Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35098828›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine2022

Applications of research evidence during processes to acquire approvals for syringe services program implementation in rural counties in Kentucky.

Sean T Allen, Suzanne M Grieb, Jennifer L Glick, Rebecca Hamilton White, Tyler Puryear, Katherine C Smith, Brian W Weir, Susan G Sherman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Sean T AllenDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Suzanne M GriebCenter for Child and Community Health Research, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jennifer L GlickDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Rebecca Hamilton WhiteDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7894-4114
Tyler PuryearDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Katherine C SmithDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2140-1690
Brian W WeirDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Susan G ShermanDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Syringe Services Program Implementation in Rural Counties Vulnerable to HIV OutbreakK01DA046234 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI ALLEN, SEAN T · 2018 to 2022
$722k
NIDA NIH HHS K01 DA046234
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite decades of empirical research in the US and internationally documenting the benefits of implementing syringe services programs (SSPs), their implementation may be controversial in many jurisdictions. Better understanding how research evidence is applied during SSP implementation processes may enable the public health workforce to advocate for program scale up. This study explores applications of research evidence during processes to acquire approvals for SSP implementation in rural counties in Kentucky.

methodsIn-depth interviews were conducted among eighteen stakeholders (e.g. health department directors, SSP operators) involved in SSP implementation in rural Kentucky counties. Stakeholders were asked to describe the contexts surrounding SSP implementation processes. Interviews were transcribed and analysed for applications of research evidence. Research evidence-related quotes were subsequently categorised based on the typologies for applications of research evidence developed by Weiss

resultsInstrumental applications of research evidence occurred at the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels to dispel concerns about SSPs and formed the basis for implementation support. SSP proponents used research evidence in a conceptual manner to address underlying attitudes and beliefs that were not evidence-based. Participants reported symbolic research evidence applications to justify pre-existing attitudes and beliefs about meeting the public health needs of people who inject drugs. Lastly, in some instances, research evidence was met with scepticism and an unwillingness to consider its merits.

conclusionApplications of research evidence during SSP implementation approval processes in rural Kentucky counties were heterogeneous in nature. Better understanding the diversity of ways in which research evidence may be employed during SSP implementation processes may support efforts to improve the public health of people who inject drugs.Key messagesApplications of research evidence during SSP implementation approval processes in rural Kentucky counties were heterogeneous in nature.Instrumental applications of research evidence occurred at the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels to dispel concerns about SSPs and formed the basis for implementation support.SSP proponents used research evidence in a conceptual manner to address underlying attitudes and beliefs that were not evidence-based.

Indexed as

Substance Abuse, IntravenousSyringesHumansKentuckyNeedle-Exchange ProgramsRural Populationdrug policyInjection drug useresearch evidenceruralsyringe services programs

Identifiers

PMID35098828
PMCPMC8812801

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.