Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives Drawing on a qualitative case study of cannabis compassion clubs and medical dispensaries in British Columbia (Canada), the main goal of this paper is to generate insights that have the potential to advance and broaden the conceptualization of ‘cannabis harm reduction’. Methods We undertook a qualitative case study by drawing on seven data sources: (1) online content, (2) news stories, (3) legal documents, (4) policy documents, (5) information about enforcement, (6) interviews with (i) key informants, (ii) participants with operational experience (i.e., people engaged in the active operations of compassion clubs/dispensaries in various roles), and (iii) participants with lived experience of medicating with cannabis, and finally (7) field notes. For this paper, we applied a harm reduction lens to the participant interview data. Results Applying a harm reduction lens to the participant interview data allowed us to identify two main conceptual dimensions: structural and operational. The structural dimension focused on the work undertaken by cannabis compassion clubs and medical dispensaries to address a risk environment created by systems, laws, and policies. The main themes identified here were access, safety, and quality. The operational dimension focused on the characteristics of the services provided cannabis compassion clubs and medical dispensaries. The main themes identified here were low-threshold, compassion, and supports. Our findings suggest that these two dimensions worked together to generate conditions conducive to ‘cannabis harm reduction’. Conclusions Based on our findings, we identified research, policy, and advocacy implications. We argue that research should focus on loss of access, regulation, a broader conceptualization of cannabis substitution, and better integration between cannabis and harm reduction. We also highlight the need for a harm reduction analysis of the Cannabis Act , new community-oriented models to meet the needs of people who medicate with cannabis, and non-profit supply pathways. Finally, we suggest that structurally-oriented advocacy is needed to achieve community-oriented models of cannabis cultivation, distribution, and consumption and that this advocacy would benefit harm reduction more broadly.

Background Emergency Departments (ED) staff, including nurses and physicians, are most directly involved in the care of people who use unregulated substances, and are ideally positioned to provide harm reduction interventions. Conceptualizing the ED as a complex adaptive system, this paper examines how ED staff experience opioid-specific harm reduction provision and engage in harm reduction practice, including potential facilitators and barriers to engagement. Methods Using a mixed methods approach, ED nurses and physicians completed a self-administered staff survey ( n  = 99) and one-on-one semi-structured interviews ( n  = 15). Five additional interviews were completed with clinical leaders. Survey data were analyzed to generate descriptive statistics and to compute scale scores. De-identified interview data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis approach, which was informed by the theory of complex adaptive systems, as well as understandings of harm reduction as both a technical solution and a contextualized social practice. The final analysis involved mixed analysis through integrating both quantitative and qualitative data to generate overarching analytical themes. Results Study findings illustrated that, within the context of the ED as a complex adaptive system, three interrelated contextual factors shape the capacity of staff to engage in harm reduction practice, and to implement the full range of opioid-specific harm reduction interventions available. These factors include opportunities to leverage benefits afforded by working collaboratively with colleagues, adequate preparation through receiving the necessary education and training, and support in helping patients establish connections for ongoing care. Conclusions There is a need for harm reduction provision across all health and social care settings where people who use unregulated opioids access public sector services. In the context of the ED, attention to contextual factors including teamwork, preparedness, and connections is warranted to support that ED staff engage in harm reduction practice.

Background The area of substance use is notable for its early uptake of incentives and wealth of research on the topic. This is particularly true for prize-based contingency management (PB-CM), a particular type of incentive that uses a fishbowl prize-draw design. Given that PB-CM interventions are gaining momentum to address the dual public health crises of opiate and stimulant use in North America and beyond, it is imperative that we better understand and critically analyze their implications. Purpose The purpose of this scoping review paper is to identify the characteristics of PB-CM interventions for people who use substances and explore ethical implications documented in the literature as well as emerging ethical implications that merit further consideration. Methods The PRISMA-ScR checklist was used in conjunction with Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework to guide this scoping review. We completed a two-pronged analysis of 52 research articles retrieved through a comprehensive search across three key scholarly databases. After extracting descriptive data from each article, we used 9 key domains to identify characteristics of the interventions followed by an analysis of ethical implications. Results We analyzed the characteristics of PB-CM interventions which were predominantly quantitative studies aimed at studying the efficacy of PB-CM interventions. All of the interventions used a prize-draw format with a classic magnitude of 50%. Most of the interventions combined both negative and positive direction to reward processes, behaviors, and/or outcomes. One ethical implication was identified in the literature: the risk of gambling relapse. We also found three emerging ethical implications by further analyzing participant characteristics, intervention designs, and potential impact on the patient–provider relationship. These implications include the potential deceptive nature of PB-CM, the emphasis placed on the individual behaviors to the detriment of social and structural determinants of health, and failures to address vulnerability and power dynamics. Conclusions This scoping review offers important insights into the ethics on PB-CM and its implications for research ethics, clinical ethics, and public health ethics. Additionally, it raises important questions that can inform future research and dialogues to further tease out the ethical issues associated with PB-CM.

Background The intersection of dual public health emergencies—the COVID-19 pandemic and the drug toxicity crisis—has led to an urgent need for acute care based harm reduction for unregulated opioid use. Emergency Departments (EDs) as Complex Adaptive Systems (CASs) with multiple, interdependent, and interacting elements are suited to deliver such interventions. This paper examines how the ED is organized to provide harm reduction and identifies facilitators and barriers to implementation in light of interactions between system elements. Methods Using a case study design, we conducted interviews with Emergency Physicians ( n  = 5), Emergency Nurses ( n  = 10), and clinical leaders ( n  = 5). Nine organizational policy documents were also collected. Interview data were analysed using a Reflexive Thematic Analysis approach. Policy documents were analysed using a predetermined coding structure pertaining to staffing roles and responsibilities and the interrelationships therein for the delivery of opioid-specific harm reduction in the ED. The theory of CAS informed data analysis. Results An array of system agents, including substance use specialist providers and non-specialist providers, interacted in ways that enable the provision of harm reduction interventions in the ED, including opioid agonist treatment, supervised consumption, and withdrawal management. However, limited access to specialist providers, when coupled with specialist control, non-specialist reliance, and concerns related to safety, created tensions in the system that hinder harm reduction provision with resulting implications for the delivery of care. Conclusions To advance harm reduction implementation, there is a need for substance use specialist services that are congruent with the 24 h a day service delivery model of the ED, and for organizational policies that are attentive to discourses of specialized practice, hierarchical relations of power, and the dynamic regulatory landscape. Implementation efforts that take into consideration these perspectives have the potential to reduce harms experienced by people who use unregulated opioids, not only through overdose prevention and improving access to safer opioid alternatives, but also through supporting people to complete their unique care journeys.

Objectives Fentanyl has contributed to a sharp rise in the toxicity of the unregulated drug supply and fatal overdoses in Canada. It has also changed injection practices. Injection frequency has increased as a result and so has equipment sharing and health-related risks. The aim of this analysis was to explore the impact of safer supply programs on injection practices from the perspective of clients and providers in Ontario, Canada. Methods The data set included qualitative interviews with 52 clients and 21 providers that were conducted between February and October 2021 across four safer supply programs. Interview excerpts discussing injection practices were extracted, screened, coded and then grouped into themes. Results We identified three themes, each theme corresponding to a change in injection practices. The first change was a decrease in the amount of fentanyl used and a decrease in injection frequency. The second change involved switching to injecting hydromorphone tablets instead of fentanyl. Finally, the third change was stopping injecting altogether and taking safer supply medications orally. Conclusion Safer supply programs can contribute to reducing injection-related health risks in addition to overdose risks. More specifically, they have the potential to address disease prevention and health promotion gaps that stand-alone downstream harm reduction interventions cannot address, by working upstream and providing a safer alternative to fentanyl.

Identifying and addressing inequities in palliative care is an area of growing interest and importance. In this critical essay, we aim to challenge embedded assumptions about ‘family’ caregiving in white, Western systems (e.g. that of the nuclear family as carers) and focus on how the social determinants of health (SDOH; e.g. income and social protection, housing, education, food security) affect access to, and quality of, care at the end of life. More specifically, our analysis pays attention to what shapes the SDOH themselves including how racism, classism, heterosexism, and ableism become embedded and sustained in health and social institutions including palliative care. We begin by providing a brief discussion of the study of ‘family’ including the nuclear family standard and fictive kinship as an ‘alternative’ family form. Next, we focus on fictive kinship in two diverse populations – (1) street-involved youth who form street families; and (2) older adults who access care beyond nuclear families – that challenge embedded assumptions and help set a foundation for thinking about family and caregiving in contexts of inequities. Drawing on short vignettes, we then focus on emerging issues in palliative care and ‘family’ caregiving in contexts of homelessness and housing vulnerability. These issues include how caregivers in contexts of homelessness are, themselves, facing structural vulnerability; bio-legal family estrangement, reunification, and privileging; and how community service workers are filling both formal and informal caregiving roles. We conclude by delineating ongoing questions, research and practice gaps, and suggestions for future research in this area. Plain language summary Looking at ‘family’ caregiving at the end of life among people who are homeless: Key issues and suggestions for future research Society often expects that family will be around to help if you are sick. This is not the case for everyone. Sometimes people live far apart from their families. Sometimes family is not available or there are bad relations between family members. People get care in other ways, though, such as from friends, neighbours, and chosen family. In this essay, we look at two situations where people are getting care outside people they are related to. The first is homeless youth who form ‘street families’. The second is older adults who get care from friends, neighbours and others they think of as family. Next, we offer some stories based on past research to show what happens for caregivers when they are looking after people who are homeless. We finish by talking about some gaps and next steps for research in this important area.

Background Spotting is an informal practice among people who use drugs (PWUD) where they witness other people using drugs and respond if an overdose occurs. During COVID-19 restrictions, remote spotting (e.g., using a telephone, video call, and/or a social media app) emerged to address physical distancing requirements and reduced access to harm reduction and/or sexually transmitted blood borne infection (STBBI’s) prevention services. We explored spotting implementation issues from the perspectives of spotters and spottees. Methods Research assistants with lived/living expertise of drug use used personal networks and word of mouth to recruit PWUD from Ontario and Nova Scotia who provided or used informal spotting. All participants completed a semi-structured, audio-recorded telephone interview about spotting service design, benefits, challenges, and recommendations. Recordings were transcribed and thematic analysis was used. Results We interviewed 20 individuals between 08/2020–11/2020 who were involved in informal spotting. Spotting was provided on various platforms (e.g., telephone, video calls, and through texts) and locations (e.g. home, car), offered connection and community support, and addressed barriers to the use of supervised consumption sites (e.g., location, stigma, confidentiality, safety, availability, COVID-19 related closures). Spotting calls often began with setting an overdose response plan (i.e., when and who to call). Many participants noted that, due to the criminalization of drug use and fear of arrest, they preferred that roommates/friends/family members be called instead of emergency services in case of an overdose. Both spotters and spottees raised concerns about the timeliness of overdose response, particularly in remote and rural settings. Conclusion Spotting is a novel addition to, but not replacement for, existing harm reduction services. To optimize overdose/COVID-19/STBBI’s prevention services, additional supports (e.g., changes to Good Samaritan Laws) are needed. The criminalization of drug use may limit uptake of formal spotting services.

Background Over the last 50 years, there has been a growing interest in and use of contingency management (CM) for people who use substances. Yet, despite showing some level of efficacy (albeit only short-term) and being praised by researchers as beneficial and cost-saving, it continues to be underutilized by health care and service providers. Why that is remains unclear. Methods Recognizing a gap, we conducted a targeted analysis of a larger set of qualitative interviews conducted on the experience of health care and service providers with incentives (including prize-based CM) (n = 25). Results Four themes were identified during the analysis: 1) The specificities of prize-based CM, 2) The role of providers in administering prize-based CM, 3) The positive and negative impact on the relationship, and 4) The ethical concerns arising from prize-based CM. Overall, our findings are consistent with existing literature and suggest that providers are wary of using prize-based CM because they tend to value effort over success, support over reward, honesty over deceit, and certainty over probability and variability. Conclusion Our analysis offers additional insights into the experiences of providers who use prize-based CM and possibly some indications as to why they may not wish to work with this type of incentive. The question raised here is not whether there is enough evidence on the effectiveness of prize-based CM, but rather if this type of incentive is appropriate and ethical when caring for people who use substances.

Objectives In May 2018, St. Paul’s Hospital (SPH) in Vancouver (Canada) opened an outdoor peer-led overdose prevention site (OPS) operated in partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health and RainCity Housing. At the end of 2020, the partnered OPS moved to a new location, which created a gap in service for SPH inpatients and outpatients. To address this gap, which was magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic, SPH opened a nurse-led OPS in February 2021. This paper describes the steps leading to the implementation of the nurse-led OPS, its impact, and lessons learned. Methods Four steps paved the way for the opening of the OPS: (1) identifying the problem, (2) seeking ethics guidance, (3) adapting policies and practices, and (4) supporting and training staff. Results The OPS is open between 10:00 and 20:00 and staffed by two nurses per shift. It is accessible to all patients including inpatients, patients in the Emergency Department, and patients attending outpatient services. Between February 1, 2021 and October 23, 2021, the OPS recorded 1612 visits for the purpose of injection, for an average weekly visit number of 42. A total of 46 overdoses were recorded in that 9-month period. Thirty-seven (80%) required administration of naloxone and 12 (26%) required a code blue response. Conclusions Due to the unique nature of our OPS, we learned many important lessons in the process leading to the opening of the site and the months that followed. We conclude the paper with lessons learned grouped into six main categories, namely engagement, communication, access, staff education and support, data collection, and safety.

Gagnon discusses the importance of allowing assisted injection in supervised injection sites. Assisted injection is currently not permitted in supervised injection sites in Canada. Requiring assistance with injecting is associated with an increased risk of harms. Prohibiting assisted injection negatively affects the most vulnerable subgroups of people who inject drugs and puts them at greater risk of harms. Assisted injection is permitted in other countries and could be allowed in Canada if new policies and regulations are put into place.