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.

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in oral health settings: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an effective evidence-based model to provide early intervention and treatment to people with substance use disorders across diverse health settings. Yet, how SBIRT has been implemented within oral health settings and its associated outcomes has not been explored. This scoping review assessed how SBIRT has been implemented in oral health settings in the U.S. and discusses the implications for SBIRT integration in dentistry and oral health research, education and practice. METHODS: Five scholarly databases were searched using a scoping review methodology for relevant literature, yielding seven articles that met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Findings from seven U.S. studies show that SBIRT has been implemented into oral health settings in three distinct ways: through education/training, as an intervention and in one national survey. Findings of this scoping review support the inclusion of SBIRT education for oral health professionals in both practice and clinical environments and offer examples of existing models for future implementation and study. CONCLUSIONS: The scant literature on SBIRT intervention effects in dental settings-both within and outside of the U.S.-underscores the need for more empirical work to better understand how SBIRT impacts dental providers' knowledge, practices, referrals and ultimately, patient outcomes.