ArticleDrug and alcohol review2022
Capacity for sustainment of recently established syringe service programs in Appalachian Kentucky: The central role of staff champions.
Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2022. 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.
- Discreet but accessible: a qualitative study with people who use drugs and service staff about the optimal design of a harm reduction vending machine in rural Kentucky.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEnsuring adequate harm reduction infrastructure in rural areas is imperative, as drug-related epidemics expand into them. Here, we explore the capacity for sustainment of syringe service programs (SSP) in Appalachian Kentucky.
methodsWe interviewed all staff (n = 16) of all SSPs (n = 7) in two Kentucky health districts in 2018-2019 using semi-structured one-on-one qualitative interviews; local departments of health (DOH) operated the SSPs. Interview domains encompassed: (i) SSP establishment; (ii) day-to-day operations, participation and health impacts; (iii) perceived prospects for sustainment; and (iv) perceived influences on #i-#iii. We analysed verbatim transcripts using thematic analytic methods; Schell's 'capacity for sustainment' constructs were treated as sensitising concepts during the analysis.
resultsMost community members, law enforcement and DOH staff opposed SSPs before they opened, because of stigma and concerns about enabling and needlestick injuries; DOH staff also opposed SSPs because they believed they lacked the capacity to operate them. Training, technical assistance, visible evidence of the programs' public health impact and contact with SSP participants transformed DOH staff into program champions. As champions, SSP staff developed programs that had strong capacity for sustainment, as defined by Schell (e.g. visible public health impact, stable funding, political support). Staff reported that the SSPs had high prospects for sustainment. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionAs in SSPs that opened in cities decades ago, staff in emerging SSPs in these rural areas appear to have become crucial champions for these controversial programs, and may serve as vital resources for expanding harm reduction programming more broadly in these underserved areas.
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.