Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Popular perception of people who sell drugs is negative, with drug selling framed as predatory and morally reprehensible. In contrast, people who use drugs (PWUD) often describe positive perceptions of the people who sell them drugs. The “Satellite Sites” program in Toronto, Canada, provides harm reduction services in the community spaces where people gather to buy, use, and sell drugs. This program hires PWUD—who may move into and out of drug selling—as harm reduction workers. In this paper, we examine the integration of people who sell drugs directly into harm reduction service provision, and their practices of care with other PWUD in their community. Methods Data collection included participant observation within the Satellite Sites over a 7-month period in 2016–2017, complemented by 20 semi-structured interviews with Satellite Site workers, clients, and program supervisors. Thematic analysis was used to examine practices of care emerging from the activities of Satellite Site workers, including those circulating around drug selling and sharing behaviors. Results Satellite Site workers engage in a variety of practices of care with PWUD accessing their sites. Distribution of harm reduction equipment is more easily visible as a practice of care because it conforms to normative framings of care. Criminalization, coupled with negative framings of drug selling as predatory, contributes to the difficultly in examining acts of mutual aid and care that surround drug selling as practices of care. By taking seriously the importance for PWUD of procuring good quality drugs, a wider variety of practices of care are made visible. These additional practices of care include assistance in buying drugs, information on drug potency, and refusal to sell drugs that are perceived to be too strong. Conclusion Our results suggest a potential for harm reduction programs to incorporate some people who sell drugs into programming. Taking practices of care seriously may remove some barriers to integration of people who sell drugs into harm reduction programming, and assist in the development of more pertinent interventions that understand the key role of drug buying and selling within the lives of PWUD.

London InterCommunity Health Centre (LIHC) launched a safer opioid supply (SOS) program in 2016, where clients are prescribed pharmaceutical opioids and provided with comprehensive health and social supports. We sought to evaluate the impact of this program on health services utilization and health care costs. We conducted an interrupted time series analysis of London, Ontario, residents who received a diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD) and who entered the SOS program between January 2016 and March 2019, and a comparison group of individuals matched on demographic and clinical characteristics who were not exposed to the program. Primary outcomes were emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, admissions for infections and health care costs. We used autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models to evaluate the impact of SOS initiation and compared outcome rates in the year before and after cohort entry. In the time series analysis, rates of ED visits (−14 visits/100, 95% confidence interval [CI] −26 to −2; p = 0.02), hospital admissions (−5 admissions/100, 95% CI −9 to −2; p = 0.005) and health care costs not related to primary care or outpatient medications (−$922/person, 95% CI −$1577 to −$268; p = 0.008) declined significantly after entry into the SOS program (n = 82), with no significant change in rates of infections (−1.6 infections/100, 95% CI −4.0 to 0.8; p = 0.2). In the year after cohort entry, the rate of ED visits (rate ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90), hospital admissions (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74), admissions for incident infections (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96) and total health care costs not related to primary care or outpatient medications ($15 635 v. $7310/person-year; p = 0.002) declined significantly among SOS clients compared with the year before. We observed no significant change in any of the primary outcomes among unexposed individuals (n = 303). Although additional research is needed, this preliminary evidence indicates that SOS programs can play an important role in the expansion of treatment and harm-reduction options available to assist people who use drugs and who are at high risk of drug poisoning.

Calls to prescribe safer supply hydromorphone (SSHM) as an alternative to the toxic drug supply increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but it is unknown whether prescribing behaviour was altered. We aimed to evaluate how the number of new SSHM dispensations changed during the pandemic in Ontario. We conducted a retrospective interrupted time-series analysis using provincial administrative databases. We counted new SSHM dispensations in successive 28-day periods from March 22, 2016 to August 30, 2021. We used segmented Poisson regression methods to test for both a change in level and trend of new dispensations before and after March 17, 2020, the date Ontario's pandemic-related emergency was declared. We adjusted the models to account for seasonality and assessed for over-dispersion and residual autocorrelation. We used counterfactual analysis methods to estimate the number of new dispensations attributable to the pandemic. We identified 1489 new SSHM dispensations during the study period (434 [mean of 8 per 28-day period] before and 1055 [mean of 56 per 28-day period] during the pandemic). Median age of individuals initiating SSHM was 40 (interquartile interval 33-48) with 61.7% (N = 919) male sex. Before the pandemic, there was a small trend of increased prescribing (incidence rate ratio [IRR] per period 1.002; 95% confidence interval [95CI] 1.001-1.002; p<0.001), with a change in level (immediate increase) at the pandemic date (relative increase in IRR 1.674; 95CI 1.206-2.322; p = 0.002). The trend during the pandemic was not statistically significant (relative increase in IRR 1.000; 95CI 1.000-1.001; p = 0.251). We estimated 511 (95CI 327-695) new dispensations would not have occurred without the pandemic. The pandemic led to an abrupt increase in SSHM prescribing in Ontario, although the rate of increase was similar before and during the pandemic. The absolute number of individuals who accessed SSHM remained low throughout the pandemic.

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.

Integrated treatment programs for pregnant and parenting women who use substances operate at the intersection of multiple service systems, including specialized substance use services, the broader health system, child protection, and social services. Our objectives were to describe the composition and structure of community care networks surrounding integrated treatment programs in selected communities in Ontario, Canada. We used a two-stage snowball method to collect network data from 5 purposively selected integrated treatment programs in communities in Ontario. Front-line staff with integrated treatment programs identified their top 5 service partners, who were then contacted and asked to provide the same information (n = 30). We used social network analysis to measure the cohesiveness, reciprocity, and betweenness centrality in the integrated treatment program's ego network. We described network composition in terms of representation of different service types. Across communities, common service partners were child protection, substance use or mental health services, parenting and child support, and other social services. Primary and pre-natal care, opioid agonist therapy, and legal services were rarely named as partners. Networks varied in network cohesiveness, as indicated by connectivity between the service partners and reciprocal ties to the integrated treatment programs. Integrated treatment programs commonly brokered the connections between other service partners. Findings suggest that these integrated treatment programs have achieved a level of success in developing cross-sectoral partnerships, with child protection services, parenting and child support, and social services featuring prominently in the networks. In contrast, there was a lack of close connections with physician-based services, highlighting a potential target for future quality improvement initiatives in this sector.

To investigate trends and the circumstances surrounding fatal substance-related toxicities directly attributed to alcohol, stimulants, benzodiazepines or opioids and combinations of substances in Ontario, Canada. We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of all accidental substance-related toxicity deaths in Ontario, Canada from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2022. We reported monthly rates of substance-related toxicity deaths and investigated the combination of substances most commonly involved in deaths. Demographic characteristics, location of incident, and prior healthcare encounters for non-fatal toxicities and substance use disorders were examined. Overall, 10,022 accidental substance-related toxicity deaths occurred, with the annual number of deaths nearly doubling between the first and last 12 months of the study period (N = 1,570-2,702). Opioids were directly involved in the majority of deaths (84.1%; N = 8,431), followed by stimulants (60.9%; N = 6,108), alcohol (13.4%; N = 1,346) and benzodiazepines (7.8%; N = 782). In total, 56.9% (N = 5,698) of deaths involved combinations of substances. Approximately one-fifth of individuals were treated in a hospital setting for a substance-related toxicity in the past year, with the majority being opioid-related (17.4%; N = 1,748). Finally, 60.9% (N = 6,098) of people had a substance use disorder diagnosis at time of death. Our study shows not only the enormous loss of life from substance-related toxicities but also the growing importance of combinations of substances in these deaths. A large proportion of people had previously interacted within an hospital setting for prior substance-related toxicity events or related to a substance use disorder, representing important missed intervention points in providing appropriate care.

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 Since 2016, over 50,928 people have died of an opioid-related overdose in Canada. The unregulated supply of drugs is increasingly toxic and volatile, and fentanyl from unregulated, street-based markets is driving this epidemic. Concerns that existing overdose prevention approaches were insufficient to address the rising number of overdoses led to the implementation of safer supply programs (SSPs) in Canada. SSPs provide prescribed medications to people who use drugs and are designed for individuals at high risk of overdose for whom existing care options have been ineffective or inappropriate. Evidence of SSP impact is growing but implementation processes, including admissions, are not well understood nor well-described in practice guidelines. Our purpose was to describe how the admission processes of four Ontario SSPs evolved and how these changes influenced program reach and perceived effectiveness. Methods During 2021, we conducted short demographic and semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers (n = 21) from four SSPs in Ontario about implementation processes, challenges, and impacts. Thematic analysis of data concerning admission processes was conducted in MAXQDA and descriptive statistics in SPSSv28. Results Although the desire was for SSPs to have a broad reach, programs quickly realized they needed to develop strategies to manage the high demand for their programs. To manage this demand, strategies were implemented like waitlists, which were later replaced by points-based admission criteria. These admission criteria evolved over time, leading to a client population with high medical and social needs. The combination of high-acuity clients, limited capacity, and funding constraints, exacerbated by COVID-19, caused significant distress and burnout among service providers, prompting further changes to the SSPs. Discussion The implementation of SSPs in Ontario highlights the challenges of addressing intersecting public health emergencies in a resource-constrained healthcare system. SSPs, were adaptive and evolved in real time; while these adaptations addressed significant equity gaps, they also underscored the limitations of operating within an under-funded primary care model. The narrowing of admission criteria, necessitated by overwhelming demand and limited resources, ultimately constrained their reach and potential population-level impact.

Highlights Participants enrolled in a prescribed safer opioid supply program receive wrap-around care from an interdisciplinary team. Participants contrasted positive experiences of the program with prior negative experiences of opioid agonist therapy (OAT), particularly related to medication side effects, dosing protocols, and lack of therapeutic rapport. Participants expressed positive experiences of the safer supply program including formulations that better met their needs, and increased autonomy and quality of life from more flexible dosing approaches. Results underscore the importance of safer supply prescribing within a substance use continuum of care. Background Prescribed safer supply consists of the provision of pharmaceutical alternatives to people who use drugs to reduce reliance on the highly toxic unregulated supply and mitigate risk of overdose. Prescribed safer supply programs (SSP) have recently been scaled-up in some Canadian jurisdictions, including Ontario, showing demonstratable individual and population level benefits. Differences between prior experiences of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among clients enrolled in the SSP are not well described, including how safer supply programs differ from existing approaches to OAT provision. Methods Drawing on qualitative interviews (n=22) with participants of a safer supply program in Kitchener-Waterloo, a mid-sized southwestern Ontario city, we use thematic analysis to examine contrasting experiences of safer supply and OAT among SSP clients. Results There were several key differences identified between OAT and safer supply program models on key programmatic elements, particularly the medical management of withdrawal, tolerance, and medication side effects. Additionally, differences in the program model and philosophy of care impacted therapeutic rapport and provided greater autonomy for SSP clients. The greater autonomy for clients within SSP aligned strongly with client goals and helped maximize program retention, which is key to the public health goal of reducing overdose related mortality. Conclusion The findings underscore the benefits of – and urgent need for – collaborative decision-making and comprehensive models of care for substance use, including individualized dosing in both OAT and safer supply programs to improve their public health impact. Participants’ experiences provide a window into reorienting to substance use care that offers potential solutions to longstanding challenges within existing OAT models that undermine retention and therapeutic benefit.

Background In response to the devastating drug toxicity crisis in Canada driven by an unregulated opioid supply predominantly composed of fentanyl and analogues, safer supply programs have been introduced. These programs provide people using street-acquired opioids with prescribed, pharmaceutical opioids. We use six core components of safer supply programs identified by people who use drugs to explore participant perspectives on the first year of operations of a safer supply program in Victoria, BC, during the dual public health emergencies of COVID-19 and the drug toxicity crisis to examine whether the program met drug-user defined elements of an effective safer supply model. Methods This study used a community-based participatory research approach to ensure that the research was reflective of community concerns and priorities, rather than being extractive. We interviewed 16 safer supply program participants between December 2020 and June 2021. Analysis was structured using the six core components of effective safer supply from the perspective of people who use drugs, generated through a prior study. Results Ensuring access to the ‘right dose and right drugs’ of medications was crucial, with many participants reporting success with the available pharmaceutical options. However, others highlighted issues with the strength of the available medications and the lack of options for smokeable medications. Accessing the safer supply program allowed participants to reduce their use of drugs from unregulated markets and manage withdrawal, pain and cravings. On components related to program operations, participants reported receiving compassionate care, and that accessing the safer supply program was a non-stigmatizing experience. They also reported receiving support to find housing, access food, obtain ID, and other needs. However, participants worried about long term program sustainability. Conclusions Participants in the safer supply program overwhelmingly appreciated it and felt it was lifesaving, and unlike other healthcare or treatment services they had previously accessed. Participants raised concerns that unless a wider variety of medications and ability to consume them by multiple routes of administration became available, safer supply programs would remain unable to completely replace substances from unregulated markets.