» Articles » PMID: 37667312

Contextual Factors Affecting the Implementation of Drug Checking for Harm Reduction: a Scoping Literature Review from a North American Perspective

Overview
Journal Harm Reduct J
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialties Pharmacology
Psychiatry
Date 2023 Sep 4
PMID 37667312
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The opioid epidemic continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US. In 2020, 83% of opioid-related overdose deaths were due to synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl. Drug checking services have been widely implemented as a harm reduction intervention to facilitate the identification of substances in a drug sample. There is a need to inform decision-making on drug checking technologies and service implementation. This research aims to outline contextual considerations for the implementation of a drug checking service.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted using a structured search strategy in PubMed and EMBASE. Articles were independently screened by two reviewers, and included if they were primary literature and reported on an actionable consideration(s) for drug checking services. Data elements were extracted using a standardized form, and included study design, study population, drug checking technology utilized or discussed, and main findings.

Results: Twenty-nine articles were selected for inclusion, and four primary areas of consideration were identified: drug checking technologies, venue of a drug checking service, legality, and privacy. Technological considerations include the need for highly accurate, quantitative results which appeal to both populations of people with drug use disorder and recreational users. Accessibility of services was identified as an important factor that may be impacted by the location, integration with other services, how the service is provided (mobile vs. fixed), and the hours of operation. Maintaining plausible deniability and building trust were seen as important facilitators to service use and engagement. Issues surrounding legality were the most frequently cited barrier by patrons, including fear of criminalization, policing, and surveillance. Patrons and stakeholders identified a need for supportive policies that offer protections. Maintaining anonymity for patrons is crucial to addressing privacy-related barriers.

Conclusion: This review highlights the need to understand the local population and climate for drug checking to implement a drug checking service successfully. Common themes identified in the literature included considerations related to the choice of technology, the type of venue, and the impact of legality and privacy. We intend to utilize these considerations in future research to help guide discussions with US-based stakeholders.

Citing Articles

Implementation opportunities and challenges to piloting a community-based drug-checking intervention for sexual and gender minority men in Vancouver, Canada: a qualitative study.

Coulaud P, Chayama K, Schwartz C, Purdie A, Lysyshyn M, Ti L Harm Reduct J. 2024; 21(1):87.

PMID: 38678256 PMC: 11055362. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-024-01004-y.


Beyond a spec: assessing heterogeneity in the unregulated opioid supply.

Gozdzialski L, Louw R, Kielty C, Margolese A, Poarch E, Sherman M Harm Reduct J. 2024; 21(1):63.

PMID: 38491435 PMC: 10941387. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-024-00980-5.


Prevalence and drug use correlates of inadvertent fentanyl exposure among individuals misusing drugs in seven U.S. states.

Magura S, Lee-Easton M, Abu-Obaid R, Reed P, Allgaier B, Fish E J Addict Dis. 2024; 42(4):515-523.

PMID: 38355422 PMC: 11322417. DOI: 10.1080/10550887.2023.2293643.


Recommendations from people who use drugs in Philadelphia, PA about structuring point-of-care drug checking.

Reed M, Borne E, Esteves Camacho T, Kelly M, Rising K Harm Reduct J. 2024; 21(1):26.

PMID: 38287409 PMC: 10825997. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-024-00937-8.


Comment on Rose et al.: the need for responsible collection and reporting of demographic data in drug checking research.

Airth L, Goodyear T Harm Reduct J. 2024; 21(1):3.

PMID: 38172954 PMC: 10765898. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-023-00913-8.


References
1.
Ti L, Tobias S, Maghsoudi N, Milloy M, McDonald K, Shapiro A . Detection of synthetic cannabinoid adulteration in the unregulated drug supply in three Canadian settings. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2020; 40(4):580-585. DOI: 10.1111/dar.13237. View

2.
Gozdzialski L, Aasen J, Larnder A, Ramsay M, Borden S, Saatchi A . Portable gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in drug checking: Detection of carfentanil and etizolam in expected opioid samples. Int J Drug Policy. 2021; 97:103409. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103409. View

3.
Sherman S, Morales K, Park J, McKenzie M, Marshall B, Green T . Acceptability of implementing community-based drug checking services for people who use drugs in three United States cities: Baltimore, Boston and Providence. Int J Drug Policy. 2019; 68:46-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.03.003. View

4.
Beaulieu T, Wood E, Tobias S, Lysyshyn M, Patel P, Matthews J . Is expected substance type associated with timing of drug checking service utilization?: A cross-sectional study. Harm Reduct J. 2021; 18(1):66. PMC: 8237439. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-021-00514-3. View

5.
Bergh M, Oiestad A, Baumann M, Bogen I . Selectivity and sensitivity of urine fentanyl test strips to detect fentanyl analogues in illicit drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2020; 90:103065. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.103065. View