E Childs1, K B Biello2, P K Valente3, P Salhaney4, D L Biancarelli5, J Olson4, J J Earlywine6, B D L Marshall7, A R Bazzi8. 1. Abt Associates, Rockville, MD, USA. 2. Center for Health Promotion and Health Equity, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA; Department of Behavioral & Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA; The Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Behavioral & Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA. 4. Center for Health Promotion and Health Equity, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 5. Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA. 8. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: abazzi@bu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Harm reduction services, which typically provide overdose education and prevention with distribution of naloxone and other supplies related to safer drug use, help reduce opioid-related overdose and infectious disease transmission. However, structural stigma and the ongoing criminalization of drug use have limited the expansion of harm reduction services into many non-urban communities in the United States that have been increasingly affected by the health consequences of opioid and polysubstance use. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 22 professionals working with people who use drugs in cities and towns across Rhode Island and Massachusetts to understand challenges and strategies for engaging communities in accepting harm reduction perspectives and services. RESULTS: Our thematic analysis identified several interrelated challenges to implementing harm reduction services in non-urban communities, including: (1) limited understandings of harm reduction practice and preferential focus on substance use treatment and primary prevention, (2) community-level stigma against people who use drugs as well as the agencies supporting them, (3) data reporting and aggregating leading to inaccurate perceptions about local patterns of substance use and related health consequences, and (4) a "prosecutorial mindset" against drug use and harm reduction. From key informants' narratives, we also identified specific strategies that communities could use to address these challenges, including: (1) identifying local champions to advocate for harm reduction strategies, (2) proactively educating communities about harm reduction approaches before they are implemented, (3) improving the visibility of harm reduction services within communities, and (4) obtaining "buy-in" from a wide range of local stakeholders including law enforcement and local government. CONCLUSION: These findings carry important implications for expanding harm reduction services, including syringe service programs and safe injection sites, into non-urban communities that have a demonstrated need for evidence-based interventions to reduce drug-related overdose and infectious disease transmission.
BACKGROUND: Harm reduction services, which typically provide overdose education and prevention with distribution of naloxone and other supplies related to safer drug use, help reduce opioid-related overdose and infectious disease transmission. However, structural stigma and the ongoing criminalization of drug use have limited the expansion of harm reduction services into many non-urban communities in the United States that have been increasingly affected by the health consequences of opioid and polysubstance use. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 22 professionals working with people who use drugs in cities and towns across Rhode Island and Massachusetts to understand challenges and strategies for engaging communities in accepting harm reduction perspectives and services. RESULTS: Our thematic analysis identified several interrelated challenges to implementing harm reduction services in non-urban communities, including: (1) limited understandings of harm reduction practice and preferential focus on substance use treatment and primary prevention, (2) community-level stigma against people who use drugs as well as the agencies supporting them, (3) data reporting and aggregating leading to inaccurate perceptions about local patterns of substance use and related health consequences, and (4) a "prosecutorial mindset" against drug use and harm reduction. From key informants' narratives, we also identified specific strategies that communities could use to address these challenges, including: (1) identifying local champions to advocate for harm reduction strategies, (2) proactively educating communities about harm reduction approaches before they are implemented, (3) improving the visibility of harm reduction services within communities, and (4) obtaining "buy-in" from a wide range of local stakeholders including law enforcement and local government. CONCLUSION: These findings carry important implications for expanding harm reduction services, including syringe service programs and safe injection sites, into non-urban communities that have a demonstrated need for evidence-based interventions to reduce drug-related overdose and infectious disease transmission.
Authors: Jonathon P Leider; Michael Meit; J Mac McCullough; Beth Resnick; Debra Dekker; Y Natalia Alfonso; David Bishai Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Su Albert; Fred W Brason; Catherine K Sanford; Nabarun Dasgupta; Jim Graham; Beth Lovette Journal: Pain Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: David Otiashvili; Gvantsa Piralishvili; Zura Sikharulidze; George Kamkamidze; Sabrina Poole; George E Woody Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2013-07-31 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Esther J Aspinall; Dhanya Nambiar; David J Goldberg; Matthew Hickman; Amanda Weir; Eva Van Velzen; Norah Palmateer; Joseph S Doyle; Margaret E Hellard; Sharon J Hutchinson Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2013-12-27 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Kasey R Claborn; Suzannah Creech; Quanisha Whittfield; Ruben Parra-Cardona; Andrea Daugherty; Justin Benzer Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Denalee M O'Malley; Cilgy M Abraham; Heather S Lee; Ellen B Rubinstein; Jenna Howard; Shawna V Hudson; Autumn M Kieber-Emmons; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Martina Whelshula; Margo Hill; S E Galaitsi; Benjamin Trump; Emerson Mahoney; Avi Mersky; Kelsey Poinsatte-Jones; Igor Linkov Journal: Environ Syst Decis Date: 2021-04-21