Public support for harm reduction: A population survey of Canadian adults.

We described public views toward harm reduction among Canadian adults and tested a social exposure model predicting support for these contentious services, drawing on theories in the morality policy, intergroup relations, addiction, and media communication literatures. A quota sample of 4645 adults (18+ years), randomly drawn from an online research panel and stratified to match age and sex distributions of adults within and across Canadian provinces, was recruited in June 2018. Participants completed survey items assessing support for harm reduction for people who use drugs (PWUD) and for seven harm reduction interventions. Additional items assessed exposure to media coverage on harm reduction, and scales assessing stigma toward PWUD (α = .72), personal familiarity with PWUD (α = .84), and disease model beliefs about addiction (α = .79). Most (64%) Canadians supported harm reduction (provincial estimates = 60% - 73%). Five of seven interventions received majority support, including: outreach (79%), naloxone (72%), drug checking (70%), needle distribution (60%) and supervised drug consumption (55%). Low-threshold opioid agonist treatment and safe inhalation interventions received less support (49% and 44%). Our social exposure model, adjusted for respondent sex, household income, political views, and education, exhibited good fit and accounted for 17% of variance in public support for harm reduction. Personal familiarity with PWUD and disease model beliefs about addiction were directly associated with support (ßs = .07 and -0.10, respectively), and indirectly influenced public support via stigmatized attitudes toward PWUD (ßs = 0.01 and -0.01, respectively). Strategies to increase support for harm reduction could problematize certain disease model beliefs (e.g., "There are only two possibilities for an alcoholic or drug addict-permanent abstinence or death") and creating opportunities to reduce social distance between PWUD, the public, and policy makers.

Media coverage of harm reduction, 2000-2016: A content analysis of tone, topics, and interventions in Canadian print news.

BACKGROUND: Harm reduction interventions reduce mortality and morbidity for people who use drugs (PWUD), but are contentious and haphazardly implemented. This study describes volume and content of Canadian newspaper coverage of harm reduction produced from 2000 to 2016. METHODS: Searches of 54 English-language newspapers identified 5681 texts, coded for type (news reports, opinion pieces), tone (positive, negative, or neutral/balanced coverage), topic (health, crime, social welfare, and political perspectives on harm reduction), and seven harm reduction interventions. RESULTS: Volume of coverage doubled in 2008 (after removal of harm reduction from federal drug policy and legal challenges to Vancouver's supervised consumption program) and quadrupled in 2016 (tracking Canada's opioid emergency). Health perspectives on harm reduction were most common (39% of texts) while criminal perspectives were rare (3%). Negative coverage was over 10 times more common in opinion pieces (31%) compared to news reports (3%); this trend was more pronounced in British Columbia and Alberta, a region particularly affected by Canada's opioid emergency. Supervised drug consumption accounted for 49% of all newspaper coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Although federal policy support for harm reduction waxed and waned over 17 years, Canadian newspapers independently shaped public discourse, frequently characterizing harm reduction positively/neutrally and from a health perspective. However, issue framing and agenda setting was also evident: supervised drug consumption offered in a single Canadian city crowded out coverage of all other harm reduction services, except for naloxone. This narrow sense of 'newsworthiness' obscured public discourse on the full spectrum of evidence-based harm reduction services that could benefit PWUD.

Patient perspectives on a harm reduction-oriented addiction medicine consultation team implemented in a large acute care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Addiction medicine consultation teams [AMCTs] are a promising strategy for improving hospital care for patients with substance use disorders. Yet very little research has examined AMCT implementation in acute care settings. To address this gap, we conducted a process evaluation of a novel harm reduction-oriented AMCT. Our specific aims included examining patients' perspectives on factors that facilitated or hindered AMCT delivery, and its impact on their hospital care and outcomes. METHODS: The AMCT provided integrated addiction medicine, harm reduction services, and wraparound health and social supports for patients of a large, urban acute care hospital in Western Canada. We adopted a focused ethnographic design and recruited 21 patients into semi-structured interviews eliciting their views on the care they received from the team. RESULTS: Participants highlighted the AMCT's harm reduction approach; reputation amongst peers; and specialized training as especially important intervention facilitators. Key barriers that constrained the impact of the team included unmet expectations; difficulty accessing follow-up care; and residual conflicts between the AMCT's harm reduction approach and the abstinence-only orientation of some hospital staff. For a few participants these conflicts led to negative experiences. Despite this, participants reported that the AMCT had positive impacts overall, including declines in substance use, enhanced mental and emotional wellbeing, and improved socio-economic circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: A novel harm reduction-oriented AMCT led to better hospital experiences and perceived outcomes for patients. However, further efforts are needed to ensure adequate post-discharge follow-up, and a consistent approach to substance use disorder care amongst all hospital staff.

Principles, practice, and policy vacuums: Policy actor views on provincial/territorial harm reduction policy in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Canada is experiencing a new era of harm reduction policymaking and investment. While many provinces and territories are expanding access to these services, harm reduction policy and policymaking varies across the country. The present study, part of the Canadian Harm Reduction Policy Project (CHARPP), described policy actors' views on formal harm reduction policies in Canada's 13 provinces and territories. METHODS: As part of CHARPP's mixed-method, multiple case study, we conducted qualitative interviews with 75 policy actors, including government officials, health system leaders, senior staff at community organizations, and advocates with self-identified lived experience of using drugs. Interviews were conducted in English or French, and recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used latent content analysis to inductively code the data and generate main findings. NVivo 11 was used to organize the transcripts. RESULTS: Participants expressed divergent views on formal provincial/territorial policies and their impact on availability of harm reduction programs and services. While some identified a need to develop new policies or improve existing ones, others resisted bureaucratization of harm reduction or felt the absence of formal policy was instead, advantageous. Instances where harm reduction was advanced outside of formal policymaking were also described. DISCUSSION: Previous CHARPP research documented wide variability in quantity and quality of formal harm reduction policies across Canada, and characterized official policy documents as serving largely rhetorical rather than instrumental functions. The present findings highlight diverse ways that actors used their discretion to navigate these weak policy contexts. Participants' views and experiences sometimes referred to strengthening policy support, but institutionalization of harm reduction was also resisted or rejected. Results suggest that actors adopt a range of pragmatic strategies to advance harm reduction services in response to policy vacuums characteristic of morality policy domains, and challenge assumptions about the utility of formal policies for advancing harm reduction.

Harm reduction in name, but not substance: a comparative analysis of current Canadian provincial and territorial policy frameworks.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, funding, administration, and delivery of health services-including those targeting people who use drugs-are primarily the responsibility of the provinces and territories. Access to harm reduction services varies across jurisdictions, possibly reflecting differences in provincial and territorial policy commitments. We examined the quality of current provincial and territorial harm reduction policies in Canada, relative to how well official documents reflect internationally recognized principles and attributes of a harm reduction approach. METHODS: We employed an iterative search and screening process to generate a corpus of 54 provincial and territorial harm reduction policy documents that were current to the end of 2015. Documents were content-analyzed using a deductive coding framework comprised of 17 indicators that assessed the quality of policies relative to how well they described key population and program aspects of a harm reduction approach. RESULTS: Only two jurisdictions had current provincial-level, stand-alone harm reduction policies; all other documents were focused on either substance use, addiction and/or mental health, or sexually transmitted and/or blood-borne infections. Policies rarely named specific harm reduction interventions and more frequently referred to generic harm reduction programs or services. Only one document met all 17 indicators. Very few documents acknowledged that stigma and discrimination are issues faced by people who use drugs, that not all substance use is problematic, or that people who use drugs are legitimate participants in policymaking. A minority of documents recognized that abstaining from substance use is not required to receive services. Just over a quarter addressed the risk of drug overdose, and even fewer acknowledged the need to apply harm reduction approaches to an array of drugs and modes of use. CONCLUSIONS: Current provincial and territorial policies offer few robust characterizations of harm reduction or go beyond rhetorical or generic support for the approach. By endorsing harm reduction in name, but not in substance, provincial and territorial policies may communicate to diverse stakeholders a general lack of support for key aspects of the approach, potentially challenging efforts to expand harm reduction services.