Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31336258›Full record

ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2019

"We don't got that kind of time, man. We're trying to get high!": Exploring potential use of drug checking technologies among structurally vulnerable people who use drugs.

Geoff Bardwell, Jade Boyd, Kenneth W Tupper, Thomas Kerr

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal on drug policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 98 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. The public health risks of counterfeit pills.The Lancet. Public health · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Geoff BardwellBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada. Electronic address: geoff.bardwell@bccsu.ubc.ca.
Jade BoydBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada.
Kenneth W TupperBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Thomas KerrBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada.
British Columbia Centre on Substance Use · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

An ethno-epidemiological study of the implementation and effectiveness of an innovative and comprehensive response to the opioid epidemicR01DA044181 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA · PI Thomas Kerr, Ryan McNeil · 2017 to 2026
$4.0M
CIHR 20R74326NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA044181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNovel public health interventions are being considered to address the opioid overdose epidemic, including drug checking technologies. We examined the willingness to use various drug checking technologies among structurally-vulnerable people who use drugs (PWUD).

methodsWe conducted one-to-one qualitative semi-structured interviews with 20 PWUD in Vancouver, Canada's Downtown Eastside. Participants were purposively recruited from ongoing cohort studies of PWUD.

resultsOverall willingness to use drug checking technologies was low among participants. A range of factors undermined potential use of various drug checking technologies including: having to give up a drug sample; time dedication; discrepancies regarding measurements and accuracy; recourse following positive fentanyl results; ambivalence to overdose risk; and availability and accessibility of drug checking technologies.

conclusionsParticipants discussed numerous factors that undermined potential willingness to use drug checking technologies. These factors underscore the structural vulnerabilities experienced by PWUD and how they may constrain uptake of drug checking technologies. Future drug checking programming should consider these influencing factors prior to the implementation of drug checking technologies to ensure that drug checking interventions are appropriate and meeting the needs of target populations.

Indexed as

Opioid EpidemicAdultAgedBritish ColumbiaCohort StudiesDrug ContaminationDrug OverdoseDrug UsersFemaleFentanylHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPublic HealthTime FactorsFentanylDrug checking technologiesFentanylOverdosePeople who use drugsStructural vulnerabilityWillingness

Identifiers

PMID31336258
PMCPMC6868323
OpenAlexW2962871113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.