Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Opioid-related harms and deaths remain a persistent public health crisis across Ontario, Canada, with non-urban regions facing a disproportionate burden. However, discussions of opioid-related harms across Ontario’s geographic regions have provided an oversimplified assessment, contrasting rural and urban regions which mask the unique challenges and true disparities faced by sparsely populated communities, which are commonly located in the Northern regions. Our study aims to provide a more in depth understanding of the opioid crisis in Ontario across different geographic classifications in accordance to population size, such as rural, urban, and sparsely populated regions, presenting data in both absolute numbers and crude rates with contextual grounding of regional characteristics. A number of different opioid-related indicators such as hospitalizations, overdose rates, opioid service provision and harm reduction supply distribution were analyzed across all 34 of Ontario’s public health units (PHUs) to understand the differences in these indicators based on region across the province. The findings can inform the development of targeted interventions and improve service accessibility for those most affected by the overdose crisis in Ontario. Methods Publicly-available secondary data for each PHU was collected from several provincial and national data sources and analyzed between November 2024 and January 2025. Annual data from 2022 to 2023 on opioid-related harms, opioid agonist treatment (OAT) prescribers and engagement, and the distribution of harm reduction supplies, as well as annual data from 2024 on opioid-inclusive service provision, were collected. Using Statistics Canada’s 2023 Health Region Peer Group Classification, the PHUS were grouped into four geographic classifications: sparsely populated, rural, urban/rural mix, and urban. Crude average rates were calculated for all indicators. Statistical analysis was performed to assess significance of indicators between regions. Results Sparsely populated PHUs were primarily located in Northern Ontario, while rural, urban/rural mix, and urban PHUs were mainly concentrated in Southern Ontario. Urban PHUs have the highest number and lowest rate of opioid-related harms (e.g. 947 opioid-related deaths, representing a rate of 12.5 per 100,000 population), while sparsely populated PHUs reflect the opposite trend (e.g. 158 opioid-related deaths, representing a rate of 44.2 per 100,000 population). A similar pattern emerges for harm reduction services and naloxone distribution. The number of treatment services is highest in rural PHUs ( n  = 237) and lowest in sparsely populated PHUs ( n  = 83), despite having the highest rate. OAT prescribers, OAT engagement, and needle distribution follow a similar trend. Statistical significance was found between geographic regions for most indicators, except opioid-inclusive support services, harm reduction services, and naloxone distribution. Conclusion Sparsely populated and rural PHUs experience the highest burden of opioid-related harms, coupled with limitations in service accessibility, demonstrating a clear need for additional harm reduction services. Decision-makers may be misled into underestimating the crisis in non-urban areas as a result of oversimplified reporting, resulting in inadequate support for these regions. Addressing these disparities is key to reducing opioid-related mortality and ensuring equitable access to life-saving services across Ontario.

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.

Background Canada is in the midst of a worsening overdose crisis, driven largely by the unregulated drug supply. In response, safer opioid supply (SOS) programs were implemented to provide pharmaceutical-grade opioids alongside critical services. However, in August 2024, Ontario’s provincial government introduced restrictions on harm reduction initiatives, coinciding with the expiration of federal funding, forcing many programs to close. In their place, the government announced the implementation of Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment Hubs, which exclude harm reduction programs, including SOS programs. This study explores the experiences of SOS program clients and the anticipated impacts of these program closures on their lives. Methods A qualitative study design was used, involving semi-structured interviews with people who use drugs who were enrolled in six SOS programs across Ontario. Participants were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. Eligible participants were current SOS clients (≥ 6 months), aged 18 or older, and English-speaking. Interviews were conducted virtually and explored participants’ experiences with SOS programs, anticipated impacts of program closures, and strategies to mitigate risks. Data were thematically analyzed using NVivo. Results Participants reported that SOS programs reduced their reliance on the unregulated drug supply, decreased their overdose risk, and connected them to wraparound services. The impending closures triggered widespread fear, uncertainty, and anxiety, particularly about returning to the unregulated supply. Participants also expressed concerns over the loss of access to critical health and social services and the potential decline in their quality of life. Many expressed frustration over the lack of meaningful alternatives, difficulties in securing new prescribers, and distress over forced medication tapers. Conclusion This study highlights participants’ concerns that SOS program closures may force them back into an increasingly dangerous unregulated market, ultimately putting their lives at risk, along with reversing the many benefits SOS programs provided, such as connections to essential health and social services. By replacing harm reduction programs with treatment services, the government is not reducing the demand for opioid use; instead, it forces a return to the unregulated drug market, ultimately putting individuals at risk of overdose.

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. 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. 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.

Canada is in the midst of a worsening overdose crisis, driven largely by the unregulated drug supply. In response, safer opioid supply (SOS) programs were implemented to provide pharmaceutical-grade opioids alongside critical services. However, in August 2024, Ontario's provincial government introduced restrictions on harm reduction initiatives, coinciding with the expiration of federal funding, forcing many programs to close. In their place, the government announced the implementation of Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment Hubs, which exclude harm reduction programs, including SOS programs. This study explores the experiences of SOS program clients and the anticipated impacts of these program closures on their lives. A qualitative study design was used, involving semi-structured interviews with people who use drugs who were enrolled in six SOS programs across Ontario. Participants were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. Eligible participants were current SOS clients ([greater than or equal to] 6 months), aged 18 or older, and English-speaking. Interviews were conducted virtually and explored participants' experiences with SOS programs, anticipated impacts of program closures, and strategies to mitigate risks. Data were thematically analyzed using NVivo. This study highlights participants' concerns that SOS program closures may force them back into an increasingly dangerous unregulated market, ultimately putting their lives at risk, along with reversing the many benefits SOS programs provided, such as connections to essential health and social services. By replacing harm reduction programs with treatment services, the government is not reducing the demand for opioid use; instead, it forces a return to the unregulated drug market, ultimately putting individuals at risk of overdose.