventions and to situate them within the broader environmental contexts of marginal housing. In doing so, we call attention to the need to better understand marginal housing as sites of overdose vulnerability and public health intervention to optimize responses to the overdose crisis.

HARM REDUCTION AND OVERDOSE PREVENTION IN HOUSING

In response to high overdose rates in marginal housing environments several interventions (e.g., housing-based supervised consumption rooms, peer-witnessed injection) have recently been implemented in select jurisdictions. However, even with the growing recognition of marginal housing as a key intervention site, housing-based interventions have yet to be scaled up in a meaningful way. Further, there have been persistent challenges to tailoring these approaches to address dynamics within housing environments. Thus, while it is critical to expand coverage of housing-based interventions across marginal housing environments, these interventions must also attend to the contextual drivers of risks in these settings to best foster enabling environments for harm reduction and maximize impacts.

CONCLUSION

Emerging housing-focused interventions are designed to address key drivers of overdose risk (e.g., using alone, toxic drug supply). Yet, broader contextual factors (e.g., drug criminalization, housing quality, gender) are equally critical factors that shape how structurally vulnerable people who use drugs navigate and engage with harm reduction interventions. A more comprehensive understanding of these contextual factors within housing environments is needed to inform policy and programmatic interventions that are responsive to the needs of people who use drugs in these settings.