Doing community-based research during dual public health emergencies (COVID and overdose).

Meaningful engagement and partnerships with people who use drugs are essential to conducting research that is relevant and impactful in supporting desired outcomes of drug consumption as well as reducing drug-related harms of overdose and COVID-19. Community-based participatory research is a key strategy for engaging communities in research that directly affects their lives. While there are growing descriptions of community-based participatory research with people who use drugs and identification of key principles for conducting research, there is a gap in relation to models and frameworks to guide research partnerships with people who use drugs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for research partnerships between people who use drugs and academic researchers, collaboratively developed and implemented as part of an evaluation of a provincial prescribed safer supply initiative introduced during dual public health emergencies (overdose and COVID-19) in British Columbia, Canada. The framework shifts from having researchers choose among multiple models (advisory, partnership and employment) to incorporating multiple roles within an overall community-based participatory research approach. Advocacy by and for drug users was identified as a key role and reason for engaging in research. Overall, both academic researchers and Peer Research Associates benefited within this collaborative partnerships approach. Each offered their expertise, creating opportunities for omni-directional learning and enhancing the research. The shift from fixed models to flexible roles allows for a range of involvement that accommodates varying time, energy and resources. Facilitators of involvement include development of trust and partnering with networks of people who use drugs, equitable pay, a graduate-level research assistant dedicated to ongoing orientation and communication, technical supports as well as fluidity in roles and opportunities. Key challenges included working in geographically dispersed locations, maintaining contact and connection over the course of the project and ensuring ongoing sustainable but flexible employment.

Identifying behaviours for survival and wellness among people who use methamphetamine with opioids in British Columbia: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: British Columbia (BC) has been in a state of public health emergency since 2016, due to the unprecedented numbers of fatal and non-fatal drug toxicity (i.e. overdose) events. Methamphetamine detection in illicit drug toxicity deaths increased from 14% in 2012 to 43% in 2020 suggesting a concerning trend of concurrent methamphetamine and opioid use in BC, consistent with rising patterns identified across North America. People who use methamphetamine concurrently with opioids face an elevated risk of harm. This study aimed to identify behaviours for survival and wellness practiced by people who concurrently use methamphetamine and opioids. METHODS: One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted by peer research assistants in person and by telephone. Thematic analysis was carried out to identify patterns in behaviours participants described as important to their safety in the context of concurrent use of methamphetamine and opioids. RESULTS: Participants (n = 22) were distributed across the province with at least four participants from each of the five geographic health regions: 64% self-identified as men, and 50% self-identified as Indigenous. Daily methamphetamine use was reported by 72.7% of participants, and 67.3% reported using alone either often or always. Participants made several considerations and adaptations in order to balance the perceived benefits and risks of their use of methamphetamine with opioids. Two overarching themes were identified to describe how participants adapted their use for survival and wellness. The first was personal safety behaviours which included self-regulation and self-care behaviours. The second was interpersonal safety behaviours which included using alongside peers, and engaging with peer-led services (e.g. community outreach organizations) and public health-led services (e.g. overdose prevention sites) to reduce the risk of harm. Participants identified many gaps in available services to meet their diverse needs. CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript identified diversity in participants' methamphetamine and opioid use (i.e. frequency, route of administration), and a range of behaviours that were performed to improve wellness and survival while using methamphetamine and opioids. Harm reduction and treatment responses must be robust and adaptable to respond to the diversity of patterns of substance use among people who use methamphetamine and opioids concurrently, so as to not perpetuate harm and leave people behind.

Systematic Review of Models of Effective Community Specialist Palliative Care Services for Evidence of Improved Patient-Related Outcomes, Equity, Integration, and Health Service Utilization.

Background: The benefits of palliative care programs are well documented. However, the effectiveness of specialist palliative care services is not well established. The previous lack of consensus on criteria for defining and characterizing models of care has restrained direct comparison between these models and limited the evidence base to inform policy makers. A rapid review for studies published up to 2012 was unable to find an effective model. Aim: To identify effective models of community specialist palliative care services. Design: A mixed-method synthesis design reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Prospero: CRD42020151840. Data sources: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched in September 2019 for primary research and review articles from 2012 to 2019. Supplementary search was conducted on Google in 2020 for policy documents to identify additional relevant studies. Results: The search yielded 2255 articles; 36 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria and 6 additional articles were identified from other sources. Eight systematic reviews and 34 primary studies were identified: observational studies (n = 24), randomized controlled trials (n = 5), and qualitative studies (n = 5). Community specialist palliative care was found to improve symptom burden/quality of life and to reduce secondary service utilization across cancer and noncancer diagnoses. Much of this evidence relates to face-to-face care in home-based settings with both round-the-clock and episodic care. There were few studies addressing pediatric populations or minority groups. Findings from qualitative studies revealed that care coordination, provision of practical help, after-hours support, and medical crisis management were some of the factors contributing to patients' and caregivers' positive experience. Conclusion: Strong evidence exists for community specialist palliative care to improve quality of life and reducing secondary service utilization. Future research should focus on equity outcomes and the interface between generalist and specialist care.