Community perspectives on supervised consumption sites: Insights from four U.S. counties deeply affected by 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

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.

Opioid Use Disorder Stigma and Support for Harm Reduction in Rural Counties

Background: The opioid crisis is a public health emergency in the United States, particularly in rural Pennsylvania. Stigma in rural communities is a treatment barrier and impacts harm reduction programming availability.Objectives: The current study utilized an observational, cross-sectional design to examine latent subgroups of stigma and differences in support for harm reduction strategies (i.e., safe injection facilities, syringe services programs, fentanyl test strips, Naloxone distribution). Participants included rural Pennsylvanians (n = 252), taken from a statewide survey of opioid use disorder (OUD) stigma. Participants reported OUD public stigma (i.e., attitudes/perceptions about OUD, willingness to engage with individuals with OUD) and support for harm reduction strategies.Results: Latent class analysis identified 4 stigma classes: 1) high stigma (HS), 2) high judgment/low stigmatizing behavior (HJ/LB), 3) high stigmatizing behavior/low stigmatizing attitude (HB/LA), and 4) low stigma (LS). ANCOVAs identified subgroup differences in harm reduction support. The HS group indicated less support for safe injection sites, syringe services programs, and fentanyl test strips, compared to the HB/LA and LS groups. The HS group indicated less support for Naloxone distribution compared to the HJ/LB, HB/LA, and LS groups. Lastly, the HJ/LB group indicated less support for each program compared to the LS group.Conclusions/Importance: Findings highlight that OUD stigma profiles differ across rural Pennsylvania and are associated with varying support for harm reduction strategies. Individuals with less stigma report more support for harm reduction strategies. Interventions to implement harm reduction strategies should consider varying levels of stigma and use a targeted approach to inform implementation and messaging strategies.

Perspectives of U.S. harm reduction advocates on persuasive message strategies

BACKGROUND

The messages used to communicate about harm reduction are critical in garnering public support for adoption of harm reduction interventions. Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of harm reduction interventions at reducing overdose deaths and disease transmission, the USA has been slow to adopt harm reduction to scale. Implementation of evidence-based interventions has been hindered by a historical framing of drug use as a moral failure and related stigmatizing attitudes among the public toward people who use drugs. Understanding how professional harm reduction advocates communicate to audiences about the benefits of harm reduction is a critical step to designing persuasive messaging strategies.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with a purposively recruited sample of U.S. professional harm reduction advocates (N = 15) to examine their perspectives on which types of messages are effective in persuading U.S. audiences on the value of harm reduction. Participants were professionals working in harm reduction advocacy at national- or state-level organizations promoting and/or implementing harm reduction. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach.

RESULTS

Interviewees agreed that messages about the scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of harm reduction approaches are important but insufficient, on their own, to persuade audiences. Interviewees identified two overarching messaging strategies they perceived as persuasive: using messages about harm reduction that align with audience-specific values, for example centering the value of life or individual redemption; and positioning harm reduction as part of the comprehensive solution to current issues audiences are facing related to drug use and overdose in their community. Interviewees discussed tailoring messages strategies to four key audiences: policymakers; law enforcement; religious groups; and the family and friends of people who use, or have used, drugs. For example, advocates discussed framing messages to law enforcement from the perspective of public safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Interviewees viewed messages as most persuasive when they align with audience values and audience-specific concerns related to drug use and overdose death. Future research should test effectiveness of tailored messaging strategies to audiences using experimental approaches.

"Another tool in the toolkit"-Perceptions, suggestions, and concerns of emergency service providers about the implementation of a supervised consumption site

BACKGROUND

As Supervised Consumption Sites (SCS) are implemented in the United States, it is important to consider the needs and perceptions of impacted stakeholders. Emergency service providers (ESP) have a central role in responding to the overdose epidemic. This study intended to assess the how ESP perceive the potential implementation of an SCS in their community, as well as solicit program design and implementation-related concerns and suggestions.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted by videoconference with 22 ESP, including firefighters, paramedics, police, and social workers in King County, Washington, USA. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Participants expressed the importance of feeling safe while responding to calls where drug use is involved and highlighted how this perception would be linked to ESP response times to calls from an SCS. Suggestions for improving the perceived safety of an SCS included training program staff in de-escalation as well as planning the layout of the SCS to accommodate ESP. The inadequacy of the emergency department as a point of care for PWUD was also identified as a theme, and some participants expressed enthusiasm regarding the prospect of the SCS as an alternative destination for transport. Finally, support for the SCS model was conditional on the appropriate utilization of emergency services and a reduction in call volume. Participants listed clarifying roles and pursuing opportunities for collaboration as ways to ensure appropriate utilization and maintain positive working relationships.

CONCLUSION

This study builds on literature regarding stakeholder perceptions of SCS by focusing on the perceptions of a critically important stakeholder group. Results enhance understanding of what motivates ESP to support SCS implementation in their community. Other novel insights pertain to ESP thoughts about alternative care delivery models and strategies for emergency department visit diversion.

Drug Consumption Rooms and Public Health Policy: Perspectives of Scottish Strategic Decision-Makers

There is widespread support for the introduction of Drug Consumption Rooms (DCRs) in Scotland as part of a policy response to record levels of drug-related harm. However, existing legal barriers are made more complex by the division of relevant powers between the UK and Scottish Governments. This paper reports on a national, qualitative study of key decision-makers in both local and national roles across Scotland. It explores views on the political barriers and enablers to the adoption of Drug Consumption Rooms and the potential role of these facilities in the wider treatment system. It also considers approaches to evidence, especially the types of evidence that are considered valuable in supporting decision-making in this area. The study found that Scottish decision-makers are strongly supportive of DCR adoption; however, they remain unclear as to the legal and political mechanisms that would make this possible. They view DCRs as part of a complex treatment and support system rather than a uniquely transformative intervention. They see the case for introduction as sufficient, on the basis of need and available evidence, thus adopting a pragmatic and iterative approach to evidence, in contrast to an appeal to traditional evidence hierarchies more commonly adopted by the UK Government.