Social determinants of injection drug use-associated bacterial infections and treatment outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Individual injecting practices (e.g., intramuscular injecting, lack of skin cleaning) are known risk factors for injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections; however, social contexts shape individual behaviours and health outcomes. We sought to synthesize studies assessing potential social determinants of injecting-related infections and treatment outcomes. Methods: We searched five databases for studies published between 1 January 2000 and 18 February 18 2021 (PROSPERO CRD42021231411). We included studies of association (aetiology), assessing social determinants, substance use, and health services exposures influencing development of injecting-related infections and treatment outcomes. We pooled effect estimates via random effects meta-analyses. Results: We screened 4,841 abstracts and included 107 studies. Several factors were associated with incident or prevalent injecting-related infections: woman/female gender/sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-1.83; n=20 studies), homelessness (aOR 1.29, 95%CI 1.16-1.45; n=13 studies), cocaine use (aOR 1.31, 95%CI 1.02-1.69; n=10 studies), amphetamine use (aOR 1.74, 95%CI 1.39-2.23; n=2 studies), public injecting (aOR 1.40, 95%CI 1.05-1.88; n=2 studies), requiring injecting assistance (aOR 1.78, 95%CI 1.40-2.27; n=8 studies), and use of opioid agonist treatment (aOR 0.92, 95%CI 0.89-0.95; n=9 studies). Studies assessing outcomes during treatment (e.g., premature hospital discharge) or afterward (e.g., rehospitalization; all-cause mortality) typically had smaller sample sizes and imprecise effect estimates. Conclusions: Injecting-related infections and treatment outcomes may be shaped by multiple social contextual factors. Approaches to prevention and treatment should look beyond individual injecting practices towards addressing the social and material conditions within which people live, acquire and consume drugs, and access health care.

Unpacking the Effects of Decriminalization: Understanding Drug Use Experiences and Risks among Individuals Who Use Drugs in British Columbia.

OBJECTIVES: On January 31, 2023, a three-year exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was granted to the Canadian province British Columbia (BC), allowing the cumulative possession of 2.5 g of specific unregulated drugs amongst adults. The goals of the policy are to reduce health, social, and economic harms associated with criminalization, stigma, drug overdose deaths, as well as drug seizures, arrests, and associated enforcement and court costs. As the inaugural year has passed, we aimed to assess people who use drugs' awareness and knowledge of the, as well as the policy's impact on their drug use patterns and overdose risk. METHODS: We conducted 100 telephone-based semi-structured interviews with people who use drugs from across BC, exploring changes in drug use experiences and perceived overdose risk since the implementation of the policy. Participants also completed an interviewer-administered survey assessing socio-demographics and substance use patterns. We utilized a qualitative content analysis approach to analyze the interview data. RESULTS: Our findings indicate a general awareness of the policy among participants, although some policy details were often misunderstood, and participants expressed the need for more widespread dissemination of policy information. While the majority of participants reported that their drug use patterns remained unchanged after decriminalization, some made subtle adjustments, such as carrying under the 2.5 g threshold to minimize the risk of criminalization. Participants highlighted several policy benefits and concerns, including its potential to reduce criminalization and stigmatization, but also increase public drug consumption. Participants offered suggestions for policy improvement. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the need for ongoing monitoring of the impacts of decriminalization regarding its potential impact on people who use drugs' drug use patterns and related risks. Reevaluation of the possession threshold and efforts to enhance education and awareness about the policy could help achieve the policy's goals.

Defining a public health approach to substance use: Perspectives from professionals and practitioners across Canada.

BACKGROUND: While increasingly referenced in the literature and policy discussions, a "public health approach" (PHA) to substance use has been inconsistently defined or remained undefined. As part of a larger project on building the capacity to implement a PHA to substance use, we aimed to understand how professionals and practitioners across Canada who work with or whose work directly impacts the lives of people who use substances conceptualize a PHA. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional national online survey of public health professionals, public safety professionals, health and social service providers, and other relevant professionals and practitioners. The survey contained closed- and open-ended questions designed to gauge familiarity and comfort with application of a PHA to substance use, and perspectives on an organizational definition of such an approach. Survey recruitment was active between May and July 2021. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1041 surveys were completed. Most respondents (76 %) reported having heard of a PHA to substance use, as it was defined. Over half (54 %) indicated a high level of comfort with applying such an approach within their work. In relation to defining a PHA to substance use, the following thematic suggestions emerged from respondent's open-ended answers: explicitly recognize people with lived/living experience of substance use; incorporate trauma-informed understanding and acknowledge the varied underlying reasons for substance use; decolonize approaches to substance use and empower communities; and consider a more critical appraisal of a PHA and the terminology in its definition. CONCLUSION: Empirically unpacking multi-stakeholder understandings of a PHA to substance use can help to inform a more cohesive definition and build the consensus needed for more effective, coordinated, and community-led responses to substance use. Future work, especially qualitative research, will provide richer and more practical understandings of a PHA to substance use.

Effect of incarceration and opioid agonist treatment transitions on risk of hospitalisation with injection drug use-associated bacterial infections: A self-controlled case series in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Transitional times in opioid use, such as release from prison and discontinuation of opioid agonist treatment (OAT), are associated with health harms due to changing drug consumption practices and limited access to health and social supports. Using a self-controlled (within-person) study design, we aimed to understand if these transitions increase risks of injection drug use-associated bacterial infections. METHODS: We performed a self-controlled case series among a cohort of people with opioid use disorder (who had all previously accessed OAT) in New South Wales, Australia, 2001-2018. The outcome was hospitalisation with injecting-related bacterial infections. We divided participants' observed days into time windows related to incarceration and OAT receipt. We compared hospitalization rates during focal (exposure) windows and referent (control) windows (i.e., 5-52 weeks continuously not incarcerated or continuously receiving OAT). We estimated adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for time-varying confounders. RESULTS: There were 7590 participants who experienced hospitalisation with injecting-related bacterial infections (35% female; median age 38 years; 78% hospitalised with skin and soft-tissue infections). Risk for injecting-related bacterial infections was elevated for two weeks following release from prison (aIRR 1.45; 95%CI 1.22-1.72). Risk was increased during two weeks before (aIRR 1.89; 95%CI 1.59-2.25) and after (aIRR 1.91; 95%CI 1.54-2.36) discontinuation of OAT, and during two weeks before (aIRR 3.63; 95%CI 3.13-4.22) and after (aIRR 2.52; 95%CI 2.09-3.04) OAT initiation. CONCLUSION: Risk of injecting-related bacterial infections varies greatly within-individuals over time. Risk is raised immediately after prison release, and around initiation and discontinuation of OAT. Social contextual factors likely contribute to excess risks at transitions in incarceration and OAT exposure.

Challenges of implementing safer supply programs in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Canada is experiencing an unprecedented drug toxicity crisis driven by a highly toxic unregulated drug supply contaminated with fentanyl, benzodiazepine, and other drugs. Safer supply pilot programs provide prescribed doses of pharmaceutical alternatives to individuals accessing the unregulated drug supply and have been implemented to prevent overdose and reduce related harms. Given the recent emergence of these pilot programs and the paucity of data on implementation challenges, we sought to document challenges in their initial implementation phase. METHODS: We obtained organizational progress reports from Health Canada, submitted between 2020 and 2022 by 11 pilot programs located in British Columbia, Ontario, and New Brunswick. We analyzed the data using deductive and inductive approaches via thematic analysis. Analyses were informed by the consolidated framework for implementation research. RESULTS: We obtained 45 progress reports from 11 pilot programs. Six centres were based in British Columbia, four in Ontario, and one in New Brunswick. Four overarching themes were identified regarding the challenges faced during the establishment and implementation of pilot programs: i) Organizational features (e.g., physical space constraints, staff shortages); ii) Outer contexts (e.g., limited operational funds and resources, structural inequities to access, public perceptions); iii) Intervention characteristics (e.g., clients' unmet medication needs); and iv) Implementation process (e.g., pandemic-related challenges, overly medicalized and high-barrier safer supply models). CONCLUSIONS: Safer supply pilot programs in Canada face multiple inner and outer implementation challenges. Given the potential role of safer supply programs in addressing the drug toxicity crisis in Canada and the possibility of future scale-up, services should be well-supported during their implementation phases. Refining service provision within safer supply programs based on the feedback and experiences of clients and program administrators is warranted, along with efforts to ensure that appropriate medications are available to meet the clients' needs.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination uptake among People Who Use Drugs in Canada: a National Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: People Who Use Drugs (PWUD) have lower vaccination uptake than the general population, and disproportionately experience the burden of harms from vaccine-preventable diseases. We conducted a national qualitative study to: (1) identify the barriers and facilitators to receiving COVID-19 vaccinations among PWUD; and (2) identify interventions to support PWUD in their decision-making. METHODS: Between March and October 2022, semi-structured interviews with PWUD across Canada were conducted. Fully vaccinated (2 or more doses) and partially or unvaccinated (1 dose or less) participants were recruited from a convenience sample to participate in telephone interviews to discuss facilitators, barriers, and concerns about receiving COVID-19 vaccines and subsequent boosters, and ways to address concerns. A total of 78 PWUD participated in the study, with 50 participants being fully vaccinated and 28 participants partially or unvaccinated. Using thematic analysis, interviews were coded based on the capability, opportunity, and motivation-behavior (COM-B) framework. RESULTS: Many partially or unvaccinated participants reported lacking knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine, particularly in terms of its usefulness and benefits. Some participants reported lacking knowledge around potential long-term side effects of the vaccine, and the differences of the various vaccine brands. Distrust toward government and healthcare agencies, the unprecedented rapidity of vaccine development and skepticism of vaccine effectiveness were also noted as barriers. Facilitators for vaccination included a desire to protect oneself or others and compliance with government mandates which required individuals to get vaccinated in order to access services, attend work or travel. To improve vaccination uptake, the most trusted and appropriate avenues for vaccination information sharing were identified by participants to be people with lived and living experience with drug use (PWLLE), harm reduction workers, or healthcare providers working within settings commonly visited by PWUD. CONCLUSION: PWLLE should be supported to design tailored information to reduce barriers and address mistrust. Resources addressing knowledge gaps should be disseminated in areas and through organizations where PWUD frequently access, such as harm reduction services and social media platforms.

Public reimbursement policies in Canada for direct-acting antiviral treatment of hepatitis C virus infection: A descriptive study.

Background: Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies have simplified HCV treatment, and publicly funded Canadian drug plans have eliminated disease-stage restrictions for reimbursement of DAA therapies. However other policies which complicate, delay, or prevent treatment initiation still persist. We aim to describe these plans' existing reimbursement criteria and appraise whether they hinder treatment access. Methods: We reviewed DAA reimbursement policies of 16 publicly funded drug plans published online and provided by contacts with in-depth knowledge of prescribing criteria. Data were collected from May to July 2022. Primary outcomes were: (1) if plans have arranged to accept point-of-care HCV RNA testing for diagnosis; testing requirements for (2) HCV genotype, (3) fibrosis stage, and (4) chronic infection; (5) time taken and method used to approve reimbursement requests; (6) providers eligible to prescribe DAAs; and (7) restrictions on re-treatment. Results: Fifteen (94%) plans have at least one policy in place which limits simplified HCV treatment. Many plans continue to require results of genotype or fibrosis staging, limit eligible prescribers, and take longer than 1 day to approve coverage requests. One plan discourages treatment for re-infection. Conclusion: Reimbursement criteria set by publicly funded Canadian drug plans continue to limit timely, equitable access to HCV treatment. Eliminating clinically irrelevant pre-authorization testing, expanding eligible prescribers, expediting claims processing, and broadening coverage of treatment for reinfection will improve access to DAAs. The federal government could further enhance efforts by introducing a federal HCV elimination strategy or federal high-cost drug PharmaCare program.

"2.5 g, I could do that before noon": a qualitative study on people who use drugs' perspectives on the impacts of British Columbia's decriminalization of illegal drugs threshold limit.

BACKGROUND: In May 2022, Health Canada approved a three-year exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act decriminalizing possession of certain illegal substances for personal use among adults in the province of British Columbia. The exemption explicitly includes a cumulative threshold of 2.5 g of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. Threshold quantities are commonly included in decriminalization policies and justified within law enforcement systems to delineate personal use among people who use drugs versus drug dealers who are carrying for trafficking purposes. Understanding the impact of the 2.5g threshold can help define the extent to which people who use drugs will be decriminalized. METHODS: From June-October 2022, 45 people who use drugs from British Columbia were interviewed to gain an understanding of their perceptions on decriminalization, particularly on the proposed threshold of 2.5 g. We conduced descriptive thematic analyses to synthesize common interview responses. RESULTS: Results are displayed under two categories: 1) Implications for substance use profiles and purchasing patterns, including implications on the cumulative nature of the threshold and impacts on bulk purchasing, and 2) Implications of police enforcement, including distrust of police use of discretion, potential for net widening and jurisdictional discrepancies in enforcing the threshold. Results illustrate the need for the decriminalization policy to consider diversity in consumption patterns and frequency of use among people who use drugs, the inclination to purchase larger quantities of substances for reduced costs and to guarantee a safe and available supply, and the role police will play in delineating between possession for personal use or trafficking purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore the importance of monitoring the impact of the threshold on people who use drugs and whether it is countering the goals of the policy. Consultations with people who use drugs can help policymakers understand the challenges they may face when trying to abide by this threshold.

Barriers to opioid use disorder treatment: A comparison of self-reported information from social media with barriers found in literature.

Introduction: Medications such as buprenorphine and methadone are effective for treating opioid use disorder (OUD), but many patients face barriers related to treatment and access. We analyzed two sources of data-social media and published literature-to categorize and quantify such barriers. Methods: In this mixed methods study, we analyzed social media (Reddit) posts from three OUD-related forums (subreddits): r/suboxone, r/Methadone, and r/naltrexone. We applied natural language processing to identify posts relevant to treatment barriers, categorized them into insurance- and non-insurance-related, and manually subcategorized them into fine-grained topics. For comparison, we used substance use-, OUD- and barrier-related keywords to identify relevant articles from PubMed published between 2006 and 2022. We searched publications for language expressing fear of barriers, and hesitation or disinterest in medication treatment because of barriers, paying particular attention to the affected population groups described. Results: On social media, the top three insurance-related barriers included having no insurance (22.5%), insurance not covering OUD treatment (24.7%), and general difficulties of using insurance for OUD treatment (38.2%); while the top two non-insurance-related barriers included stigma (47.6%), and financial difficulties (26.2%). For published literature, stigma was the most prominently reported barrier, occurring in 78.9% of the publications reviewed, followed by financial and/or logistical issues to receiving medication treatment (73.7%), gender-specific barriers (36.8%), and fear (31.5%). Conclusion: The stigma associated with OUD and/or seeking treatment and insurance/cost are the two most common types of barriers reported in the two sources combined. Harm reduction efforts addressing barriers to recovery may benefit from leveraging multiple data sources.

Social and structural determinants of injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections: A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections are increasingly common, and social contexts shape individuals' injecting practices and treatment experiences. We sought to synthesize qualitative studies of social-structural factors influencing incidence and treatment of injecting-related infections. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO from 1 January 2000 to 18 February 2021. Informed by Rhodes' 'risk environment' framework, we performed thematic synthesis in three stages: (1) line-by-line coding; (2) organizing codes into descriptive themes, reflecting interpretations of study authors; and (3) consolidating descriptive themes into conceptual categories to identify higher-order analytical themes. RESULTS: We screened 4841 abstracts and included 26 qualitative studies on experiences of injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections. We identified six descriptive themes organized into two analytical themes. The first analytical theme, social production of risk, considered macro-environmental influences. Four descriptive themes highlighted pathways through which this occurs: (1) unregulated drug supply, leading to poor drug quality and solubility; (2) unsafe spaces, influenced by policing practices and insecure housing; (3) health-care policies and practices, leading to negative experiences that discourage access to care; and (4) restrictions on harm reduction programmes, including structural barriers to effective service provision. The second analytical theme, practices of care among people who use drugs, addressed protective strategies that people employ within infection risk environments. Associated descriptive themes were: (5) mutual care, including assisted-injecting and sharing sterile equipment; and (6) self-care, including vein health and self-treatment. Within constraining risk environments, some protective strategies for bacterial infections precipitated other health risks (e.g. HIV transmission). CONCLUSIONS: Injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections are shaped by modifiable social-structural factors, including poor quality unregulated drugs, criminalization and policing enforcement, insufficient housing, limited harm reduction services and harmful health-care practices. People who inject drugs navigate these barriers while attempting to protect themselves and their community.

'More of the same, but worse than before': A qualitative study of the challenges encountered by people who use drugs in Nova Scotia, Canada during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: To learn about the experiences of people who use drugs, specifically opioids, in the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM), in Nova Scotia, Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic through qualitative interviews with people who use drugs and healthcare providers (HCP). This study took place within the HRM, a municipality of 448,500 people [1]. During the pandemic many critical services were interrupted while overdose events increased. We wanted to understand the experiences of people who use drugs as well as their HCPs during the first year of the pandemic. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 13 people who use drugs and 6 HCPs, including physicians who work in addiction medicine (3), a pharmacist, a nurse, and a community-based opioid agonist therapy (OAT) program staff member. Participants were recruited within HRM. Interviews were held via phone or videoconference due to social distancing directives. Interviews focused on the challenges people who use drugs and HCPs faced during the pandemic as well as elicited perspectives on a safe supply of drugs and the associated barriers and facilitators to the provision of a safe supply. RESULTS: Of the 13 people who use drugs who participated in this study, ages ranged from 21-55 years (mean 40). Individuals had spent on average 17 years in HRM. Most people who use drugs (85%, n = 11) utilized income assistance, the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit, or disability support. Many had experienced homelessness (85%, n = 11) and almost half (46%, n = 6) were currently precariously housed in the shelter system. The main themes among interviews (people who use drugs and HCPs) were housing, accessing healthcare and community services, shifts in the drug supply, and perspectives on safe supply. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several challenges that people who use drugs face in general, but especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Access to services, housing support, and interventions to use safely at home were limited. As many challenges faced by people who use drugs exist outside of COVID-19, we concluded that the formal and informal interventions and changes in practice that were made to support people who use drugs should be sustained well past the end of the pandemic. The need for enhanced community supports and a safe supply of drugs, despite its complicated nature, is essential for the health and safety of people who use drugs in HRM, especially during COVID-19.

The increase in benzodiazepine-laced drugs and related risks in Canada: The urgent need for effective and sustainable solutions.

The overdose crisis in Canada has continuously evolved and is increasingly challenging to contain, while efforts from governments and policymakers to address it have often fallen short and resulted in unintended consequences. One of the main repercussions has been an unprecedented rise in adulterants in the illegal drug supply, including a wide array of pharmacological and psychoactive compounds and chemicals, which has resulted in a progressively toxic drug supply. Most recently, there has been a stark increase in synthetic benzodiazepine-laced opioids (i.e., 'benzodope') in some Canadian jurisdictions. This unique combination carries distinct and amplified risks for people who use drugs including fatal and non-fatal overdoses, increased dependence and withdrawal symptoms, and places them in extremely vulnerable positions. The emergence of benzodiazepines within the illicit drug supply has substantially contributed to drug-related morbidity and mortality in Canada, and has further complicated current public health initiatives and overdose prevention efforts. This reality underscores the need for effective and sustainable policy solutions to address the evolving overdose epidemic including increased knowledge and education on the specific harms of opioid and benzodiazepine co-use (especially in regards to the complexity of opioid/benzodiazepine overdoses), scaling-up harm reduction measures, and eliminating the toxic drug supply altogether.

Spotting as a risk mitigation method: A qualitative study comparing organization-based and informal methods.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the similarities and differences of organization-based and informal spotting (remote supervision of substance use) from the perspectives of spotters and spottees across Canada. METHODS: Spotters and spottees who spot informally and for organizations were recruited across Ontario and Nova Scotia. We interviewed 20 informal and 10 organization-based participants by phone using semi-structured interviews between 08/2020 and 11/2020. Participants were asked about each methods benefits and limitations. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Benefits of informal spotting included its ability to strengthen social connections and foster autonomy in overdose response planning. The lack of support for informal spotters created stress and burnout. Organization-based spotters enjoyed the spotting training and support provided. However, regulations surrounding having to call ambulance in overdose events deterred many people from wanting to work for or call these services. CONCLUSIONS: Both organization-based and informal spotting have a role in mitigating harms associated with the overdose crisis. Moving forward, further research is needed on how to optimize these services for all people who use drugs in varying jurisdictions internationally.

Evaluation of an emergency safe supply drugs and managed alcohol program in COVID-19 isolation hotel shelters for people experiencing homelessness.

BACKGROUND: During a COVID-19 outbreak in the congregate shelter system in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, a healthcare team provided an emergency "safe supply" of medications and alcohol to facilitate isolation in COVID-19 hotel shelters for residents who use drugs and/or alcohol. We aimed to evaluate (a) substances and dosages provided, and (b) outcomes of the program. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of all COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents during May 2021. The primary outcome was successful completion of 14 days isolation, as directed by public health orders. Adverse events included (a) overdose; (b) intoxication; and (c) diversion, selling, or sharing of medications or alcohol. RESULTS: Seventy-seven isolation hotel residents were assessed (mean age 42 ± 14 years; 24% women). Sixty-two (81%) residents were provided medications, alcohol, or cigarettes. Seventeen residents (22%) received opioid agonist treatment (methadone, buprenorphine, or slow-release oral morphine) and 27 (35%) received hydromorphone. Thirty-one (40%) residents received prescriptions stimulants. Six (8%) residents received benzodiazepines and forty-two (55%) received alcohol. Over 14 days, mean daily dosages increased of hydromorphone (45 ± 32 - 57 ± 42 mg), methylphenidate (51 ± 28 - 77 ± 37 mg), and alcohol (12.3 ± 7.6 - 13.0 ± 6.9 standard drinks). Six residents (8%) left isolation prematurely, but four returned. During 1059 person-days, there were zero overdoses. Documented concerns regarding intoxication occurred six times (0.005 events/person-day) and medication diversion/sharing three times (0.003 events/person-day). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 isolation hotel residents participating in an emergency safe supply and managed alcohol program experienced high rates of successful completion of 14 days isolation and low rates of adverse events.

It is time for us all to embrace person-centred language for people in prison and people who were formerly in prison.

The use of person-centred language is well accepted regarding substance use and infectious disease healthcare and research, and appropriate acronyms have become commonplace, e.g., "people who inject drugs (PWID)" has mostly replaced phrases like "injecting drugs users". However, the use of the term's 'prisoner' or 'prisoners' remains common. Although less common, terms such as 'offenders' and 'inmates' are also still used on occasion. This persists despite calls from people with lived experience of incarceration, and fellow academics, to stop using these terms. Given the considerable overlap between substance use, infectious diseases, and incarceration, in this commentary we discuss how they interact, including the stigma that is common to each. We propose that using person-centred language (i.e., people in prison or people formerly in prison) needs to become the default language used when presenting research related to people in prison or people formerly in prison. This is a much-needed step in efforts to overcome the continued stigma that people in prison face while incarcerated from prison officers and other employees, including healthcare providers. Likewise, overcoming stigma, including legalised discrimination, that follows people who were formerly in prison upon gaining their freedom is critical, as this impacts their health and related social determinants, including employment and housing.

Social and structural determinants of injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections among people who inject drugs: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections are a common complication among people who inject drugs (PWID), associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Invasive infections, including infective endocarditis, appear to be increasing in incidence. To date, preventive efforts have focused on modifying individual-level risk behaviours (eg, hand-washing and skin-cleaning) without much success in reducing the population-level impact of these infections. Learning from successes in HIV prevention, there may be great value in looking beyond individual-level risk behaviours to the social determinants of health. Specifically, the risk environment conceptual framework identifies how social, physical, economic and political environmental factors facilitate and constrain individual behaviour, and therefore influence health outcomes. Understanding the social and structural determinants of injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections could help to identify new targets for prevention efforts in the face of increasing incidence of severe disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a systematic review. We will review studies of PWID and investigate associations between risk factors (both individual-level and social/structural-level) and the incidence of hospitalisation or death due to injecting-related bacterial infections (skin and soft-tissue infections, bacteraemia, infective endocarditis, osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, epidural abscess and others). We will include quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Using directed content analysis, we will code risk factors for these infection-related outcomes according to their contributions to the risk environment in type (social, physical, economic or political) and level (microenvironmental or macroenvironmental). We will also code and present risk factors at each stage in the process of drug acquisition, preparation, injection, superficial infection care, severe infection care or hospitalisation, and outcomes after infection or hospital discharge. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As an analysis of the published literature, no ethics approval is required. The findings will inform a research agenda to develop and implement social/structural interventions aimed at reducing the burden of disease. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021231411.