Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Increasing rates of injection drug use (IDU) associated-infections suggest significant syringe service program (SSP) underutilization. Our study objective was to assess practices of safe injection techniques and to determine predictors of SSP utilization in a rural state. Patients and methods This was a fifteen-month cross-sectional study of participants hospitalized with IDU-associated infections in Maine. Data were collected through Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview survey and medical record review. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize demographics, health characteristics, and injection practices. The primary outcome was SSP utilization, and the main independent variable was self-reported distance to SSP. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated SSP utilization, controlling for gender, homelessness, history of overdose, having a primary care physician and distance to SSP. Results Of the 101 study participants, 65 participants (64%) reported past 3 month SSP utilization, though only 33% used SSPs frequently. Many participants (57%) lived more than 10 miles from an SSP. Participants who lived less than 10 miles of an SSP were more likely to use an SSP (adjusted odds ratio 5.4; 95% CI 1.9–15.7). Conclusions Our study highlights unsafe injection practices and lack of frequent SSP utilization among people admitted with IDU-associated infections in a rural state. Especially given increasing stimulant use, these results also highlight the need for SSP access. Particularly in rural areas where patients may live more than 10 miles from an SSP, expansion of harm reduction services, including mobile units, should be a priority.

Background Syringe services programs (SSPs) provide harm reduction supplies and services to people who use drugs and are often required by funders or partners to collect data from program participants. SSPs can use these data during monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to inform programmatic decision making, however little is known about facilitators and barriers to collecting and using data at SSPs. Methods Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted 12 key informant interviews with SSP staff to describe the overall landscape of data systems at SSPs, understand facilitators and barriers to data collection and use at SSPs, and generate recommendations for best practices for data collection at SSPs. We used 30 CFIR constructs to develop individual interview guides, guide data analysis, and interpret study findings. Results Four main themes emerged from our analysis: SSP M&E systems are primarily designed to be responsive to perceived SSP client needs and preferences; SSP staffing capacity influences the likelihood of modifying M&E systems; external funding frequently forces changes to M&E systems; and strong M&E systems are often a necessary precursor for accessing funding. Conclusions Our findings highlight that SSPs are not resistant to data collection and M&E, but face substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of funding and disjointed data reporting requirements. There is a need to expand M&E-focused funding opportunities, harmonize quantitative indicators collected across funders, and minimize data collection to essential data points for SSPs.

Background Despite recent financial and policy support for harm reduction in the USA, information on the types of workers within organizations who design, implement, and actualize harm reduction services remains nascent. Little is known about how variability in the harm reduction workforce impacts referrals and linkages to other community supports. This exploratory mixed-methods study asked: (1) Who constitutes the harm reduction workforce? (2) Who provides behavioral health services within harm reduction organizations? (3) Are referral services offered and by whom? (4) Do referrals differ by type of harm reduction worker? Methods Purposive sampling techniques were used to distribute an electronic survey to U.S.-based harm reduction organizations. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Multivariate binary logistic regression models examined the associations (a) between the odds of the referral processes at harm reduction organizations and (b) between the provision of behavioral health services and distinct types of organizational staff. Qualitative data were analyzed using a hybrid approach of inductive and thematic analysis. Results Data from 41 states and Washington, D.C. were collected ( N  = 168; 48% response rate). Four primary types of workers were identified: community health/peer specialists (87%); medical/nursing staff (55%); behavioral health (49%); and others (34%). About 43% of organizations had a formal referral process; among these, only 32% had follow-up protocols. Qualitative findings highlighted the broad spectrum of behavioral health services offered and a broad behavioral health workforce heavily reliant on peers. Unadjusted results from multivariate models found that harm reduction organizations were more than 5 times more likely (95% CI [1.91, 13.38]) to have a formal referral process and 6 times more likely (95% CI [1.74, 21.52]) to have follow-up processes when behavioral health services were offered. Organizations were more than two times more likely (95% CI [1.09, 4.46]) to have a formal referral process and 2.36 (95% CI [1.11, 5.0]) times more likely to have follow-up processes for referrals when behavioral health providers were included. Conclusions The composition of the harm reduction workforce is occupationally diverse. Understanding the types of services offered, as well as the workforce who provides those services, offers valuable insights into staffing and service delivery needs of frontline organizations working to reduce morbidity and mortality among those who use substances. Workforce considerations within U.S.-based harm reduction organizations are increasingly important as harm reduction services continue to expand.

Background The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) exacerbated risks for adverse health consequences among people who inject drugs by reducing access to sterile injection equipment, HIV testing, and syringe services programs (SSPs). Several decades of research demonstrate the public health benefits of SSP implementation; however, existing evidence primarily reflects studies conducted in metropolitan areas and before the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives We aim to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic affected SSP operations in rural Kentucky counties. Methods In late 2020, we conducted eighteen in-depth, semi-structured interviews with persons (10 women, 8 men) involved in SSP implementation in rural Kentucky counties. The interview guide broadly explored the barriers and facilitators to SSP implementation in rural communities; participants were also asked to describe how COVID-19 affected SSP operations. Results Participants emphasized the need to continue providing SSP-related services throughout the pandemic. COVID-19 mitigation strategies (e.g., masking, social distancing, pre-packing sterile injection equipment) limited relationship building between staff and clients and, more broadly, the pandemic adversely affected overall program expansion, momentum building, and coalition building. However, participants offered multiple examples of innovative solutions to the myriad of obstacles the pandemic presented. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic impacted SSP operations throughout rural Kentucky. Despite challenges, participants reported that providing SSP services remained paramount. Diverse adaptative strategies were employed to ensure continuation of essential SSP services, demonstrating the commitment and ingenuity of program staff. Given that SSPs are essential for preventing adverse injection drug use-associated health consequences, further resources should be invested in SSP operations to ensure service delivery is not negatively affected by co-occurring crises.

Background Syringe services programs (SSPs) deliver harm reduction supplies and services to people who use drugs. Despite their well-established positive impact, few studies have focused on SSP operations in rural and Indigenous contexts. This research explores correlates of willingness to use an SSP among a sample of people living in a rural Northern Midwest American Indian reservation community in the United States. Methods Using data from a community health survey conducted in a Northern Midwest reservation community ( N  = 227), we examined self-reported willingness to use an SSP among Indigenous adults who reported having ever used drugs. We tested for associations between willingness to use an SSP and several covariates, including drug use behaviors, overdose experiences, and social network characteristics. Results Nearly half (43%) of the sample reported a willingness to use an SSP. Among people who had recently used drugs, 56% were willing to use an SSP. Willingness to use an SSP was significantly ( p  < 0.05) associated with lifetime and recent injection drug use, recent methamphetamine use, having experienced or witnessed an overdose, having friends or family who use drugs, and younger age. Conclusions These data suggest there is an openness for harm reduction in a Northern Midwest Indigenous community. Given the importance of Indigenous identity and traditional spiritual values to Indigenous communities, harm reduction efforts should be anchored in local culture and context. Future work should examine how harm reduction can best be implemented and tailored to the needs of Indigenous communities.