Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38096231›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

"It would really support the wider harm reduction agenda across the board": A qualitative study of the potential impacts of drug checking service delivery in Scotland.

Danilo Falzon, Tessa Parkes, Hannah Carver, Wendy Masterton, Bruce Wallace, Vicki Craik, Fiona Measham, Harry Sumnall, Rosalind Gittins, Carole Hunter and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Danilo FalzonSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3295-4987
Tessa ParkesSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Hannah CarverSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Wendy MastertonSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Bruce WallaceCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.
Vicki CraikPublic Health Scotland, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Fiona MeashamDepartment of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Harry SumnallPublic Health Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Rosalind GittinsVia, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0893-7936
Carole HunterAlcohol and Drug Services, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Kira WatsonScottish Ambulance Service, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
John D MooneyPublic Health Directorate, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6639-8491
Elizabeth V AstonSchool of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
University of Stirling · GBEdinburgh Napier University · GBLiverpool John Moores University · GBNHS Grampian · GBNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde · GBPublic Health Scotland · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Victoria · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug checking services (DCS) enable individuals to voluntarily submit a small amount of a substance for analysis, providing information about the content of the substance along with tailored harm reduction support and advice. There is some evidence suggesting that DCS may lead to behaviour and system change, with impacts for people who use drugs, staff and services, and public health structures. The evidence base is still relatively nascent, however, and several evidence gaps persist. This paper reports on qualitative interviews with forty-three participants across three Scottish cities where the implementation of community-based DCS is being planned. Participants were drawn from three groups: professional participants; people with experience of drug use; and affected family members. Findings focus on perceived harm reduction impacts of DCS delivery in Scotland, with participants highlighting the potential for drug checking to impact a number of key groups including: individual service users; harm reduction services and staff; drug market monitoring structures and networks; and wider groups of people who use and sell drugs, in shaping their interactions with the drug market. Whilst continued evaluation of individual health behaviour outcomes is crucial to building the evidence base for DCS, the findings highlight the importance of extending evaluation beyond these outcomes. This would include evaluation of processes such as: information sharing across a range of parties; engagement with harm reduction and treatment services; knowledge building; and increased drug literacy. These broader dynamics may be particularly important for evaluations of community-based DCS serving individuals at higher-risk, given the complex relationship between information provision and health behaviour change which may be mediated by mental and physical health, stigma, criminalisation and the risk environment. This paper is of international relevance and adds to existing literature on the potential impact of DCS on individuals, organisations, and public health structures.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionSubstance-Related DisordersHumansScotland

Identifiers

PMID38096231
PMCPMC10721102
OpenAlexW4389725907

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.