Peer-led safer supply and opioid agonist treatment medication distribution: a case study from rural British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: British Columbia (BC) has been facing a public health emergency of overdose since 2016, with rural regions of the province facing the highest rates of death. Peers (in this case, people with lived experience of substance use) are known to be effective patient navigators in health systems and can play a role in connecting patients to care and reducing overdose risk. CASE PRESENTATION: We outline a peer-led program focused on opioid agonist treatment and prescribed safe supply medication delivery that began in March 2020 at a clinic in rural BC. The peer takes an Indigenous harm reduction approach and is focused on meeting the needs of the whole person. The peer has regular contact with approximately 50 clients and navigates medication delivery and appointments for approximately 10-15 people each day. Clients have been retained on the medication, and experienced improvement in other outcomes, including securing housing, employment and managing acute and chronic health conditions. The peer has established contact with clients since March 2020 to support engagement with health care and continuity of medication access. This program highlights the importance and value of peer-led work and need for further investments in peer-led programs to respond to the unregulated drug poisoning crisis. CONCLUSIONS: This peer-led intervention is a promising approach to engaging people who remain disconnected from health services in care in a rural community. This model could be adapted to other settings to support patient contact with the health system and medication access and continuity, with the ultimate goal of reducing overdose risk.

Preferred stimulant safer supply and associations with methamphetamine preference among people who use stimulants in British Columbia: Findings from a 2021 cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: As safer supply programs expand in Canada, stimulant safer supply is often overlooked despite the harms and criminalization faced by people who use stimulants. METHODS: The 2021 Harm Reduction Client Survey was administered at 17 harm reduction sites around British Columbia, Canada. The survey included a question about what specific substance participants would want to receive as stimulant safer supply. We investigated preference of stimulant safer substance by looking at frequency of stated preference and by using multivariable logistic regression to understand factors associated with the most frequently chosen substance. RESULTS: Of 330 participants who reported a stimulant safer supply preference, 58.5% (n = 193) chose crystal methamphetamine, 13% (n = 43) crack cocaine and 12.4% (n = 41) cocaine powder. The options that were available by prescription at the time of data collection were chosen by under 11% of participants (dextroamphetamine n = 21, methylphenidate n = 15). A preference for crystal methamphetamine was associated with being 29 and under compared to 50 and over (AOR: 3.96, 95% CI: 1.42-11.07, p-value: 0.01); self-identifying as a cis man versus a cis woman (AOR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.03-2.97, p-value: 0.04); and using drugs every day (AOR: 15.43, 95% CI: 3.38-70.51, p-value: < 0.01) or a few times a week (AOR: 8.90, 95% CI: 1.78-44.44, p-value: 0.01) compared to a few times a month. CONCLUSIONS: Preference of stimulant safer supply is associated with age, gender, and substance use characteristics. Safer supply programs that offer limited substances risk being poorly accessed, resulting in a continued reliance on an unregulated supply. Moreover, programs that do not offer a range of substances can contribute to health inequities.

An evaluation of the Compassion, Inclusion, and Engagement initiative: learning from PWLE and communities across British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: The Compassion, Inclusion and Engagement initiative (CIE) was a social contact intervention that operated in British Columbia between 2015 and 2021. The primary objective of CIE was to increase the participation of people with lived experience of substance use (PWLE) in the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of harm reduction supports and services. CASE PRESENTATION: CIE used the developmental evaluation methodology outcome mapping to define and measure progress towards its goals. Developmental evaluation emphasizes learning in contrast to other forms of evaluation which are often more focused on determining the value or success of a project or programme based on predetermined criteria. Outcome mapping is a relational practice which acknowledges that change is achieved by an initiative's partners and the role of the initiative is to provide access to resources, ideas and opportunities that can facilitate and support change. CONCLUSIONS: Through the implementation and evaluation of CIE, it became clear that directly supporting PWLE facilitated more meaningful and lasting change than solely working to improve the health and social services that supported them. The impacts of the CIE initiative extend far beyond the outcomes of any of the dialogues it facilitated and are largely the result of an increase in social capital. CIE engagements created the opportunity for change by inviting people most affected by the toxic drug supply together with those committed to supporting them, but their ability to bring about systemic change was limited. Both PWLE and service providers noted the lack of support to attend CIE engagements, lack of support for actions that came from those engagements, and lack of PWLE inclusion in decision-making by health authorities as limiting factors for systemic change. The lack of response at a systemic level often resulted in PWLE carrying the burden of responding to toxic drug poisonings, often without resources, support, or compensation.

Association of Opioid and Stimulant Use Disorder Diagnoses With Fatal and Nonfatal Overdose Among People With a History of Incarceration.

Importance: Studies have suggested a rise in opioid- and stimulant-involved overdoses in recent years in North America. This risk may be acute for individuals who have had contact with the criminal justice system, who are particularly vulnerable to overdose risk. Objective: To examine the association of opioid and/or stimulant use disorder diagnoses with overdose (fatal and nonfatal) among people with histories of incarceration. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, population-based health and corrections data were retrieved from the British Columbia Provincial Overdose Cohort, which contains a 20% random sample of residents of British Columbia. The analysis included all people in the 20% random sample who had a history of incarceration between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. Outcomes were derived from 5-years of follow-up data (January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019). Statistical analysis took place from January 2022 to June 2022. Exposures: Substance use disorder diagnosis type (ie, opioid use disorder, stimulant use disorder, both, or neither), sociodemographic, health, and incarceration characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios (HRs) are reported from an Andersen-Gill model for recurrent nonfatal overdose events and from a Fine and Gray competing risk model for fatal overdose events. Results: The study identified 6816 people (5980 male [87.7%]; 2820 aged <30 years [41.4%]) with histories of incarceration. Of these, 293 (4.3%) had opioid use disorder only, 395 (6.8%) had stimulant use disorder only, and 281 (4.1%) had both diagnoses. During follow-up, 1655 people experienced 4026 overdoses including 3781 (93.9%) nonfatal overdoses, and 245 (6.1%) fatal overdoses. In adjusted analyses, the hazard of both fatal (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.48-3.86) and nonfatal (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.94-3.11) overdose was highest in the group with both opioid and stimulant use disorder diagnoses. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of people with a history of incarceration found an elevated hazard of fatal and nonfatal overdose among people with both opioid and stimulant use disorder diagnoses. This study suggests an urgent need to address the service needs of individuals who have had contact with the criminal justice system and who co-use opioids and stimulants.

Concurrent use of opioids and stimulants and risk of fatal overdose: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant use has been rising among people with opioid use disorder in recent years in North America, alongside a parallel rise in illicit drug toxicity (overdose) deaths. This study aimed to examine the association between stimulant use and overdose mortality. METHODS: Data from a universal health insurance client roster were used to identify a 20% random general population sample (aged ≥12) in British Columbia, Canada between January 1 2015 and December 31 2018 (N = 1,089,682). Provincial health records were used to identify people who used opioids and/or stimulants. Fatal overdose observed during follow-up (January 12,015- December 312,018) was retrieved from Vital Statistics Death Registry and BC Coroners Service Data. Potential confounders including age, sex, health region, comorbidities and prescribed medications were retrieved from the provincial client roster and health records. RESULTS: We identified 7460 people who used stimulants and or opioids. During follow-up there were 272 fatal overdose events. People who used both opioids and stimulants had more than twice the hazard of fatal overdose (HR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.47-2.78, p < 0.001) compared to people who used opioids only. The hazard of death increased over time among people who used both opioids and stimulants. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to prioritize the service needs of people who use stimulants to reduce overdose mortality in British Columbia. Findings have relevance more broadly in other North American settings, where similar trends in opioid and stimulant polysubstance use have been observed.

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.

Guideline development in harm reduction: Considerations around the meaningful involvement of people who access services.

Background: Harm reduction seeks to minimizes the negative effects of drug use while respecting the rights of people with lived and living experience of substance use (PWLLE). Guideline standards ("guidelines for guidelines") provide direction on developing healthcare guidelines. To identify essential considerations for guideline development within harm reduction, we examined whether guideline standards are consistent with a harm reduction approach in their recommendations on involving people who access services. Methods: We searched the literature from 2011-2021 to identify guideline standards used in harm reduction and publications on involving PWLLE in developing harm reduction services. We used thematic analysis to compare their guidance on involving people who access services. Findings were validated with two organizations of PWLLE. Results: Six guideline standards and 18 publications met inclusion criteria. We identified three themes related to involving people who access services: Reasons for Involvement, Methods of Involvement, and Factors in Success. Subthemes varied across the literature. We identified five essential considerations for guideline development in harm reduction: establishing a shared understanding of reasons for involving PWLLE; respecting their expertise; partnering with PWLLE to ensure appropriate engagement; incorporating perspectives of populations disproportionately affected by substance use; and securing resources. Conclusion: Guideline standards and the harm reduction literature approach the involvement of people who access services from different perspectives. Thoughtful integration of the two paradigms can improve guidelines while empowering PWLLE. Our findings can support the development of high-quality guidelines that align with the fundamental principles of harm reduction in their involvement of PWLLE.

Use of community healthcare and overdose in the 30 days following release from provincial correctional facilities in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: Interruptions in healthcare services contribute to an elevated risk of overdose in the weeks following release from incarceration. This study examined the association of use of community healthcare with nonfatal and fatal overdose in the 30 days following release. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data from a random sample of 20% of the population of British Columbia. We examined releases from provincial correctional facilities between January 1, 2015-December 1, 2018. We fit multivariate Andersen-Gill models to examine nonfatal overdoses after release from incarceration and applied Standard Cox regression for analyses of fatal overdoses. RESULTS: There were a combined 16,809 releases of 6721 people in this study. At least one overdose occurred in 2.8% of releases. A community healthcare visit preceded the first nonfatal overdose in 86.4% of releases with a nonfatal overdose event. Only 48.4% of people who had a fatal overdose used community healthcare. In adjusted analysis, people who had used community healthcare had a higher hazard of healthcare-attended nonfatal overdose (aHR 2.83 95% CI 2.13, 3.78) and lower hazard of fatal overdose (aHR 0.58, 95%CI 0.28, 1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Community healthcare visits after release from custody may be an important opportunity to provide overdose prevention and harm reduction supports. Policies and resourcing are needed to facilitate better connection to primary healthcare during the transition to community. Providers in community should be equipped to offer care to people who have recently experienced incarceration in a way that is accessible, acceptable and trauma-informed.