Monitoring quality and coverage of harm reduction services for people who use drugs: a consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite advances in our knowledge of effective services for people who use drugs over the last decades globally, coverage remains poor in most countries, while quality is often unknown. This paper aims to discuss the historical development of successful epidemiological indicators and to present a framework for extending them with additional indicators of coverage and quality of harm reduction services, for monitoring and evaluation at international, national or subnational levels. The ultimate aim is to improve these services in order to reduce health and social problems among people who use drugs, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, crime and legal problems, overdose (death) and other morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: The framework was developed collaboratively using consensus methods involving nominal group meetings, review of existing quality standards, repeated email commenting rounds and qualitative analysis of opinions/experiences from a broad range of professionals/experts, including members of civil society and organisations representing people who use drugs. Twelve priority candidate indicators are proposed for opioid agonist therapy (OAT), needle and syringe programmes (NSP) and generic cross-cutting aspects of harm reduction (and potentially other drug) services. Under the specific OAT indicators, priority indicators included 'coverage', 'waiting list time', 'dosage' and 'availability in prisons'. For the specific NSP indicators, the priority indicators included 'coverage', 'number of needles/syringes distributed/collected', 'provision of other drug use paraphernalia' and 'availability in prisons'. Among the generic or cross-cutting indicators the priority indicators were 'infectious diseases counselling and care', 'take away naloxone', 'information on safe use/sex' and 'condoms'. We discuss conditions for the successful development of the suggested indicators and constraints (e.g. funding, ideology). We propose conducting a pilot study to test the feasibility and applicability of the proposed indicators before their scaling up and routine implementation, to evaluate their effectiveness in comparing service coverage and quality across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of an improved set of validated and internationally agreed upon best practice indicators for monitoring harm reduction service will provide a structural basis for public health and epidemiological studies and support evidence and human rights-based health policies, services and interventions.

New psychoactive substances: Current health-related practices and challenges in responding to use and harms in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The availability of new psychoactive substances (NPS) in Europe has rapidly increased over the last decade. Although prevalence levels of NPS use remain low in the general European population, there are serious concerns associated with more problematic forms of use and harms in particular populations and settings. It has thus become a priority to formulate and implement effective public health responses. However, considerable knowledge gaps remain on current practices as well as on the challenges and needs of European health professionals who are responding to use and harms caused by these substances. The aim of this study was to explore current health responses to NPS, and highlight key issues in order to inform planning and implementation of adequate responses. METHODS: This scoping study was based on a targeted multi-source data collection exercise focusing on the provision of health and drug interventions associated with NPS use and harms, in selected intervention settings across Europe. RESULTS: Findings revealed that in the absence of specific evidence, health professionals across most intervention settings rely primarily on acquired expertise with traditional drugs when addressing NPS-related harms. This study also identified a gap in the availability and access to timely and reliable information on NPS to users and health professionals. Health professionals in sexual health settings and custodial settings in contact with certain risk groups reported particular challenges in responding to NPS-related harms. CONCLUSION: Immediate investments are required in expanding substance identification capabilities, competence building among professionals and dissemination of risk information among relevant stakeholders. The risks of neglecting under-served risk populations and failure to address the information needs of health professionals and users on NPS harms in a context of rapid changing drug markets in Europe may have unforeseeable consequences at societal level.