Geoff Bardwell1,2, Taylor Fleming3,4, Ryan McNeil3,5, Jade Boyd3,6. 1. British Columbia Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada. geoff.bardwell@bccsu.ubc.ca. 2. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, St. Paul's Hospital, 608-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada. geoff.bardwell@bccsu.ubc.ca. 3. British Columbia Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada. 4. Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program, University of British Columbia, 270-2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. 5. Yale School of Medicine, 367 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, St. Paul's Hospital, 608-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: North America is amidst an opioid overdose epidemic. In many settings, particularly Canada, the majority of overdose deaths occur indoors and impact structurally vulnerable people who use drugs alone, making targeted housing-based interventions a priority. Mobile applications have been developed that allow individuals to solicit help to prevent overdose death. We examine the experiences of women residents utilizing an overdose response button technology within a supportive housing environment. METHODS: In October 2019, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 14 residents of a women-only supportive housing building in an urban setting where the overdose response button technology was installed. Data was analyzed thematically and framed by theories of structural vulnerability. RESULTS: While participants described the utility and disadvantages of the technology for overdose response, most participants, unexpectedly described alternate adoptions of the technology. Participants used the technology for other emergency situations (e.g., gender-based violence), rather than its intended purpose of overdose response. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the limitations of current technologies while also demonstrating the clear need for housing-based emergency response interventions that address not just overdose risk but also gender-based violence. These need to be implemented alongside larger strategies to address structural vulnerabilities and provide greater agency to marginalized women who use drugs.
BACKGROUND: North America is amidst an opioid overdose epidemic. In many settings, particularly Canada, the majority of overdose deaths occur indoors and impact structurally vulnerable people who use drugs alone, making targeted housing-based interventions a priority. Mobile applications have been developed that allow individuals to solicit help to prevent overdose death. We examine the experiences of women residents utilizing an overdose response button technology within a supportive housing environment. METHODS: In October 2019, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 14 residents of a women-only supportive housing building in an urban setting where the overdose response button technology was installed. Data was analyzed thematically and framed by theories of structural vulnerability. RESULTS: While participants described the utility and disadvantages of the technology for overdose response, most participants, unexpectedly described alternate adoptions of the technology. Participants used the technology for other emergency situations (e.g., gender-based violence), rather than its intended purpose of overdose response. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the limitations of current technologies while also demonstrating the clear need for housing-based emergency response interventions that address not just overdose risk but also gender-based violence. These need to be implemented alongside larger strategies to address structural vulnerabilities and provide greater agency to marginalized women who use drugs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Housing; Mobile technologies; Opioid overdose; Sex work; Violence; Women
Authors: Kate Shannon; Thomas Kerr; Shari Allinott; Jill Chettiar; Jean Shoveller; Mark W Tyndall Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Andrea A Jones; Kerry Jang; William J Panenka; Alasdair M Barr; G William MacEwan; Allen E Thornton; William G Honer Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Katie Kanter; Ryan Gallagher; Feyisope Eweje; Alexander Lee; David Gordon; Stephen Landy; Julia Gasior; Haideliza Soto-Calderon; Peter F Cronholm; Ben Cocchiaro; James Weimer; Alexis Roth; Stephen Lankenau; Jacob Brenner Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2021-07-23