Bereaved mothers’ engagement in drug policy reform: A multisite qualitative analysis

Jenkins, Emily; Slemon, Allie; Morris, Heather; Hyshka, Elaine; Schulz, Petra; Haines‐Saah, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.103011

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a community-based response to overdose, drug checking benefits from considering and reaching the multiple publics impacted by substance use, stigma and overdose [ 17 ]. Furthermore, evaluations of drug checking as a public health intervention should incorporate measures of reach and impacts beyond the individual accessing services and individual behavioral change as the impacts of third party drug checking on reducing the risks and harms of illicit substances was not included in our data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Third party drug checking: accessing harm reduction services on the behalf of others

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Drug checking uses chemical analytical technologies to analyze drugs from the unregulated market to reduce substance use-related risks. We aim to examine the frequency of third party use of a community drug checking service to explore the potential for harm reduction to extend beyond the individual into the community, increase service accessibility, and to contribute to upstream interventions in the supply. Methods Over 31 months, data were collected from a point-of-care drug checking service operated in Victoria, Canada. Through the implementation of survey questions at the intake of the service, data were collected about whether the drug check was for the individual, to sell, and/or for others. Results Just over half (52%) of service users were checking for reasons that extended beyond individual use. When checking for others, friends were the most common response, representing 52% of responses, and outreach/support workers checking for others was the second most at 32%. Twelve percent of service users reported checking to sell or for a supplier. Conclusions Third party checking is a frequent, and important aspect of drug checking services, which through facilitating community engagement and increasing accessibility, has expanded the reach of interventions beyond individuals to reduce risks within the unregulated market. Therefore, drug checking as an overdose response should be responsive and accessible for those using the service on the behalf of others.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Third party drug checking: accessing harm reduction services on the behalf of others

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recurring ideas across communities focused on the development of peer support networks and manuals on how caregivers can best support young people using opioids. As shown by our study and others [ 44 , 46 , 47 ], such solutions could promote caregivers’ knowledge and tools, resilience, and advocacy for more timely and appropriate interventions and policies. Participants also emphasized the need to expand organizational and systems-level capacity so that they could focus on being a parent/guardian instead of “connecting the dots” (Caregiver in Victoria) between service providers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

Becoming our young people’s case managers: caregivers’ experiences, needs, and ideas for improving opioid use treatments for young people using opioids

Marchand

Turuba

Katan

et al. 2022

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence continues to show that young people, ages 15-24, remain at significant risk of harms from non-medical opioid use and opioid use disorder (OUD), with experts calling for widespread implementation of developmentally-appropriate interventions. These recommendations include the involvement of caregivers in the prevention, early intervention, and treatment of young people using opioids. However, little research has investigated caregivers’ experiences supporting young people, leaving critical gaps in understanding this role. The aim of this study is to explore caregivers’ experiences accessing opioid use treatments with young people and their needs and ideas for improving such treatments. Methods This study reports qualitative findings from Phase 1 of the Improving Treatment Together project, a multi-phase, multi-site community-based participatory study broadly aimed at co-designing opioid use treatments to improve the experiences and outcomes of young people using non-medical opioids. During Phase 1, a total of 27 caregivers (parents, guardians) participated in full-day workshops that were conducted in three communities in British Columbia, Canada. Following human-centred co-design methods, caregivers engaged in small and large group discussions of their experiences, needs, and ideas for improving opioid use treatments for young people. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. Results Across communities, caregivers’ main experiences were defined as ‘becoming our young people’s case managers’ and ‘enduring a never-ending rollercoaster’. To improve these experiences, two needs themes were identified – expanding organizational and system-level capacity and wider-spread understanding of opioid use as a health issue. Caregivers brainstormed a total of 378 individual ideas to meet these needs, several of which spanned multiple needs themes. Conclusions Caregivers’ experiences, needs, and ideas reveal critical opportunities for improving the quality of interventions for opioid use among young people. This study represents a substantial contribution to the design and implementation of developmentally-appropriate and family-centred interventions for young people using opioids.

show abstract

“…To effectively discredit oppositional voices, participants further emphasized the need to center the voices of ‘credible’ stakeholder groups from the health sector (e.g., frontline emergency medicine physicians and nurses, substance use treatment providers) in their advocacy efforts. Rapport-building with a plurality of stakeholders—powerbrokers like lawmakers, health department officials, and law enforcement in particular—is a proven advocacy strategy for complementary harm reduction interventions, including decriminalization of syringe possession and drug policy reform [ 57 , 63 ], both within and outside the USA. Jurisdictions pursuing OPC legalization at the state level will also need the support of elected officials like governors, who wield veto power to overturn bills passed by state legislatures, as observed in California—suggesting elected officials and other powerbrokers (e.g., city mayors, law enforcement leadership, health department officials) will have unequal influence in the OPC policymaking process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Make yourself un-NIMBY-able”: stakeholder perspectives on strategies to mobilize public and political support for overdose prevention centers in the United States of America

Rosen,

Thompson,

Tardif

et al. 2024

Harm Reduct J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Overdose prevention centers (OPCs), also known as supervised injection facilities and safe consumption sites, are evidenced-based interventions for preventing overdose deaths and drug-related morbidities. The pathways to legalizing OPCs in the USA have confronted multiple social, political, and legal obstacles. We conducted a multi-site, qualitative study to explore heterogeneities in these pathways in four jurisdictions, as well as to understand stakeholder perspectives on valuable strategies for galvanizing political and public support for OPCs. Methods From July 2022 to February 2023, we conducted 17 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with OPC policymakers, service providers, advocates, and researchers from California, New York City, Philadelphia, and Rhode Island, where efforts have been undertaken to authorize OPCs. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified and compared contextually relevant, salient approaches for increasing support for OPCs. Results Participants described several strategies clustering around five distinct domains: (1) embedding OPC advocacy into broader overdose prevention coalitions to shape policy dialogs; (2) building rapport with a plurality of powerbrokers (e.g., lawmakers, health departments, law enforcement) who could amplify the impact of OPC advocacy; (3) emphasizing specific benefits of OPCs to different audiences in different contexts; (4) leveraging relationships with frontline workers (e.g., emergency medicine and substance use treatment providers) to challenge OPC opposition, including ‘NIMBY-ism,’ and misinformation; and (5) prioritizing transparency in OPC decision-making to foster public trust. Conclusion While tailored to the specific socio-political context of each locality, multiple OPC advocacy strategies have been deployed to cultivate support for OPCs in the USA. Advocacy strategies that are multi-pronged, leverage partnerships with stakeholders at multiple levels, and tailor communications to different audiences and settings could yield the greatest impact in increasing support for, and diffusing opposition to, future OPC implementation.

show abstract

Bereaved mothers’ engagement in drug policy reform: A multisite qualitative analysis

Cited by 8 publications

References 26 publications

Third party drug checking: accessing harm reduction services on the behalf of others

Third party drug checking: accessing harm reduction services on the behalf of others

Becoming our young people’s case managers: caregivers’ experiences, needs, and ideas for improving opioid use treatments for young people using opioids

“Make yourself un-NIMBY-able”: stakeholder perspectives on strategies to mobilize public and political support for overdose prevention centers in the United States of America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About