Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32204713›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2020

Evaluating networked drug checking services in Toronto, Ontario: study protocol and rationale.

N Maghsoudi, K McDonald, C Stefan, D R Beriault, K Mason, L Barnaby, J Altenberg, R D MacDonald, J Caldwell, R Nisenbaum and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Considerations for Purchasing Drug Checking Technologies: Perspectives from Toronto's Drug Checking Service.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

17 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

N MaghsoudiCentre on Drug Policy Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1 W8, Canada.
K McDonaldCentre on Drug Policy Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1 W8, Canada.
C StefanClinical Laboratory and Diagnostic Services, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
D R BeriaultDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
K MasonSouth Riverdale Community Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
L BarnabyParkdale Queen West Community Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J AltenbergSouth Riverdale Community Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
R D MacDonaldToronto Paramedic Services, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J CaldwellToronto Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
R NisenbaumMAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions and Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
P LeeceDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
T M WatsonInstitute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
K W TupperSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
L KufnerParkdale Queen West Community Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
A I ScheimCentre on Drug Policy Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1 W8, Canada.
D WerbCentre on Drug Policy Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1 W8, Canada. dwerb@ucsd.ed.ORCID 0000-0003-0614-9386
Drug Checking Services in Toronto Working Group
St. Michael's Hospital · CACentre for Addiction and Mental Health · CARegent Park Community Health Centre · CAToronto Public Health · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Impact of Drug Policy Reform on the HIV Risk Environment among IDUs in TijuanaR37DA019829 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI STRATHDEE, STEFFANIE A. · 2010 to 2019
$6.7M
Preventing HIV by modifying the context for injecting initiationDP2DA040256 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI WERB, DANIEL M · 2015 to 2015
$2.3M
CIHRNIDA NIH HHS DP2 DA040256NIDA NIH HHS NIDA DP2-DA040256NIDA NIH HHS R37 DA019829
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing incidence of fatal opioid overdose is a public health crisis in Canada. Given growing consensus that this crisis is related to the presence of highly potent opioid adulterants (e.g., fentanyl) in the unregulated drug supply, drug checking services (DCS) have emerged as part of a comprehensive approach to overdose prevention. In Canada's largest city, Toronto, a network of DCS launched in 2019 to prevent overdose and overdose-related risk behaviors. This network employs mass spectrometry technologies, with intake sites co-located with supervised consumption services (SCS) at three frontline harm reduction agencies. The protocol and rationale for assessing the impact of this multi-site DCS network in Toronto is described herein. The aims of this study are to (1) evaluate the impact of DCS access on changes in and factors influencing overdose and related risk behaviors, (2) investigate the perceived capacity of DCS to prevent overdose, and (3) identify composition (qualitative and quantitative) trends in Toronto's unregulated drug supply.

methodsWe will use a parallel-mixed-methods design with complementary data sources (including data from chemical analysis of drug samples, quantitative intake and post-test surveys, SCS, coroners, paramedic services, and qualitative interviews), followed by a meta-inference process wherein results from analyses are synthesized.

resultsWhereas most DCS globally target "recreational drug users," in Toronto, this networked DCS will primarily target marginalized people who use drugs accessing frontline services, many of whom use drugs regularly and by injection. This evolution in the application of DCS poses important questions that have not yet been explored, including optimal service delivery models and technologies, as well as unique barriers for this population. Increasing information on the unregulated drug supply may modify the risk environment for this population of people who use drugs.

conclusionsThis study addresses evidence gaps on the emerging continuum of overdose prevention responses and will generate critical evidence on a novel approach to reducing the ongoing high incidence of drug-related morbidity and mortality in Canada and elsewhere.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionResearch DesignDrug ContaminationDrug OverdoseFentanylHumansOntarioProgram EvaluationFentanylDrug checking servicesDrug market monitoringHarm reductionOverdose

Identifiers

PMID32204713
PMCPMC7092475
OpenAlexW3013475638

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.