Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41053759›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2025

"We knew it was coming: we didn't act" perspectives from people who use drugs and substance use workforce on the impact of delays in implementation of the supervised injection facility and drug checking interventions.

Margaret R Hester, Jaclyn M W Hughto, Divya Ravikumar-Grant, Saoirse Nic Gabhainn

Abstract read
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

4 authors.

Margaret R HesterHealth Promotion Research Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Galway, University Road, Galway, H91 TK33, Ireland.
Jaclyn M W HughtoDepartment of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Divya Ravikumar-GrantHealth Promotion Research Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Galway, University Road, Galway, H91 TK33, Ireland.
Saoirse Nic GabhainnHealth Promotion Research Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Galway, University Road, Galway, H91 TK33, Ireland. saoirse.nicgabhainn@universityofgalway.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHarm reduction techniques such as supervised injection facilities and drug checking are evidence-based strategies for reducing fatal overdoses. Despite the evidence in support of these interventions, Irish drug policy experienced delays in implementation of these strategies. This study considers the perceived impacts of delayed implementation of the supervised injection facility and drug checking in Ireland.

methodsA purposive sample of people who use drugs and people from the substance use workforce were recruited for a total of 34 semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis.

resultsOur results show perceived direct and secondary impacts of delayed implementation of the supervised injection facility and drug checking. Direct impacts of delays include the absence of evidence-based practices forcing people who use drugs to adopt make-shift safety responses and compounding the inequalities they experience. Participants expressed concern for the lives that could have been saved if the supervised injection facility and drug checking had been implemented, and the unknown scope of health consequences due to delays. Secondary impacts of delays noted the difficulties to respond to current issues or new challenges in the drug markets. Over the period of waiting for these interventions, participants reported changes in the drug market and drug use which may have implications for the existing policies. Participants described navigating frustration with bureaucracy and concern for moving forward with harm reduction.

conclusionChanges in drug use and drug markets occurred over a period of waiting for interventions to be implemented. Policymakers must consider adapting plans for a supervised injection facility to include inhalation space to meet the current needs of people who use drugs. Drug policy interventions must consider the populations most at risk, and should consider drug checking services outside of the festival setting. This study highlights that the nature of change in drug markets requires timely policy response and implementation. As drug markets become riskier, policymakers should consider framing overdose as a matter of public health urgency to facilitate timely harm reduction implementation.

Indexed as

Drug UsersHarm ReductionNeedle-Exchange ProgramsSubstance Abuse, IntravenousAdultDrug OverdoseFemaleHumansIrelandMaleMiddle AgedSubstance-Related DisordersTime FactorsDrug checkingDrug policyHarm reductionOverdose preventionSupervised injection facility

Identifiers

PMID41053759
PMCPMC12502640

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.