Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Occurring against the backdrop of an overdose crisis, stimulant use and stimulant-involved deaths in North America are increasing at an alarming rate. Many of these deaths are being attributed to fentanyl and related analogs, which have been increasingly found within street-level stimulant supplies. Within this, people experiencing socio-economic marginalization are at the greatest risk of overdose and other harms from adulterated stimulants. Current treatments for stimulant use disorder have limited effectiveness, and even less applicability to the lived realities of marginalized stimulant users. Emerging technologies, such as drug checking, are being implemented to support safer stimulant use, but the accessibility and utility of these technologies to stimulant users are framed by experiences of vulnerability that render them largely ineffective. Stimulant safe supply Solutions that provide a legal and safe supply of non-adulterated stimulants of known quality, and within a health care framework, are needed to directly address the risk of an increasingly adulterated stimulant supply. Similar innovative opioid-focused interventions are being piloted with medications that have a similar pharmacological effect as their illicit counterparts. While there are currently no approved pharmacotherapies for stimulant use, research has demonstrated a number of stimulant medications that are promising substitutes for cocaine and methamphetamine use. Much like with opioid-focused pharmacotherapies, having a consistent and safe supply of stimulants can lead to improved health outcomes and will drastically reduce overdose risk. However, for a stimulant safe supply intervention to be a success, it must provide the high and performance-enhancing effects that people seek from the illicit market, which requires doses and user agency that trials to date have not provided. Conclusion Efforts are needed to investigate the feasibility of pharmacological stimulant-based interventions that address safe supply needs. The promise of similar opioid-focused approaches in addressing both overdose-related risks and experiences related to vulnerability underscores the need to advance safe supply approaches targeted towards people who use stimulants. Given the current overdose crisis and rising stimulant use across North America, the implementation and evaluation of such novel stimulant-focused interventions should be a public health priority.

The MySafe program provides pharmaceutical-grade opioids to participants with opioid use disorder via a biometric dispensing machine. The objectives of this study were to examine facilitators and barriers to safer supply via the MySafe program and the associated outcomes. We conducted semistructured interviews with participants who had been enrolled in the MySafe program for at least a month at 1 of 3 sites in Vancouver. We developed the interview guide in consultation with a community advisory board. Interviews focused on context of substance use and overdose risk, enrolment motivations, program access and functionality, and outcomes. We integrated case study and grounded theory methodologies, and used both conventional and directed content analyses to guide inductive and deductive coding processes. We interviewed 46 participants. Characteristics that facilitated use of the program included accessibility and choice, a lack of consequences for missing doses, nonwitnessed dosing, judgment-free services and an ability to accumulate doses. Barriers included technological issues with the dispensing machine, dosing challenges and prescriptions being tied to individual machines. Participant-reported outcomes included reduced use of illicit drugs, decreased overdose risk, positive financial impacts and improvements in health and well-being. Participants perceived that the MySafe program reduced drug-related harms and promoted positive outcomes. This service delivery model may be able to circumvent barriers that exist at other safer opioid supply programs and may enable access to safer supply in settings where programs may otherwise be limited.

Background Novel public health interventions are needed to address the toxic drug supply and meet the needs of people who use drugs amidst the overdose crisis. Safer supply – low-barrier distribution of pharmaceutical grade substances – has been implemented in some jurisdictions to provide safer alternatives to the unregulated drug supply, yet no studies to date have explored professional stakeholder perspectives on this approach. Methods We used purposive sampling to recruit professional stakeholders (n = 17) from four locations in British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, including program managers, executive directors, political and health authority representatives, and healthcare providers involved in the design, implementation, and/or operation of safer supply programs in their communities. Semi-structured, one-to-one interviews were conducted, and interview data were coded and analyzed using thematic analyses. Results Participants defined safer supply as low-barrier access to substances of known quality and quantity, offered on a continuum from prescribed to a legal, regulated supply, and focused on upholding autonomy and liberation of people who use drugs. Stakeholders expressed support for safer supply but explained that current iterations do not meet the needs of all people who use drugs and that implementation is limited by a lack of willing prescribers, stigma towards people who use drugs, and precarity of harm reduction programs to political ideology. Stakeholders expressed strong support for wider-reaching approaches such as decriminalization, legalization, and regulation of substances as a way to fully realize a continuum of safer supply, directly address the overdose crisis and toxic drug supply, and ensure equity of access nationally. Conclusion The results of this study highlight the need for innovative strategies to address the overdose crisis and that safer supply has the potential to benefit certain people who use drugs. A one-size-fits-all approach is not sufficient and the perspectives of professional stakeholders should be considered alongside those of people who use drugs when designing and implementing future safer supply.

Background The adulteration of the illicit drug supply with fentanyl and its analogues is driving the ongoing overdose crisis in North America. While various harm reduction interventions address overdose-related risks, there is growing interest in safer supply programs, including the MySafe Project which utilizes a biometric dispensing machine that provides pharmaceutical opioid alternatives to the toxic drug supply. However, the experiences and perspectives of professional community partners on program implementation remain unexplored. This study aims to examine professional community partner perspectives on the feasibility, as well as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the MySafe program. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 professional community partners involved in program implementation across four pilot locations in Canada. Thematic analysis of interviews focused on perspectives on safer supply, barriers and facilitators faced during program implementation, and recommendations to inform future scale-up of low-barrier safer supply models across Canada. Results Participants identified a variety of barriers, including the dependence on clinician buy-in, coupled with regulatory and logistical constraints. In addition, some participants perceived hydromorphone to be an inadequate substitute to the increasingly toxic street opioid supply. Lastly, technical difficulties were described as barriers to service uptake and delivery. Conversely, having political and community buy-in, availability of wrap-around services, and collaborative communication from the MySafe team served as facilitators to program implementation. Though community partners preferred establishing MySafe machines into existing community organizations, they also discussed benefits of housing-based MySafe programs. The potential role of this program in mid-sized to rural cities was also emphasized. Conclusions To address the overdose crisis, there is an urgent need to implement and evaluate novel solutions that address supply drivers of crisis. Community partner-informed research plays an integral role in ensuring program acceptability and proper implementation. Our findings identify current gaps and facilitators underlying the efficacy of one such model, together with future directions for improvement. Participant recommendations included a diversification of medications offered and types of locations for MySafe programs, a streamlined national approach to prescribing guidelines coupled with more robust training for healthcare professionals, and an emphasis on service delivery within an integrated services model. Our findings underscore a potential gap between the goals of healthcare providers in ensuring comprehensive care and the necessity for low-barrier models such as MySafe that can function both within and outside of integrated service models.

Background Canada’s historical reliance on criminal justice approaches to drug policy has intensified structural and social stigma, and high-risk behaviours among people who use drugs. In response to pressure from local advocates, British Columbia implemented a pilot decriminalization policy in January 2023, permitting adults to possess up to 2.5 g of specified unregulated substances, cumulatively. While not designed to address the toxic drug supply directly, it aimed to reduce stigma and encourage engagement with health and harm reduction services. In May 2024, however, drug possession in public spaces was recriminalized, raising concerns about a return to punitive environments. To date, little is known about how these policy shifts have been experienced by people who use drugs themselves. We conducted a qualitative study exploring the impacts of British Columbia’s decriminalization policy and its subsequent recriminalization amendment on the drug use behaviours of people who use drugs across the province. Methods A cross-sectional qualitative study with 75 people who use drugs across British Columbia, including a socio-demographic survey, and semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. The codebook was applied across all transcripts using a comparative approach to identify recurring patterns, divergent experiences, and key themes related to drug use behaviours. Results Participants reported little to no change in their drug use patterns following either decriminalization or recriminalization, as drug use was primarily driven by dependence, routine, and structural factors. Nonetheless, many described a psychological benefit under decriminalization, including reduced shame, internalized stigma, and fear of criminalization. These gains were largely reversed following the recriminalization amendment, which pushed drug use back into hidden, high-risk environments. Participants also noted destabilizing shifts in the drug supply, including increased potency and a rise in less experienced dealers, linked to the 2.5 g threshold. Conclusion Decriminalization did not significantly alter drug use behaviours but offered notable psychological relief for participants. The subsequent recriminalization amendment then reversed these perceived gains, illustrating how this abrupt policy change led to unintended consequences, undermining the original goals of the decriminalization policy. These findings highlight the need for sustained and structurally supported effective policy approaches that center the lived realities of people who use drugs.

Objectives. To explore the implementation and effectiveness of the British Columbia, Canada, risk mitigation guidelines among people who use drugs, focusing on how experiences with the illicit drug supply shaped motivations to seek prescription alternatives and the subsequent impacts on overdose vulnerability. Methods. From February to July 2021, we conducted qualitative interviews with 40 people who use drugs in British Columbia, Canada, and who accessed prescription opioids or stimulants under the risk mitigation guidelines. Results. COVID-19 disrupted British Columbia’s illicit drug market. Concerns about overdose because of drug supply changes, and deepening socioeconomic marginalization, motivated participants to access no-cost prescription alternatives. Reliable access to prescription alternatives addressed overdose vulnerability by reducing engagement with the illicit drug market while allowing greater agency over drug use. Because prescriptions were primarily intended to manage withdrawal, participants supplemented with illicit drugs to experience enjoyment and manage pain. Conclusions. Providing prescription alternatives to illicit drugs is a critical harm reduction approach that reduces exposure to an increasingly toxic drug supply, yet further optimizations are needed. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S2):S151–S158. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306692 )

North America is experiencing an overdose crisis driven by fentanyl, related analogues, and fentanyl-adulterated drugs. In response, there have been increased calls for “safe supply” interventions based on the premise that providing a safer alternative (i.e., pharmaceutical drugs of known quality/quantity, non-adulterated, with user agency in consumption methods) to the street drug supply will limit people’s use of fentanyl-adulterated drugs and reduce overdose events. This study examined outcomes of a hydromorphone tablet distribution program intended to prevent overdose events among people who use drugs (PWUD) at high risk of fatal overdose. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 42 people enrolled in the hydromorphone distribution program. Additionally, over 100 h of ethnographic observation were undertaken in and around the study site. Transcripts were coded using NVivo and based on categories extracted from the interview guides and those identified during initial interviews and ethnographic fieldwork. Analysis focused on narratives around experiences with the program, focusing on program-related outcomes. Our analysis identified the following positive outcomes of being enrolled in the hydromorphone tablet distribution program: (1) reduced street drug use and overdose risk, (2) improvements to health and well-being, (3) improvements in co-management of pain, and (4) economic improvements. Our findings indicate that the hydromorphone distribution program not only is effective in responding to the current overdose crisis by reducing people’s use of illicit drugs but also addresses inequities stemming from the intersection of drug use and social inequality. Safe supply programs should be further implemented and evaluated in both urban and rural setting across North America as a strategy to reduce exposure to the toxic drug supply and fatal overdose.

The majority of overdose deaths in British Columbia (BC) occur among people using illicit substances alone in private residences. Some supportive housing in BC includes on-site access to a variety of health and substance use–related services. More recently, a number of supportive housing locations have started offering prescribed safer supply medications to people at high overdose risk, though these remain limited and under-evaluated. In this study, we describe the drug use practices — including access to and use of on-site supervised consumption, OAT, and prescribed safer supply medications — of study participants living in permanent supportive housing with integrated primary care, substance use treatment services, and supervised consumption spaces. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 residents of a permanent supportive housing site in Vancouver, Canada. Data were analyzed using a sequential process to identify both a priori (e.g., low-barrier substance use treatment, pandemic effects on service access) and emerging themes (e.g., using alone). Most (N = 27) study participants reported using alone in their rooms, despite having access to an on-site supervised consumption area. Reasons for using alone include the following: preference for being alone, discretion/stigma, and restrictive housing policies. Less than half (N = 12) of the study participants accessed on-site prescribed safer supply medications. Participants receiving on-site prescribed safer supply described positive benefits including reduced use of illicit opioids, and less reliance on illicit income generation activities. On-site prescribed safer supply programs within supportive housing environments are an important tool in addressing overdose risk.

Interpretation: Participants perceived that the MySafe program reduced drug-related harms and promoted positive outcomes. This service delivery model may be able to circumvent barriers that exist at other safer opioid supply programs and may enable access to safer supply in settings where programs may otherwise be limited.

“The Molson” is a low-barrier, peer-staffed, supervised consumption site located in Vancouver, Canada. In addition to overdose response, this site offers drug checking and a colocated injectable hydromorphone treatment program, and it distributes tablet and liquid hydromorphone to service users at high risk of overdose. Our evaluation suggests benefits of this program in creating service continuums and preventing overdose deaths. From September 2017 to August 2019, the site had 128 944 visits, reversed 770 overdoses, and had no overdose deaths.