Alissa M Greer1,2,3,4, Ashraf Amlani5, Charlene Burmeister5, Alex Scott6, Cheri Newman5, Hugh Lampkin5,7, Bernie Pauly8, Jane A Buxton5,9. 1. BC Centre for Disease Control, 655 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4R4, Canada. a.greer@utoronto.ca. 2. Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies Program, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada. a.greer@utoronto.ca. 3. SPPH, University of British Columbia, 2329 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. a.greer@utoronto.ca. 4. Technology Enterprise Facility, Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, 2300 Mackenzie Avenue, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada. a.greer@utoronto.ca. 5. BC Centre for Disease Control, 655 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4R4, Canada. 6. Providence Health, 3080 Prince Edward St, Vancouver, BC, V5T 3N4, Canada. 7. Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, 380 East Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, V6A 1P4, Canada. 8. Technology Enterprise Facility, Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, 2300 Mackenzie Avenue, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada. 9. SPPH, University of British Columbia, 2329 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Globally, engaging people who have used drugs, or peers, in decision-making has been increasingly touted as a best practice approach to developing priorities, programs, and policies. Peer engagement ensures decisions are relevant, appropriate, and effective to the affected community. However, ensuring that inclusion is accessible and equitable for those involved remains a challenge. In this study, we examined the perspectives of people who use or have used illicit drugs (PWUD) on peer engagement in health and harm reduction settings across British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS: The Peer Engagement and Evaluation Project used a participatory approach to conducting 13 peer-facilitated focus groups (n = 83) across BC. Focus group data were coded and analyzed with five peer research assistants. Themes about the nature of peer engagement were generated. From this analysis, peer engagement barriers and enablers were identified. RESULTS: Barriers to peer engagement included individual, geographical, systemic, and social factors. Issues related to stigma, confidentiality, and mistrust were intensely discussed among participants. Being "outed" in one's community was a barrier to engagement, particularly in rural areas. Participants voiced that compensation, setting, and the right people help facilitate and motivate engagement. Peer networks are an essential ingredient to engagement by promoting support and advocacy. CONCLUSION: PWUD are important stakeholders in decisions that affect them. This cross-jurisdictional study investigated how PWUD have experienced engagement efforts in BC, identifying several factors that influence participation. Meaningful engagement can be facilitated by attention to communication, relationships, personal capacity, and compassion between peers and other professionals.
OBJECTIVES: Globally, engaging people who have used drugs, or peers, in decision-making has been increasingly touted as a best practice approach to developing priorities, programs, and policies. Peer engagement ensures decisions are relevant, appropriate, and effective to the affected community. However, ensuring that inclusion is accessible and equitable for those involved remains a challenge. In this study, we examined the perspectives of people who use or have used illicit drugs (PWUD) on peer engagement in health and harm reduction settings across British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS: The Peer Engagement and Evaluation Project used a participatory approach to conducting 13 peer-facilitated focus groups (n = 83) across BC. Focus group data were coded and analyzed with five peer research assistants. Themes about the nature of peer engagement were generated. From this analysis, peer engagement barriers and enablers were identified. RESULTS: Barriers to peer engagement included individual, geographical, systemic, and social factors. Issues related to stigma, confidentiality, and mistrust were intensely discussed among participants. Being "outed" in one's community was a barrier to engagement, particularly in rural areas. Participants voiced that compensation, setting, and the right people help facilitate and motivate engagement. Peer networks are an essential ingredient to engagement by promoting support and advocacy. CONCLUSION: PWUD are important stakeholders in decisions that affect them. This cross-jurisdictional study investigated how PWUD have experienced engagement efforts in BC, identifying several factors that influence participation. Meaningful engagement can be facilitated by attention to communication, relationships, personal capacity, and compassion between peers and other professionals.
Entities:
Keywords:
Community participation; Consumer participation; Drug users; Focus groups; Harm reduction; Rural health
Authors: Pamela Attree; Beverley French; Beth Milton; Susan Povall; Margaret Whitehead; Jennie Popay Journal: Health Soc Care Community Date: 2010-12-08
Authors: R Travers; M G Wilson; S Flicker; A Guta; T Bereket; C McKay; A van der Meulen; S Cleverly; M Dickie; J Globerman; S B Rourke Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2008-07
Authors: Anish P Mahajan; Jennifer N Sayles; Vishal A Patel; Robert H Remien; Sharif R Sawires; Daniel J Ortiz; Greg Szekeres; Thomas J Coates Journal: AIDS Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Graham Brown; Sione Crawford; Gari-Emma Perry; Jude Byrne; James Dunne; Daniel Reeders; Angela Corry; Jane Dicka; Hunter Morgan; Sam Jones Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2019-06-10
Authors: Zahra Mamdani; Sophie McKenzie; Bernadette Pauly; Fred Cameron; Jennifer Conway-Brown; Denice Edwards; Amy Howell; Tracy Scott; Ryan Seguin; Peter Woodrow; Jane A Buxton Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2021-02-11
Authors: Ka Yan Ho; Ka Wai Katherine Lam; Edmond Tak Fai Tong; Shara Ho; Cynthia Sau Ting Wu; Man Nok Tong; Lai Ngo Tang; Yim Wah Mak Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 4.614