Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38734643›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2024

How do we understand the value of drug checking as a component of harm reduction services? A qualitative exploration of client and provider perspectives.

Lissa Moran, Jeff Ondocsin, Simon Outram, Daniel Ciccarone, Daniel Werb, Nicole Holm, Emily A Arnold

Abstract 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The nitazene epidemic in Estonia: a first report.European journal of public health · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Lissa MoranCenter for AIDS Prevention Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. lissa.moran@ucsf.edu.
Jeff OndocsinCenter for AIDS Prevention Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Simon OutramCenter for AIDS Prevention Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Daniel CiccaroneFamily & Community Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Daniel WerbCentre on Drug Policy Evaluation, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Nicole HolmFamily & Community Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Emily A ArnoldCenter for AIDS Prevention Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.

Funding

Ujima Mentoring ProgramP30MH062246 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MALLORY O JOHNSON · 2001 to 2026
$57.4M
Synthetics in Combination (SYNC)R01DA054190 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI DANIEL H CICCARONE · 2021 to 2026
$4.3M
California HIV/AIDS Research Program H21PC3238NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH062246
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMortality related to opioid overdose in the U.S. has risen sharply in the past decade. In California, opioid overdose death rates more than tripled from 2018 to 2021, and deaths from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl increased more than seven times in those three years alone. Heightened attention to this crisis has attracted funding and programming opportunities for prevention and harm reduction interventions. Drug checking services offer people who use drugs the opportunity to test the chemical content of their own supply, but are not widely used in North America. We report on qualitative data from providers and clients of harm reduction and drug checking services, to explore how these services are used, experienced, and considered.

methodsWe conducted in-depth semi-structured key informant interviews across two samples of drug checking stakeholders: "clients" (individuals who use drugs and receive harm reduction services) and "providers" (subject matter experts and those providing clinical and harm reduction services to people who use drugs). Provider interviews were conducted via Zoom from June-November, 2022. Client interviews were conducted in person in San Francisco over a one-week period in November 2022. Data were analyzed following the tenets of thematic analysis.

resultsWe found that the value of drug checking includes but extends well beyond overdose prevention. Participants discussed ways that drug checking can fill a regulatory vacuum, serve as a tool of informal market regulation at the community level, and empower public health surveillance systems and clinical response. We present our findings within three key themes: (1) the role of drug checking in overdose prevention; (2) benefits to the overall agency, health, and wellbeing of people who use drugs; and (3) impacts of drug checking services at the community and systems levels.

conclusionThis study contributes to growing evidence of the effectiveness of drug checking services in mitigating risks associated with substance use, including overdose, through enabling people who use and sell drugs to test their own supply. It further contributes to discussions around the utility of drug checking and harm reduction, in order to inform legislation and funding allocation.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionAdultDrug OverdoseDrug UsersFemaleHumansMaleOpiate OverdoseOpioid-Related DisordersQualitative ResearchSan FranciscoDrug checkingFentanylHarm reductionNorth americaOpioidOverdoseQualitativeSubstance use

Identifiers

PMID38734643
PMCPMC11088080

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.