ArticleHarm reduction journal2020
Toward a human-centered use of technology: a stakeholder analysis of harm reduction and CBO staff.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using the participatory education and research into lived experience (PEARLE) methodology to localize content and target specific populations.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Solidarity and HIV Testing Willingness During the COVID-19 Epidemic: A Study Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in China.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTechnology can enable syringe service programs (SSPs) and other community-based organizations (CBOs) operating under a harm reduction framework to work with an increased number of clients and can also enable organizations to offer services more effectively (e.g., offering HIV testing in ways participants may be more likely to accept). In the current time of COVID-19 social distancing, technology can also help organizations more safely provide services to people with compromised immune systems and to clients who might otherwise not be reached. However, technology projects implemented in harm reduction settings are frequently conceptualized and developed by researchers or technology specialists rather than by SSP staff or clients.
methodsTo more effectively meet the needs of SSPs and other CBOs across the USA, our team conducted qualitative interviews with 16 individuals who have extensive backgrounds working in the field of harm reduction. Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed, and the transcripts were checked for accuracy by the interviewers. The resulting transcripts were coded and analyzed to determine emerging themes.
resultsInterviewees mentioned the ability of technology to deliver consistent quality messaging to multiple clients at the same time and the potential to customize or tailor technology-based messaging to specific client populations as positive benefits. Clear barriers to technology use also emerged, in particular regarding privacy, data security, and the need to maintain client trust when discussing sensitive issues (e.g., illicit drug use).
conclusionsTechnology offers the potential to deliver consistently high-quality health communication and maintain contact with clients who may have no other access to care. If designed and managed effectively, technology can also address issues related to providing services during times when physical contact is limited due to COVID-19 social distancing measures.
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.