Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40025510›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2025

Perspectives of syringe services program operators in Michigan on their relationship with substance use treatment: a qualitative study.

Molly C Reid, Samantha J Harris, Suzanne M Grieb, Sabrina Gattine, Zekiye Lukco, Brandon Hool, Mary Aguirre, Fernanda Alonso Aranda, Catherine Tomko, Sara Whaley and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Molly C ReidDepartment of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. mreid35@jh.edu.
Samantha J HarrisDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Suzanne M GriebCenter for Child and Community Health Research, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21224, USA.
Sabrina GattineDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Zekiye LukcoMichigan Department of Health and Human Services, Lansing, MI, 48909, USA.
Brandon HoolMichigan Department of Health and Human Services, Lansing, MI, 48909, USA.
Mary AguirreMichigan Department of Health and Human Services, Lansing, MI, 48909, USA.
Fernanda Alonso ArandaDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Catherine TomkoDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Sara WhaleyDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Brendan SalonerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Sean T AllenDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubstance use treatment (SUT) and harm reduction are often perceived as having distinct goals despite people who use drugs routinely having needs that encompass both services. The co-occurring SUT and harm reduction needs of people who use drugs warrant collaboration between service providers. However, little work has explored such collaborations, or lack thereof. This research explores how SUT providers responded to expanded harm reduction programming from the perspectives of syringe services program (SSP) operators in Michigan.

methodsWe conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a geographically diverse sample of SSP operators (n = 19) in Michigan during October and November 2021. The interview guide broadly explored the contributing factors to SSP implementation, including SSP relationships with SUT providers. Analyses of transcribed interviews were conducted using an iterative, thematic constant comparison process informed by grounded theory.

resultsParticipants described a range of responses to SSP implementation from SUT providers. Many SSP operators identified significant barriers to effective collaboration with SUT providers due to lack of awareness about harm reduction approaches and stigmatization of drug use. For example, SUT providers were often reluctant to accept free harm reduction supplies (e.g., sterile syringes, naloxone) to offer their clients. Participants also reported difficulties connecting their clients to evidence-based SUT providers. Incremental relationship building and education about the role of harm reduction in recovery were required for effective collaboration between SUT providers and SSPs.

conclusionsTensions between SUT and harm reduction providers may create challenges that impede recovery among people who use drugs. Ensuring SUT and harm reduction providers understand the unique and complementary roles of each approach is necessary to advance the health of people who use drugs.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHarm ReductionNeedle-Exchange ProgramsSubstance Abuse, IntravenousSubstance-Related DisordersAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMichiganMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchHarm reductionIntegrated servicesSubstance use treatment

Identifiers

PMID40025510
PMCPMC11871840

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.