Background: The current illicit drug overdose crisis within North America and other countries requires expanded and new responses to address unpredictable and potentially lethal substances, including fentanyl analogues, in the unregulated drug market. Community-wide drug checking is being increasingly explored as one such public health response. We explored how drug checking could be implemented as a potential harm reduction response to the overdose crisis, from the perspective of potential service users. Methods: The research was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We conducted a qualitative, pre-implementation study to inform development and implementation of drug checking services that are acceptable to people who use substances and meet their needs. University and community researchers conducted 27 in-depth interviews with potential service users at prospective drug checking sites. We inductively developed emerging themes to inform the implementation of drug checking services within the five domains of the CFIR, and identified the most relevant constructs. Results: Implementing community drug checking faces significant challenges within the current context of criminalization and stigmatization of substance use and people who use/sell drugs, and trauma experienced by potential service users. Participants identified significant risks in accessing drug checking, and that confidential and anonymous services are critical to address these. Engaging people with lived experience in the service can help establish trust. The relative advantage of drug checking needs to outweigh risks through provision of accurate results conveyed in a respectful, non-judgemental way. Drug checking should provide knowledge relevant to using and/or selling drugs and informing one's own harm reduction.

No abstract

Gaps remain in knowledge of changes in sexual orientation past adolescence and early adulthood. A longitudinal study of a New Zealand birth cohort was used to examine differences by age and sex in change in sexual attraction between 21 (1993/1994) and 38 years (2010/2011), sexual experiences between 26 and 38 years, and sexual identity between 32 and 38 years. Any same-sex attraction was significantly more common among women than men at all ages. Among women, any same-sex attraction increased up to age 26 (from 8.8 to 16.6 %), then decreased slightly by age 38 (12.0 %); among men, prevalence was significantly higher at age 38 (6.5 %) than 21 (4.2 %), but not in the intermediate assessments. It is likely that the social environment becoming more tolerant was responsible for some of the changes. Same-sex attraction was much more common than same-sex experiences or a same-sex identity, especially among women, with no major sex differences in these latter dimensions. Women exhibited much greater change in sexual attraction between assessments than men; for change in experiences and identity, sex differences were less marked and not statistically confirmed. Changes in the respective dimensions appeared more likely among those initially with mixed attraction and experiences, and among those initially identifying as bisexual, but this did not account for the sex difference in likelihood of change. These results provide contemporary information about the extent and variation of reported sexual attraction, experiences, and identity that we show continues across early and mid-adulthood.

Background As drug checking becomes more integrated within public health responses to the overdose crisis, and potentially more institutionalized, there is value in critically questioning the impacts of drug checking as a harm reduction response. Methods As part of a pilot project to implement community drug checking in Victoria, BC, Canada, in-depth interviews (N = 27) were held with people who use or have used substances, family or friends of people who use substances, and/or people who make or distribute substances. Critical harm reduction and social justice perspectives and a socioecological model guided our analysis to understand the potential role of drug checking within the overdose crisis, from the perspective of prospective service users. Results Participants provided insight into who might benefit from community drug checking and potential benefits. They indicated drug checking addresses a “shared need” that could benefit people who use substances, people who care for people who use substances, and people who sell substances. Using a socioecological model, we identified four overarching themes corresponding to benefits at each level: “drug checking to improve health and wellbeing of people who use substances”, “drug checking to increase quality control in an unregulated market”, “drug checking to create healthier environments”, and “drug checking to mediate policies around substance use”. Conclusions Drug checking requires a universal approach to meet the needs of diverse populations who use substances, and must not be focused on abstinence based outcomes. As a harm reduction response, community drug checking has potential impacts beyond the individual level. These include increasing power and accountability within the illicit drug market, improving the health of communities, supporting safer supply initiatives and regulation of substances, and mitigating harms of criminalization. Evaluation of drug checking should consider potential impacts that extend beyond individual behaviour change and recognize lived realities and structural conditions.

BackgroundThere is a growing emphasis in public health on the importance of evidence-based interventions to improve population health and reduce health inequities. Equally important is the need for knowledge about how to implement these interventions successfully. Yet, a gap remains between the development of evidence-based public health interventions and their successful implementation. Conventional systematic reviews have been conducted on effective implementation in health care, but few in public health, so their relevance to public health is unclear. In most reviews, stringent inclusion criteria have excluded entire bodies of evidence that may be relevant for policy makers, program planners, and practitioners to understand implementation in the unique public health context. Realist synthesis is a theory-driven methodology that draws on diverse data from different study designs to explain how and why observed outcomes occur in different contexts and thus may be more appropriate for public health.MethodsThis paper presents a realist review protocol to answer the research question: Why are some public health interventions successfully implemented and others not? Based on a review of implementation theories and frameworks, we developed an initial program theory, adapted for public health from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, to explain the implementation outcomes of public health interventions within particular contexts. This will guide us through the review process, which comprises eight iterative steps based on established realist review guidelines and quality standards. We aim to refine this initial theory into a ‘final’ realist program theory that explains important context-mechanism-outcome configurations in the successful implementation of public health interventions.DiscussionDeveloping new public health interventions is costly and policy windows that support their implementation can be short lived. Ineffective implementation wastes scarce resources and is neither affordable nor sustainable. Public health interventions that are not implemented will not have their intended effects on improving population health and promoting health equity. This synthesis will provide evidence to support effective implementation of public health interventions taking into account the variable context of interventions. A series of knowledge translation products specific to the needs of knowledge users will be developed to provide implementation support.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015030052Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0229-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.