Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34544478›Full record

ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2021

Research led by people who use drugs: centering the expertise of lived experience.

Zach R Salazar, Louise Vincent, Mary C Figgatt, Michael K Gilbert, Nabarun Dasgupta

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Community Advisory Board Members Speak Out: Insights From an Opioid Overdose Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Meeting People Where They Are: The Roles of Peer Navigation and Telemedicine for Hepatitis C Virus Elimination.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    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.

Zach R SalazarNorth Carolina Survivors Union, 1116 Grove Street, Greensboro, NC, 27403, USA. zach@ncsunion.org.ORCID 0000-0002-6211-835X
Louise VincentNorth Carolina Survivors Union, 1116 Grove Street, Greensboro, NC, 27403, USA.
Mary C FiggattInjury Prevention Research Center, University of North Carolina At Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Michael K GilbertIndependent Researcher, Portland, OR, USA.
Nabarun DasguptaInjury Prevention Research Center, University of North Carolina At Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch collaborations between people who use drugs (PWUD) and researchers are largely underutilized, despite the long history of successful, community-led harm reduction interventions and growing health disparities experienced by PWUD. PWUD play a critical role in identifying emerging issues in the drug market, as well as associated health behaviors and outcomes. As such, PWUD are well positioned to meaningfully participate in all aspects of the research process, including population of research questions, conceptualization of study design, and contextualization of findings. MAIN BODY: We argue PWUD embody unparalleled and current insight to drug use behaviors, including understanding of novel synthetic drug bodies and the dynamics at play in the drug market; they also hold intimate and trusting relationships with other PWUD. This perfectly situates PWUD to collaborate with researchers in investigation of drug use behaviors and development of harm reduction interventions. While PWUD have a history of mistrust with the medical community, community-led harm reduction organizations have earned their trust and are uniquely poised to facilitate research projects. We offer the North Carolina Survivors Union as one such example, having successfully conducted a number of projects with reputable research institutions. We also detail the fallacy of meaningful engagement posed by traditional mechanisms of capturing community voice. As a counter, we detail the framework developed and implemented by the union in hopes it may serve as guidance for other community-led organizations. We also situate research as a mechanism to diversify the job opportunities available to PWUD and offer a real-time example of the integration of these principles into public policy and direct service provision.

conclusionIn order to effectively mitigate the risks posed by the fluid and volatile drug market, research collaborations must empower PWUD to play meaningful roles in the entirety of the research process. Historically, the most effective harm reduction interventions have been born of the innovation and heart possessed by PWUD; during the current overdose crisis, there is no reason to believe they will not continue to be.

Indexed as

Drug OverdosePharmaceutical PreparationsSubstance-Related DisordersHarm ReductionHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsCommunity driven researchCommunity-led researchDrug user unionsHarm reductionPeople who use drugsSyringe service programs

Identifiers

PMID34544478
PMCPMC8454046

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.