How would a certification in harm reduction impact service delivery and the harm reduction workforce? A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Harm reduction utilizes evidence-based strategies to reduce the negative health and social impacts of substance use. As harm reduction services expand across the U.S. without the requirement of professional certification, variation in how the workforce is regarded and trained on harm reduction principles and practices persists. This study explores the harm reduction workforce's perspectives on how certification would impact service delivery and their profession. METHODS: The study employed purposive sampling to identify and survey administrators within a publicly available syringe services program directory (N = 168). This sub-study utilized thematic analysis to evaluate 152 respondents' answers to one dichotomous closed-ended question, "Would a certification in the harm reduction field be helpful?" followed by an open-ended response to the follow-up statement, "Based on your answer to the previous question about a certification to work in harm reduction, please explain why or why not." Approximately 45 % of the respondents (n = 68) answered no, while 55 % (n = 84) answered yes. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged in total. Among those against harm reduction certification, the four themes were: (1) certification is exclusionary and creates barriers, (2) lived experience is more important than certification, (3) certification does not equate to skills, and (4) no regulatory body exists to oversee the certification process. The study identified three themes from individuals who indicated harm reduction certification was helpful: (1) certification helps standardize training, (2) certification validates/legitimizes the harm reduction field, and (3) low barriers to receiving certificates. CONCLUSIONS: The study presents participants' perspectives for and against harm reduction certification emphasizing implications for service delivery and the workforce. Despite varying perceptions on how certification may advance or hinder the field, the sample was unified in their commitment to harm reduction practices and endorsement of its integral role in confronting the U.S. drug use epidemic. This study highlights how certification can impact state and federal harm reduction service delivery and promotes future research on ways to address the needs of harm reduction organizations and their workforce.

Harm reduction workforce, behavioral health, and service delivery in the USA: a cross-sectional study.

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.

The Relationship Between a Lifetime History of Sexual Victimization and Perinatal Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association between a lifetime history of sexual victimization and the well-being of women during the perinatal period has received increasing attention. However, research investigating this relationship has yet to be systematically reviewed or quantitatively synthesized. AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to calculate the pooled effect size estimate of the statistical association between a lifetime history of sexual victimization and perinatal depression (PND). METHOD: Four bibliographic databases were systematically searched, and reference harvesting was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles that empirically examined associations between a lifetime history of sexual victimization and PND. A random effects model was used to ascertain an overall pooled effect size estimate in the form of an odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were also conducted to assess whether particular study features and sample characteristic (e.g., race and ethnicity) influenced the magnitude of effect size estimates. RESULTS: This review included 36 studies, with 45 effect size estimates available for meta-analysis. Women with a lifetime history of sexual victimization had 51% greater odds of experiencing PND relative to women with no history of sexual victimization (OR = 1.51, 95% CI [1.35, 1.67]). Effect size estimates varied considerably according to the PND instrument used in each study and the racial/ethnic composition of each sample. CONCLUSION: Findings provide compelling evidence for an association between a lifetime history of sexual victimization and PND. Future research should focus on screening practices and interventions that identify and support survivors of sexual victimization perinatally.