Disease-related stigma among people who inject drugs in Toronto amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Stigma overwhelmingly affects people who inject drugs. The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for people who inject drugs, who are already stigmatized as being "dangerous and spreading disease." The present study explored ways in which stigma was experienced by a sample of people who inject drugs in Toronto, Canada following COVID-related public health precaution measures. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with people who inject drugs (n = 24) recruited from supervised consumption sites in Toronto, Canada. The semi-structured interview guide focused on the impact of COVID-19 on participants' health and social well-being. Interviews took place six-months after initial COVID-19 precautions (September-October 2020). We used thematic analysis to examine findings, with stigma being an emergent theme. Results: Participants described heightened acts of stigma after COVID-19 restrictions were implemented, including feeling treated as "diseased" and the cause of COVID-19's spread. They reported being less likely to receive emergency care during events such as overdoses. Participants perceived increased disease-related stigma evident through actions of stigma, including amplified dehumanization by the public, others avoiding all contact with them, and more discrimination by police and hospital systems. Conclusion: Participants provided specific examples of how stigmatizing behaviors harmed them after COVID-19 precautions began. It is plausible that stigma contributed to the dramatic increase in fatal overdoses, difficulty accessing housing, and further difficulty accessing needed healthcare in our setting. Integrating evidence-based harm reduction approaches in areas where stigma is evident might offset harms stemming from disease-related stigma and mitigate these harms during future public health emergencies.

Access to tablet injectable opioid agonist therapy in rural and smaller urban settings in British Columbia, Canada: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Rural and smaller urban settings in Canada are disproportionately impacted by the overdose crisis, highlighting the need for novel public health interventions within these jurisdictions. Tablet injectable opioid agonist therapy (TiOAT) programs have been implemented in select rural communities as a means to address drug-related harms. However, little is known about the accessibility of these novel programs. Therefore, we conducted this study to understand the rural context and factors that affected access of TiOAT programs. METHODS: Between October 2021 to April 2022, individual qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 individuals enrolled in a TiOAT program at participating rural and smaller urban sites in British Columbia, Canada. Interview transcripts were coded using NVivo 12 and data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: TiOAT access varied considerably. TiOAT delivery in rural settings is complicated due to geographic challenges. Participants who were homeless and staying at a nearby shelter or those in centrally-located supportive housing had minimal issues compared to those living in more affordable housing on the outskirts of town with limited transportation options. Dispensing policies that required daily-witnessed ingestion multiple times daily were challenging for most. Only one site provided evening take-home doses whereas participants at the other site could only resort to the illicit opioid supply to address withdrawal outside of program hours. Participants described the clinics as providing a positive and familial social environment compared to experiences of stigma elsewhere. Medication interruptions did occur when participants were in hospital and custodial settings, leading to withdrawal, program discontinuation, and overdose risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the beneficial ways in which health services tailored for people who use drugs can create a stigma-free environment with an emphasis on social bonds. Other factors such as transportation access, dispensing policies, and access in rural hospitals and custodial settings produced unique challenges for rural people who use drugs. Public health authorities in rural and smaller settings should consider these factors when designing, implementing, and scaling up future substance use services, including TiOAT programs.

"We're already doing this work": ethical research with community-based organizations.

BACKGROUND: Public health research frequently relies on collaborations with community-based organizations, and these partnerships can be essential to the success of a project. However, while public health ethics and oversight policies have historically focused on ensuring that individual subjects are protected from unethical or unfair practices, there are few guidelines to protect the organizations which facilitate relationships with - and are frequently composed of - these same vulnerable populations. As universities, governments, and donors place a renewed emphasis on the need for community engaged research to address systematic drivers of health inequity, it is vital that the ways in which research is conducted does not uphold the same intersecting systems of gender, race, and class oppression which led to the very same health inequities of interest. METHODS: To understand how traditional notions of public health research ethics might be expanded to encompass partnerships with organizations as well as individuals, we conducted qualitative interviews with 39 staff members (executive directors and frontline) at community-based organizations that primarily serve people who use drugs, Black men who have sex with men, and sex workers across the United States from January 2016 - August 2017. We also conducted 11 in-depth interviews with professional academic researchers with experience partnering with CBOs that serve similar populations. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using emergent codes and a priori codes derived from the Belmont Report. RESULTS: The concepts of respect, beneficence, and justice are a starting point for collaboration with CBOs, but participants deepened them beyond traditional regulatory concepts to consider the ethics of relationships, care, and solidarity. These concepts could and should apply to the treatment of organizations that participate in research just as they apply to individual human subjects, although their implementation will differ when applied to CBOs vs individual human subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Academic-CBO partnerships are likely to be more successful for both academics and CBOs if academic researchers work to center individual-level relationship building that is mutually respectful and grounded in cultural humility. More support from academic institutions and ethical oversight entities can enable more ethically grounded relationships between academic researchers, academic institutions, and community based organizations.