ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Sexual and gender diverse individuals (SGDI) report higher usage of methamphetamine in sexual contexts. They face difficulties making sense of their experiences and being heard in services. Peer researchers (individuals with lived experience) were involved in a participatory study on methamphetamine consumption. OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe the opportunities and challenges of involving peer researchers in all stages of the research process; 2) To discuss how this involvement could address the epistemic injustice experienced by SGDI who practice chemsex. METHODOLOGY: The peer-researcher participatory process was documented through a journal and meeting notes, which were analyzed through the framework of epistemic injustice. This notion refers to the mechanisms that prevent the knowledge of a person or group from being heard and considered legitimate. RESULTS: The contribution of peer researchers was highly valued and raised questions. Their in-depth knowledge facilitated data analysis and guided knowledge dissemination, promoting the transformation of current services. Their presence also helped to establish relationships of trust with the study population. DISCUSSION: This connection with the study population can create expectations for services that may require a significant level of involvement from researchers. The team’s commitment to improving services can generate a mistaken perception of a lack of objectivity.
Subject(s)
Methamphetamine , Substance-Related Disorders , Humans , Sexual BehaviorABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness are disproportionately affected by harms related to alcohol use. Indeed, their alcohol dependence is associated with numerous physical and mental health problems along with strikingly high rates of alcohol-related mortality. Recent research has extensively examined alcohol use patterns among people experiencing homelessness in an effort to develop interventions and treatments for this problem. However, only a few studies have incorporated the perspectives of the individuals under study about their drinking or examined the ways in which they manage the associated harms. To bridge this gap, we conducted a qualitative study exploring the relation between the drinking motives, risky drinking patterns and harm reduction practices of a group of people (n = 34) experiencing homelessness in Montreal, Canada. METHODS: The qualitative methods we used consisted of semi-structured interviews (n = 12) and focus groups (n = 2, with a total of 22 participants). The content of the collected data was then analyzed. RESULTS: Participants identified their various motives for alcohol use (coping with painful memories, dealing with harsh living conditions, socializing/seeking a sense of belonging, enjoying themselves/having fun); their risky drinking patterns (binge drinking, mixing alcohol with drugs, non-beverage alcohol drinking, failing to keep sufficient alcohol on hand to prevent acute withdrawal, drinking in public settings); their harm reduction practices (planning how much to drink, keeping a supply of alcohol to prevent acute withdrawal, hiding to drink, concealing alcohol, drinking alone, drinking/hanging out with others, drinking non-beverage alcohol, and taking benzodiazepines, cocaine or other stimulant drugs); and the rationales underpinning their alcohol use and harm reduction practices. CONCLUSION: Associating the drinking motives of a group of study participants with their risky drinking patterns and harm reduction practices shed light on their rationales for alcohol use, yielding insights that could be used to better tailor policies and interventions to their needs.
