Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39192340›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2024

Facilitators and barriers to monitoring and evaluation at syringe service programs.

Elise Healy, Arianna Rubin Means, Kelly Knudtson, Noah Frank, Alexa Juarez, Stephanie Prohaska, Courtney McKnight, Don Des Jarlais, Alice Asher, Sara N Glick

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Elise HealyDivision of Allergy and Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, University of Washington, 325 9th Ave, Box 359777, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Arianna Rubin MeansDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Kelly KnudtsonDivision of Allergy and Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, University of Washington, 325 9th Ave, Box 359777, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Noah FrankDivision of Allergy and Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, University of Washington, 325 9th Ave, Box 359777, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Alexa JuarezDivision of Allergy and Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, University of Washington, 325 9th Ave, Box 359777, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Stephanie ProhaskaDave Purchase Project, Tacoma, Washington, USA.
Courtney McKnightSchool of Global Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, New York University, New York, New York, USA.
Don Des JarlaisSchool of Global Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, New York University, New York, New York, USA.
Alice AsherCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Sara N GlickDivision of Allergy and Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, University of Washington, 325 9th Ave, Box 359777, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. snglick@uw.edu.

Funding

University of Washington/Fred Hutch Center for AIDS ResearchP30AI027757 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CONNIE L CELUM · 1988 to 2026
$104.9M
CDC HHS 6 NU65PS923685NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI027757
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSyringe services programs (SSPs) provide harm reduction supplies and services to people who use drugs and are often required by funders or partners to collect data from program participants. SSPs can use these data during monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to inform programmatic decision making, however little is known about facilitators and barriers to collecting and using data at SSPs.

methodsUsing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted 12 key informant interviews with SSP staff to describe the overall landscape of data systems at SSPs, understand facilitators and barriers to data collection and use at SSPs, and generate recommendations for best practices for data collection at SSPs. We used 30 CFIR constructs to develop individual interview guides, guide data analysis, and interpret study findings.

resultsFour main themes emerged from our analysis: SSP M&E systems are primarily designed to be responsive to perceived SSP client needs and preferences; SSP staffing capacity influences the likelihood of modifying M&E systems; external funding frequently forces changes to M&E systems; and strong M&E systems are often a necessary precursor for accessing funding.

conclusionsOur findings highlight that SSPs are not resistant to data collection and M&E, but face substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of funding and disjointed data reporting requirements. There is a need to expand M&E-focused funding opportunities, harmonize quantitative indicators collected across funders, and minimize data collection to essential data points for SSPs.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionNeedle-Exchange ProgramsData CollectionHumansProgram EvaluationSubstance Abuse, IntravenousCFIRData systemsMonitoring & evaluation (M&E)Syringe service program (SSP)

Identifiers

PMID39192340
PMCPMC11351253

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.