Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29304871›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2018

Music festival attendees' illicit drug use, knowledge and practices regarding drug content and purity: a cross-sectional survey.

Niamh Day, Joshua Criss, Benjamin Griffiths, Shireen Kaur Gujral, Franklin John-Leader, Jennifer Johnston, Sabrina Pit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Niamh DaySchool of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Joshua CrissSchool of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Benjamin GriffithsSchool of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Shireen Kaur GujralSchool of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Franklin John-LeaderHarm Reduction and Health Promotion Programs, North Coast Public Health, Mid North Coast Local Health District, PO Box 419, Lismore, NSW, Australia.
Jennifer JohnstonSchool of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sabrina PitSchool of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. sabrina.pit@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2410-0703
Lismore Base Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AUCentral Coast Local Health District · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug checking is a harm reduction strategy which allows users to check the content and purity of illicit drugs. Although drug checking has been trialled internationally, with demonstrated value as a harm reduction and health promotion strategy, the use of such services in Australia remains a contentious issue. This study aimed to investigate the proportion and patterns of illicit drug use among young people, their attitudes towards drug checking at festivals and the potential impact of drug checking on intended drug use behaviour.

methodsThe survey was conducted at a major Australian music festival in 2016. Data was collected from a sample of festival attendees (n = 642) aged between 18 and 30 years. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed.

resultsNearly three-quarters (73.4%) of participants reported that they had used illicit drugs in the past 12 months, most commonly cannabis (63.9%) and ecstasy (59.8%). A large proportion of participants believed 'somewhat' or 'a lot' that drug checking services could help users seek help to reduce harm (86.5%) and that drug checking services should be combined with harm reduction advice (84.9%). However, two thirds of the participants agreed 'somewhat' or 'a lot' that drug sellers may use this service as a quality control mechanism (68.6%). Approximately half (54.4%) indicated they would be highly likely and a third (32.7%) would be somewhat likely to utilise free drug checking services should they be available at music festivals. When asked whether the results of drug checking would influence their drug use behaviour, participants reported that they would not take substances shown to contain methamphetamine (65.1%), ketamine (57.5%) or para-methoxyamphetamine (PMA) (58.4%).

conclusionThe majority of festival attendees aged 18-30 participating in this study reported a history of illicit drug use and were in favour of the provision of free drug checking at festivals. A considerable proportion reported that the results of drug checking would influence their drug use behaviour. The findings of this study can contribute to the debate regarding whether drug checking services could potentially play a major role in harm reduction and health promotion programming for young people attending festivals.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMusicAdolescentAdultAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesDrug ContaminationFemaleHumansIllicit DrugsMaleSubstance-Related DisordersYoung AdultIllicit Drugs

Identifiers

PMID29304871
PMCPMC5756357
OpenAlexW2782336381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.