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

"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

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.

Engaging families and parent advocates in research on substance use and drug policy reform: Guiding principles from a Canadian community-academic partnership

Canada is in the midst of a public health emergency in drug poisoning (overdose) deaths. In this context parents, and especially mothers, of those who have died from drug poisoning have mobilised to advocate for urgent responses and drug policy reforms. To document this emerging women-led advocacy, we initiated a community-academic research partnership with three parent groups representing families in Canada bereaved by drug-related deaths. In this commentary, we describe four guiding principles we developed during the course of this project, to ensure an ethical and equitable approach to conducting our research partnership. In particular, we emphasise how we navigated parents' roles as vocal advocates for addressing drug stigma and expanding harm reduction while actively working to avoid eclipsing the need to centre the perspectives of people who use drugs. Meaningful and collaborative partnerships between academics and community groups may facilitate greater understandings of how families and communities can be allied in drug policy reforms urgently needed to prevent drug poisoning deaths.

"Grasping at straws," experiences of Canadian parents using involuntary stabilization for a youth's substance use

BACKGROUND

In Canada, involuntary stabilization programs are used to apprehend and confine youth who use drugs for the purpose of stabilization, assessment, and discharge planning. In the Canadian province of Alberta, the Protection of Children Using Drugs (PChAD) act allows parents to apply for involuntary stabilization of their children for up to 15 days. Given that research on involuntary stabilization programs is scarce, this qualitative study was designed to explore parents' experiences with PChAD and their perceptions of the program's benefits and drawbacks.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 parents who had used PChAD for their children between 2007-2018. Interviews were conducted between 2019-2020 and were analyzed inductively using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis.

RESULTS

Most parents sought involuntary stabilization because they were desperate to protect their child's health and safety, or to motivate them to reduce their substance use. Many also felt lost and overwhelmed because their child was unwilling to attend voluntary treatment, and they lacked professional guidance as to how to care for their child. Consequently, many parents used involuntary stabilization because they did not know what else to do. While some parents were grateful to have their child temporarily safe, many were disappointed because involuntary stabilization had little impact on their child's substance use. Parents also felt they did not receive sufficient support in coordinating their child's care following involuntary stabilization. Parents identified several risks of involuntary stabilization, such as angering the youth and undermining trust, and exposing them to negative peer influences.

IMPLICATIONS

It is important for policymakers and clinicians to carefully consider whether the immediate benefits of keeping youth safe are worth the potential risks. Efforts are needed to provide families with greater guidance and support, and to ensure coordinated access to a continuum of voluntary services, including treatment and harm reduction.

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

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.

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

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.