ArticleHarm reduction journal2014
A drug use survey among clients of harm reduction sites across British Columbia, Canada, 2012.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Awareness and knowledge of drug decriminalization among people who use drugs in British Columbia: a multi-method pre-implementation study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Associations with experience of non-fatal opioid overdose in British Columbia, Canada: a repeated cross sectional survey study.Harm reduction journal · 2023Article
- Smoking identified as preferred mode of opioid safe supply use; investigating correlates of smoking preference through a 2021 cross-sectional study in British Columbia.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2023Article
- Article
- Intention to seek emergency medical services during community overdose events in British Columbia, Canada: a cross-sectional survey.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2022Article
- Article
- Examining prevalence and correlates of smoking opioids in British Columbia: opioids are more often smoked than injected.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2021Article
- Towards cross-Canada monitoring of the unregulated street drug supply.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Crystal methamphetamine use in British Columbia, Canada: A cross-sectional study of people who access harm reduction services.PloS one · 2021Article
- Convenience and comfort: reasons reported for using drugs alone among clients of harm reduction sites in British Columbia, Canada.Harm reduction journal · 2020Article
- The role of prevention strategies in achieving HCV elimination in Canada: what are the remaining challenges?Canadian liver journal · 2018Review
- Patient perspectives of methadone formulation change in British Columbia, Canada: outcomes of a provincial survey.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2016Article
- Why the FUSS (Fentanyl Urine Screen Study)? A cross-sectional survey to characterize an emerging threat to people who use drugs in British Columbia, Canada.Harm reduction journal · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn British Columbia (BC), understanding of high-risk drug use trends is largely based on survey and cohort study data from two major cities, which may not be representative of persons who use drugs in other regions. Harm reduction stakeholders, representing each of the five geographic health regions in BC, identified a need for data on drug use to inform local and regional harm reduction activities across the province. The aims of this project were to (1) develop a drug use survey that could be feasibly administered at harm reduction (HR) sites across all health regions and (2) assess the data for differences in reported drug use frequencies by region.
methodsA pilot survey focusing on current drug use was developed with stakeholders and administered among clients at 28 HR supply distribution sites across the province by existing staff and peers. Data were collated and analysed using univariate and bivariate descriptive statistics to assess differences in reported drug use frequencies by geography. A post-survey evaluation was conducted to assess acceptability and feasibility of the survey process for participating sites.
resultsCrack cocaine, heroin, and morphine were the most frequently reported drugs with notable regional differences. Polysubstance use was common among respondents (70%) with one region having 81% polysubstance use. Respondents surveyed in or near their region's major centre were more likely to report having used crack cocaine (p < 0.0001) and heroin (p < 0.0001) in the past week as compared to those residing >50 km from the major centre. Participants accessing services >50 km from the regional centre were more likely to have used morphine (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in powder cocaine use by client/site proximity to the regional centre. Participating sites found the survey process acceptable, feasible to administer annually, and useful for responding to client needs.
conclusionsThe survey was a feasible way for harm reduction sites across BC to obtain drug use data from clients who actively use drugs. Drug use frequencies differed substantially by region and community proximity to the regional centre, underlining the need for locally collected data to inform service planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.