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.

Evaluation of risk mitigation measures for people with substance use disorders to address the dual public health crises of COVID-19 and overdose in British Columbia: a mixed-method study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic was preceded by an ongoing overdose crisis and linked to escalating drug overdose deaths in British Columbia (BC). At the outset of these dual public health emergencies, the BC government announced interim Risk Mitigation Guidance (RMG) that permitted prescribing medication alternatives to substances, including opioids, alcohol, stimulants and benzodiazepines, an intervention sometimes referred to as 'safe supply'. This protocol outlines the approach for a study of the implementation of RMG and its impacts on COVID-19 infection, drug-related and systemic harms, continuity of care for people with substance use disorder (SUD), as well as their behavioural, psychosocial and well-being outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a parallel mixed-method study that involved both analysis of population-level administrative health data and primary data collection, including a 10-week longitudinal observational study (target n=200), a cross-sectional survey (target n=200) and qualitative interviews (target n=60). We implemented a participatory approach to this evaluation, partnering with people with lived or living expertise of drug use, and researchers and public health decision-makers across the province. Linked population-level administrative databases will analyse data from a cohort of BC residents with an indication of SUD between 1996 and 2020. We will execute high-dimensional propensity score matching and marginal structural modelling to construct a control group and to assess the impact of RMG dispensation receipt on a collaboratively determined set of primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study activities were developed to adhere to the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, recommended COVID-19 research practices, and guided by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action for public health, data governance and research ethics related to Indigenous people. Results will be disseminated incrementally, on an ongoing basis, through the consortium established for this study, then published in peer-reviewed journals.

The perspectives of people who use drugs regarding short term involuntary substance use care for severe substance use disorders.

BACKGROUND: In the Canadian Province of British Columbia (BC), the BC Mental Health Act permits involuntary care for treating mental disorders. However, the Act has also been applied to provide involuntary care to individuals with a primary substance use disorder, in the absence of specific guidelines and legislation, and with insufficient understanding of perspectives of people who use drugs (PWUD) regarding this approach. METHODS: As part of a larger mixed-methods research project providing an overview of involuntary care for severe substance use disorders in BC, three focus groups were convened with: PWUD, families and caregivers, and Indigenous community stakeholders. This analysis examines perspectives from the focus group of PWUD, consisting of nine participants from local and regional drug user and advocacy organizations regarding involuntary care. A qualitative descriptive approach and thematic analysis were conducted, using a coding framework developed deductively and inductively, and participant perspectives were interpreted drawing on problematization theory. RESULTS: Participants did not endorse the use of involuntary care, instead emphasizing significant changes were needed to address shortcomings of the wider voluntary care system. When asked to conceptualize what an acceptable involuntary care scenario might look like (under hypothetical and ideal conditions), participants recommended it should include: individual control and autonomy, peer advocacy in decision-making, and elimination of police and criminal justice system involvement from treatment encounters. Participants saw involuntary care to be an inappropriate approach given the shortcomings of the current system, noting also problems inherent in its use to manage severe SUDs and imminent harm, and prioritized alternate approaches to offsetting risks. CONCLUSION: Improving voluntary care for substance use, along with addressing the social determinants of health that put individuals at risk of problematic substance use and harm, were prioritized in participant perspectives. Participant comments regarding the use of involuntary care bring forward alternate solutions in the context of the opioid overdose crisis, and a reconceptualization of the 'problem' of managing severe substance use disorders.

Combining respondent-driven sampling with a community-based participatory action study of people who smoke drugs in two cities in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The smoking of illicit drugs presents a serious social and economic burden in Canada. People who smoke drugs (PWSD) are at increased risk of contracting multiple infections through risky drug practices. Peer-led harm reduction activities, and the resulting social networks that form around them, can potentially minimize the dangers associated with the smoking illicit drugs. GOAL: The goals of this study were to pilot test the combined approaches of respondent driven sampling with community based participatory action research in these settings and compare the attributes and social networks of PWSD in two British Columbia cities with different harm reduction programs. METHODS: Using community-based participatory action research (CBPAR) and respondent-driven sampling (RDS), individuals with lived drug experiences were employed from communities in Abbotsford and Vancouver as peer researchers to interview ten contacts from their social networks. Contacts completed a questionnaire about their harm reduction behaviours and interactions. RESULTS: We found that PWSD residing in Abbotsford were more likely to report engaging in harm-promoting behaviours, such as sharing, reusing, or borrowing crack pipes. However, PWSD in the Downtown East side Community of Vancouver were more likely to report engaging in harm-reducing activities, such as being trained in naloxone use and CPR. We found no differences in network sizes between the two communities, despite the population differences and harm reduction programs CONCLUSION: The high participation rates and interactions between researchers, and peer researchers enriched the study implementation and successfully informed our results. The fact that there were no differences in network size suggests that people have similar support in Vancouver as in Abbotsford, and that drug use practices differ mainly due to availability of harm reduction programming and resources.

Social network support and harm reduction activities in a peer researcher-led pilot study, British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: People who smoke drugs (PWSD) are at high risk of both infectious disease and overdose. Harm reduction activities organized by their peers in the community can reduce risk by providing education, safer smoking supplies, and facilitate access to other services. Peers also provide a network of people who provide social support to PWSD which may reinforce harm reducing behaviors. We evaluated the numbers of supportive network members and the relationships between received support and participants' harm-reducing activities. METHODS: Initial peer-researchers with past or current lived drug use experience were employed from communities in Abbotsford and Vancouver to interview ten friends from their social networks who use illegal drugs mainly through smoking. Contacts completed a questionnaire about people in their own harm reduction networks and their relationships with each other. We categorized social support into informational, emotional, and tangible aspects, and harm reduction into being trained in the use of, or carrying naloxone, assisting peers with overdoses, using brass screens to smoke, obtaining pipes from service organizations and being trained in CPR. RESULTS: Fifteen initial peer researchers interviewed 149 participants who provided information on up to 10 people who were friends or contacts and the relationships between them. People who smoked drugs in public were 1.46 (95% CI, 1.13-1.78) more likely to assist others with possible overdoses if they received tangible support; women who received tangible support were 1.24 (95% CI; 1.02-1.45) more likely to carry and be trained in the use of naloxone. There was no relationship between number of supportive network members and harm reduction behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, PWSD who received tangible support were more likely to assist peers in possible overdoses and be trained in the use of and/or carry naloxone, than those who did not receive tangible support. Future work on the social relationships of PWSD may prove valuable in the search for credible and effective interventions.