Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39987212›Full record

ReviewHarm reduction journal2025

For a renewed harm reduction model.

Pierre Chappard, Fabienne Pourchon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Harm reduction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Pierre ChappardPsychoactif, Paris, France. pierre.chappard@gmail.com.
Fabienne PourchonPsychoactif, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the early 1990s, the spread of HIV among heroin injectors prompted a shift in drug policy internationally, including in France. This led to the emergence of a new policy known as Harm Reduction (HR) and related tools, including needle exchange programmes, opioid substitution therapy programmes to manage illicit opiate consumption, as well as reception facilities and support systems for the most precarious People Who Use Drugs (PWUDs). This new policy is based on the assertion that drugs have always been there and will always be a part of society, and that we have to live with them and not try to eradicate them. Promising PWUD emancipation, the advent of HR was accompanied by the birth of peer-support groups for unrepentant PWUDs, who decided to speak out in the public arena for the first time. Thirty years on, the authors assert that this promise has not lived up to expectations. More specifically, the cohabitation of an institutionalized, bureaucratized HR with the criminalization and stigmatization of drug use has worked against PWUD emancipation. As PWUDs, users of the addiction care system, peer workers and managers of addiction and HR facilities, the authors discuss the tensions between HR and the continued criminalisation and stigmatisation of drug use in France. Using the PWUD internet platform Psychoactif and the related peer-support group, both of which they created, the authors share their experiences and reflect on their practices to propose a renewed model of HR which reconnects with the civic and emancipatory roots of HR: a rights-based model that enables PWUDs to regain their power to act and escape the alienation caused by the stigma of drug use.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionSubstance Abuse, IntravenousFranceHealth PolicyHeroin DependenceHIV InfectionsHumansNeedle-Exchange ProgramsOpiate Substitution TreatmentSocial StigmaBenefits of drug useDrug policy and prohibitionEmancipationExperiential knowledgeHarm reductionPeer-supportStigmatization

Identifiers

PMID39987212
PMCPMC11847393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.