Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36231262›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

A Realist Review of How Community-Based Drug Checking Services Could Be Designed and Implemented to Promote Engagement of People Who Use Drugs.

Wendy Masterton, Danilo Falzon, Gillian Burton, Hannah Carver, Bruce Wallace, Elizabeth V Aston, Harry Sumnall, Fiona Measham, Rosalind Gittins, Vicki Craik and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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. Review
  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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Wendy MastertonSalvation Army Centre for Addictions Services and Research, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8630-9604
Danilo FalzonSalvation Army Centre for Addictions Services and Research, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.
Gillian BurtonSalvation Army Centre for Addictions Services and Research, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.
Hannah CarverSalvation Army Centre for Addictions Services and Research, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6846-2661
Bruce WallaceCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0360-7302
Elizabeth V AstonSchool of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh EH11 4BN, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9960-6509
Harry SumnallPublic Health Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L2 2QP, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7841-9245
Fiona MeashamDepartment of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZR, UK.
Rosalind GittinsHumankind, Bowburn DH6 5PF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0893-7936
Vicki CraikPublic Health Scotland, Glasgow G2 6QE, UK.
Joe SchofieldSalvation Army Centre for Addictions Services and Research, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1307-2375
Simon LittleKinbank Social Research Consultancy, Tayport DD6 9AP, UK.
Tessa ParkesSalvation Army Centre for Addictions Services and Research, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0409-3254
University of Stirling · GBEdinburgh Napier University · GBLiverpool John Moores University · GBPublic Health Scotland · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Victoria · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With rising numbers of drug-related deaths in the UK and globally, exploration of interventions that seek to reduce drug-related harm is essential. Drug checking services (DCS) allow people to submit drug samples for chemical analysis and receive feedback about the sample, as well as harm reduction advice. The use of DCS is often linked to festival and/or nightlife settings and to so-called 'recreational' drug use, but research has also shown the potential of community-based DCS as an intervention serving more varied demographics of people who use drugs, including more marginalised individuals and those experiencing drug dependence. Whilst there is a growing evidence base on the effectiveness of drug checking as a harm reduction intervention, there is still limited evidence of the underlying mechanisms and processes within DCS which may aid implementation and subsequent engagement of people who use drugs. This presents a challenge to understanding why engagement differs across types of DCS, and how best to develop and deliver services across different contexts and for different populations. To explore the contexts and mechanisms which impact engagement in community-based DCS, a realist review was undertaken to synthesise the international evidence for the delivery and implementation of DCS. There were 133 sources included in the review. From these sources the underlying contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes relating to DCS implementation and engagement were developed and refined into seven programme theories. The findings of this review are theoretically novel and hold practical relevance for the design of DCS, with implications for optimisation, tailoring, and implementing services to reach individuals in different settings.

Indexed as

Illicit DrugsSubstance-Related DisordersCommunity Health ServicesHarm ReductionHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsIllicit DrugsPharmaceutical Preparationsdrug checkingdrug interventionharm reductionsubstance use

Identifiers

PMID36231262
PMCPMC9564958
OpenAlexW4296617356

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.