Perspectives of Key Interest Groups Regarding Supervised Consumption Sites (SCS) and Novel Virtual Harm Reduction Services / Overdose Response Hotlines and Applications: a Qualitative Canadian Study

Overview

Journal Harm Reduct J

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Pharmacology
Psychiatry

Date 2024 Jul 27

PMID 39068494

Authors

Boogyung Seo

William Rioux

Adrian Teare

Nathan Rider

Stephanie Jones

Pamela Taplay

S Monty Ghosh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Supervised consumption sites (SCS) and overdose prevention sites (OPS) have been implemented across Canada to mitigate harms associated with illicit substance use. Despite their successes, they still contend with challenges that limit their accessibility and uptake. Overdose response hotlines and apps are novel virtual technologies reminiscent of informal "spotting" methods that may address some of the limitations. Here, we strove to qualitatively examine the factors that may encourage or deter utilization of these virtual services and SCS.

Methods: A total of 52 participants across Canada were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling methods. These included people with lived and living experience of substance use, family members of people with lived experience, healthcare providers, community harm reduction workers, and virtual harm reduction operators. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted and inductive thematic analysis was performed to identify the themes pertaining to SCS and virtual harm reduction.

Results: Participants viewed overdose response hotline and apps as an opportunity to consume substances without being hindered by logistical barriers (e.g., wait times), fear of law enforcement, invasion of privacy, and more. They also noted that these virtual services provided more flexibility for clients who opt for routes of consumption that are not supported by SCS, such as smoking. Overall, SCS was perceived to be better than virtual services at facilitating social connection, providing additional resources/referrals, as well as prompt response to overdose.

Conclusion: In sum, participants viewed SCS and virtual services as filling different needs and gaps. This study adds to a growing body of literature which informs how virtual harm reduction services can serve as useful adjunct to more standard harm reduction methods.

References

Seo B, Rioux W, Rider N, Teare A, Jones S, Taplay P . Bridging the Gap in Harm Reduction Using Mobile Overdose Response Services (MORS) in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study. J Urban Health. 2024; 101(2):252-261. PMC: 11052954. DOI: 10.1007/s11524-024-00846-y. View

Perri M, Guta A, Gagnon M, Bonn M, Leece P, Bayoumi A . Developing a digital health strategy for people who use drugs: Lessons from COVID-19. Digit Health. 2021; 7:20552076211028404. PMC: 8243112. DOI: 10.1177/20552076211028404. View

Fischer B . The continuous opioid death crisis in Canada: changing characteristics and implications for path options forward. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2023; 19:100437. PMC: 10025405. DOI: 10.1016/j.lana.2023.100437. View

Duncan E, Shufelt S, Barranco M, Udo T . Acceptability of supervised injection facilities among persons who inject drugs in upstate New York. Harm Reduct J. 2022; 19(1):87. PMC: 9338679. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-022-00665-x. View

Speed K, Gehring N, Launier K, OBrien D, Campbell S, Hyshka E . To what extent do supervised drug consumption services incorporate non-injection routes of administration? A systematic scoping review documenting existing facilities. Harm Reduct J. 2020; 17(1):72. PMC: 7539556. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-020-00414-y. View

Loverock A, Marshall T, Viste D, Safi F, Rioux W, Sedaghat N . Electronic harm reduction interventions for drug overdose monitoring and prevention: A scoping review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2023; 250:110878. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.110878. View

Kamal A, Ferguson M, Xavier J, Liu L, Graham B, Lock K . Smoking identified as preferred mode of opioid safe supply use; investigating correlates of smoking preference through a 2021 cross-sectional study in British Columbia. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2023; 18(1):27. PMC: 10186314. DOI: 10.1186/s13011-023-00515-4. View

Rider N, Safi F, Marshall T, Jones S, Seo B, Viste D . Investigating uses of peer-operated Virtual Overdose Monitoring Services (VOMS) beyond overdose response: a qualitative study. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2023; 49(6):809-817. DOI: 10.1080/00952990.2023.2271642. View

Marshall T, Viste D, Jones S, Kim J, Lee A, Jafri F . Beliefs, attitudes and experiences of virtual overdose monitoring services from the perspectives of people who use substances in Canada: a qualitative study. Harm Reduct J. 2023; 20(1):80. PMC: 10290798. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-023-00807-9. View

10.

Parent S, Papamihali K, Graham B, Buxton J . Examining prevalence and correlates of smoking opioids in British Columbia: opioids are more often smoked than injected. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2021; 16(1):79. PMC: 8522853. DOI: 10.1186/s13011-021-00414-6. View

11.

Gehring N, Speed K, Launier K, OBrien D, Campbell S, Hyshka E . The state of science on including inhalation within supervised consumption services: A scoping review of academic and grey literature. Int J Drug Policy. 2022; 102:103589. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103589. View

12.

Bach P, Hayashi K, Milloy M, Nosova E, Kerr T, Wood E . Characterising the increasing prevalence of crystal methamphetamine use in Vancouver, Canada, from 2006-2017: A gender-based analysis. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2020; 39(7):932-940. PMC: 7683370. DOI: 10.1111/dar.13126. View

13.

Urbanik M, Greene C . Operational and contextual barriers to accessing supervised consumption services in two Canadian cities. Int J Drug Policy. 2020; 88:102991. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102991. View

14.

Bardwell G, Strike C, Mitra S, Scheim A, Barnaby L, Altenberg J . "That's a double-edged sword": Exploring the integration of supervised consumption services within community health centres in Toronto, Canada. Health Place. 2019; 61:102245. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102245. View

15.

Perri M, Kaminski N, Bonn M, Kolla G, Guta A, Bayoumi A . A qualitative study on overdose response in the era of COVID-19 and beyond: how to spot someone so they never have to use alone. Harm Reduct J. 2021; 18(1):85. PMC: 8339679. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-021-00530-3. View

16.

Nassau T, Kolla G, Mason K, Hopkins S, Tookey P, McLean E . Service utilization patterns and characteristics among clients of integrated supervised consumption sites in Toronto, Canada. Harm Reduct J. 2022; 19(1):33. PMC: 8966307. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-022-00610-y. View

17.

Ritchie K, Ghosh S . Determining the feasibility for an overdose prevention line to support substance users who use alone. Harm Reduct J. 2022; 19(1):92. PMC: 9389809. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-022-00670-0. View

18.

Lee A, Jafri F, Viste D, Seo B, Skiber D, Medwid M . Perceptions of Overdose Response Hotlines and Phone Application Services Among Women and Gender-diverse Individuals Who Use Drugs in Canada: A Qualitative Study. J Addict Med. 2024; 18(5):553-560. PMC: 11882170. DOI: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000001325. View

19.

Matskiv G, Marshall T, Krieg O, Viste D, Ghosh S . Virtual overdose monitoring services: a novel adjunctive harm reduction approach for addressing the overdose crisis. CMAJ. 2022; 194(46):E1568-E1572. PMC: 9828965. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.220579. View

20.

Giglio R, Li G, DiMaggio C . Effectiveness of bystander naloxone administration and overdose education programs: a meta-analysis. Inj Epidemiol. 2016; 2(1):10. PMC: 5005759. DOI: 10.1186/s40621-015-0041-8. View