Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34134698›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

The potential impacts of community drug checking within the overdose crisis: qualitative study exploring the perspective of prospective service users.

Bruce Wallace, Thea van Roode, Flora Pagan, Dennis Hore, Bernadette Pauly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Donovan Memorial Lecture: 'Fentanyl-Plus': A New Era of Fentanyl Polydrug Combinations in the North American Overdose Crisis.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

5 authors.

Bruce WallaceCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada. barclay@uvic.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0360-7302
Thea van RoodeCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Flora PaganCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Dennis HoreDepartment of Chemistry, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Bernadette PaulyCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Funding

Health Canada SUAP: 1819-HQ-000042Vancouver Foundation VF: UNR17-0265
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs drug checking becomes more integrated within public health responses to the overdose crisis, and potentially more institutionalized, there is value in critically questioning the impacts of drug checking as a harm reduction response.

methodsAs part of a pilot project to implement community drug checking in Victoria, BC, Canada, in-depth interviews (N = 27) were held with people who use or have used substances, family or friends of people who use substances, and/or people who make or distribute substances. Critical harm reduction and social justice perspectives and a socioecological model guided our analysis to understand the potential role of drug checking within the overdose crisis, from the perspective of prospective service users.

resultsParticipants provided insight into who might benefit from community drug checking and potential benefits. They indicated drug checking addresses a "shared need" that could benefit people who use substances, people who care for people who use substances, and people who sell substances. Using a socioecological model, we identified four overarching themes corresponding to benefits at each level: "drug checking to improve health and wellbeing of people who use substances", "drug checking to increase quality control in an unregulated market", "drug checking to create healthier environments", and "drug checking to mediate policies around substance use".

conclusionsDrug checking requires a universal approach to meet the needs of diverse populations who use substances, and must not be focused on abstinence based outcomes. As a harm reduction response, community drug checking has potential impacts beyond the individual level. These include increasing power and accountability within the illicit drug market, improving the health of communities, supporting safer supply initiatives and regulation of substances, and mitigating harms of criminalization. Evaluation of drug checking should consider potential impacts that extend beyond individual behaviour change and recognize lived realities and structural conditions.

Indexed as

Drug OverdoseDrug UsersIllicit DrugsCanadaFentanylHarm ReductionHumansPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesFentanylIllicit DrugsDrug checkingFentanylHarm reductionSubstance use

Identifiers

PMID34134698
PMCPMC8207696

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.