Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38287409›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2024

Recommendations from people who use drugs in Philadelphia, PA about structuring point-of-care drug checking.

Megan K Reed, Elias Borne, Tracy Esteves Camacho, Morgan Kelly, Kristin L Rising

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Megan K ReedDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Curtis Building, Suite 704, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. Megan.K.Reed@jefferson.edu.
Elias BorneCenter for Connected Care, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Tracy Esteves CamachoCenter for Connected Care, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Morgan KellyCenter for Connected Care, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Kristin L RisingDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Curtis Building, Suite 704, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Thomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

Philadelphia Department of Public Health 080-6408-31050-C21501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdulterants, such as fentanyl and xylazine, among others, are present in a high percentage of the illicit drug supply, increasing the risk for overdose and other adverse health events among people who use drugs (PWUD). Point-of-care drug checking identifies components of a drug sample and delivers results consumers. To successfully meet the diverse needs of PWUD, more information is needed about the utility of drug checking, motivations for using services contextualized in broader comments on the drug supply, hypothesized actions to be taken after receiving drug checking results, and the ideal structure of a program.

methodsIn December 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 PWUD who were accessing harm reduction services in Philadelphia, PA. Participants were asked about opinions and preferences for a future drug checking program. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and coded using content analysis to identify themes.

resultsParticipants were primarily White (52.5%) and male (60%). Heroin/fentanyl was the most frequently reported drug used (72.5%, n = 29), followed by crack cocaine (60.0%, n = 24) and powder cocaine (47.5%, n = 19). Emerging themes from potential drug checking consumers included universal interest in using a drug checking program, intentions to change drug use actions based on drug checking results, deep concern about the unpredictability of the drug supply, engaging in multiple harm reduction practices, and concerns about privacy while accessing a service.

conclusionsWe offer recommendations for sites considering point-of-care drug checking regarding staffing, safety, logistics, and cultural competency. Programs should leverage pre-existing relationships with organizations serving PWUD and hire people with lived experiences of drug use. They should work with local or state government to issue protections to people accessing drug checking programs and ensure the service is anonymous and that data collection is minimized to keep the program low-threshold. Programs will ideally operate in multiple locations and span "atmosphere" (e.g., from clinical to a drop-in culture), offer in-depth education to participants about results, engage with a community advisory board, and not partner with law enforcement.

Indexed as

Drug OverdoseIllicit DrugsSubstance-Related DisordersAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylHarm ReductionHumansMalePhiladelphiaPoint-of-Care SystemsAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylIllicit DrugsDrug checkingDrug overdoseFTIRHarm reductionPeople who use drugs

Identifiers

PMID38287409
PMCPMC10825997
OpenAlexW4391328158

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.