Information acquisition and dissemination among a sample of people who inject drugs in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: This paper examines the acquisition and dissemination of harm reduction information among people who inject drugs, as well as preferred sources of information. METHODS: Data were obtained from 862 people who inject drugs, recruited from Australian capital cities for the 2021 Illicit Drug Reporting System. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess potential factors associated with knowledge sharing. RESULTS: Almost two-fifths (37%) reported that they had received information about how to keep themselves safe when using drugs within the past 6 months. Reporting on their last occasion of receiving information, participants stated that it was commonly about injecting practices (56%), overdose prevention (26%) and injection-related injuries (22%), and was mostly received from an alcohol and other drug worker (54%), followed by other health professional (24%) and social network (18%). Among those who reported receiving information, 50% shared this information with other people, predominantly with their social network: no factors were found to be significantly associated with sharing information. The majority reported that peer workers and/or people with lived experience would be the first person they would talk to for information about a range of topics (e.g., injecting/harm reduction practices, overdose prevention). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Two in five participants had recently obtained information about how to keep themselves safe while using drugs, with half sharing this information with their social network. Peer workers were the preferred source of information, suggesting that the peer educator workforce should be expanded to embrace the capacities and expertise of people who inject drugs.

Achieving meaningful participation of people who use drugs and their peer organizations in a strategic research partnership.

BACKGROUND: Peer-led programs with people who use drugs (PWUD) have been a key characteristic of the harm reduction in many countries, including their involvement in research. However, peer involvement in research is often limited to recruitment, consultation, and reporting back, rather than a genuine collaboration in the priority setting, design, and conduct of research. PWUD peer organizations face ongoing challenges to demonstrate the depth of their knowledge of current and emerging issues within drug-using networks and the value of their peer insights for effective research and policy. The identification of benefits, barriers, and enablers for meaningful participation of PWUD in research has often been limited to methodological rather than system level factors. METHODS: This paper draws on the experiences and findings of the What Works and Why (W3) Project, a 5-year collaborative study with peer organizations. The study drew on systems thinking methods to develop a framework to demonstrate the role of peer organizations within their community and policy systems. The study required peer staff and researchers to undertake the simultaneous role of drivers, participants, and analysts in the research. To identify the learnings in relation to meaningful participation of PWUD peer organizations in research, we drew together the insights and experiences of peer staff and researchers across the 5 years of the study RESULTS: The W3 Project provided insights into the nuances of community-engaged research practice and the ongoing benefits, barriers, and enablers to the meaningful participation of PWUD and their peer organizations. These included system-level barriers and enablers beyond individual research projects or methodology. The capacity of research and peer organizations to maintain meaningful peer participation in research can be restricted or enhanced by the systems in which they are embedded. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing peer organizations as active participants and drivers within community and policy systems can help clarify their unique and critical role in research. Achieving meaningful collaboration with PWUD peer organizations requires looking beyond good practice methods to the system-level factors with attention to the system-level benefits, barriers, and enablers.

An overview of take-home naloxone programs in Australia.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Take-home naloxone (THN) programs commenced in Australia in 2012 in the Australian Capital Territory and programs now operate in five Australian jurisdictions. The purpose of this paper is to record the progress of THN programs in Australia, to provide a resource for others wanting to start THN projects, and provide a tool for policy makers and others considering expansion of THN programs in this country and elsewhere. DESIGN AND METHODS: Key stakeholders with principal responsibility for identified THN programs operating in Australia provided descriptions of program development, implementation and characteristics. Short summaries of known THN programs from each jurisdiction are provided along with a table detailing program characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Data collected across current Australian THN programs suggest that to date over 2500 Australians at risk of overdose have been trained and provided naloxone. Evaluation data from four programs recorded 146 overdose reversals involving naloxone that was given by THN participants. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Peer drug user groups currently play a central role in the development, delivery and scale-up of THN in Australia. Health professionals who work with people who use illicit opioids are increasingly taking part as alcohol and other drug-related health agencies have recognised the opportunity for THN provision through interactions with their clients. Australia has made rapid progress in removing regulatory barriers to naloxone since the initiation of the first THN program in 2012. However, logistical and economic barriers remain and further work is needed to expand access to this life-saving medication.