Evaluation of a drug checking service at a large scale electronic music festival in Portugal

City checking: Piloting the UK's first community‐based drug safety testing (drug checking) service in 2 city centres

“…Research on Canadian community‐based drug safety testing growing out of the North American fentanyl crisis and focussed on the structurally vulnerable suggests, however, that demand for testing and responses to unexpected results may be lower than for nightlife populations . Valente and colleagues concluded that community‐based testing with problem drug use, opioid using and lower socio‐economic income groups has “more modest results” than testing in nightlife settings with higher socio‐economic groups engaged in recreational drug use . Sherman and colleagues found that older, homeless and nonwhite drug using groups reported being less likely to use testing services .…”

“…This study supports the work of Valente and colleagues in Europe and Sherman and colleagues in Canada, suggesting that more modest aspirations may be appropriate for community‐based testing compared with event‐based testing, and concludes with a call to take into account different geographical, criminal justice and socio‐cultural contexts in service design, delivery and evaluation. For example, lower disposals at a community testing service could relate to different service user demographics and disparities in the perceived risk of having controlled drugs on one's person in urban and festival settings; retaining little or none of a substance of concern after a negative experience; the just in time purchase and consumption of single doses by lower income and marginalised drug users; or differential intention to consume a substance regardless of test result, particularly if anticipating or experiencing withdrawal.…”

“…Furthermore, distinctions have been made between intended disposals, actual disposals to a testing service, and verified disposals to an external agency . For example, a Portuguese festival testing service found that almost all service users intended not to take a substance when contents were identified as other than expected (94.3%, n = 86), whereas almost all intended to take it when as expected (98%, n = 370) . A New Zealand festival testing service survey of 288 respondents found that 62% intended not to take the substance when it was other than expected .…”

“…[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Drug safety testing disposal rates vary widely depending on composition profiles and adulteration rates identified by forensic analyses, with a review 33 suggesting that disposal rates for testing services ranged from 4-76% and subsequent studies suggesting that the range is even wider. Furthermore, distinctions have been made between intended disposals, 34,35 actual disposals to a testing service, 29 and verified disposals to an external agency. 22 For example, a Portuguese festival testing service found that almost all service users intended not to take a substance when contents were identified as other than expected (94.3%, n = 86), whereas almost all intended to take it when as expected (98%, n = 370).…”

“…22 For example, a Portuguese festival testing service found that almost all service users intended not to take a substance when contents were identified as other than expected (94.3%, n = 86), whereas almost all intended to take it when as expected (98%, n = 370). 35 A New Zealand festival testing service survey of 288 respondents found that 62% intended not to take the substance when it was other than expected. 36 The UK's first pilot in 2016 found that over 3/4 (77.8%) of service users whose sample was identified as other than expected intended not to take the substance, with 85.7% of these handing over further substances to the testing service for onwards police destruction.…”