Convenience and comfort: reasons reported for using drugs alone among clients of harm reduction sites in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: North American communities are severely impacted by the overdose crisis, particularly in British Columbia (BC), which has the highest toxic drug overdose death rate in Canada. Most fatal overdoses in BC occurred among individuals using alone and in private residences. This study aimed to assess prevalence and reasons for using drugs alone among people accessing harm reduction services in BC. METHODS: We recruited harm reduction supply distribution site clients from 22 communities across BC. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression were used to describe factors associated with using alone. Thematic analysis of free-text responses providing reasons for using alone were grouped with survey data and additional themes identified. RESULTS: Overall, 75.8% (n = 314) of the study sample (N = 414) reported using drugs alone within the last week. Those that reported using alone did not differ from those that did not by gender, age, urbanicity, or preferred drug use method. Among those that used alone, 73.2% (n = 230) used opioids, 76.8% (n = 241) used crystal meth, 41.4% (n = 130) used crack/cocaine, and 44.6% (n = 140) used alcohol in the past week. Polysubstance use involving stimulants, opioids, and/or benzodiazepines was reported by 68.5% (n = 215) of those that used alone. Additionally, 22.9% (n = 72) of those that used alone had experienced an opioid and/or stimulant overdose in the past 6 months. In a multivariable logistic regression model, having no regular housing and past week crack/cocaine use were associated with using alone (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 2.27; 95% CI 1.20-4.27 and AOR: 2.10; 95% CI 1.15-3.82, respectively). The most common reason reported for using alone was convenience and comfort of using alone (44.3%). Additional reasons included: stigma/hiding drug use (14.0%); having no one around (11.7%); safety (9.6%); and not wanting to share drugs with others (8.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Using drugs alone, particularly for convenience and comfort, is ubiquitous among people accessing harm reduction services. Overdose prevention measures that go beyond individual behaviour changes, including providing a safer supply of drugs and eliminating stigma, are paramount to mitigate harms. These interventions are especially necessary as emergence of coronavirus disease may further exacerbate unpredictability of illicit drug content and overdose risk.

Predicting youth aggression with empathy and callous unemotional traits: A Meta-analytic review.

Historically, empathy has been thought to motivate prosocial behaviour and inhibit aggressive behaviour. Contrary to current assumptions and theoretical support, a meta-analysis revealed a small effect of empathy on aggression among adults (Vachon, Lynam, & Johnson, 2014). The current study sought to determine whether broadening the focus from empathy to include other socially relevant affective characteristics (i.e., callous-unemotional traits) was advantageous in predicting aggressive behaviour. As little is known about the strength of this association among youth, the current study meta-analytically examined 192 unique effect sizes drawn from published and unpublished studies reporting on samples of children and adolescents. Analyses were conducted across general, cognitive, and emotional empathy, as well as callous-unemotional traits, and general, direct, indirect, proactive, and reactive aggression. Significant variability was noted across effect sizes. Consistent with a prior meta-analysis involving adults (Vachon et al., 2014), small to moderate associations were identified between aggression and traditional measures of empathy (i.e., general, emotional, cognitive); these effects ranged from r = -0.06 to -0.26. Among broader measures of emotional style (i.e., callous-unemotional traits), moderate to large effects were found; ranging from r = 0.30 to 0.37. Results suggested that broader affective measures may be more strongly associated with aggression than empathy alone. The results raise questions about the nature of empathy assessment and indicate the utility of targeting multiple emotion-related factors during treatment to effectively reduce aggressive behaviour. In particular, the results underscore of the importance of considering the limited prosocial emotions specifier (perhaps trans-diagnostically given the varied nature of the sample) when considering implications for prognosis and treatment targets.