ArticleBMC public health2025
Promises and pitfalls of safer smoking supply distribution in the United States: a thematic analysis of open-ended survey questions from harm reduction organizations.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith rising prevalence of smoking unregulated drugs across the United States, there is a need for more community-based distribution of safer smoking supplies (e.g., glass pipes) to reduce health harms for people who smoke drugs. While smoking supplies are increasingly offered through harm reduction organizations (HROs), which have predominantly focused on addressing injection-related harms, little is known about HROs’ experiences implementing this relatively novel service.
methodsBetween November 2023–January 2024, we administered a survey with closed- and open-ended questions about safer smoking supplies to representatives of U.S. HROs. Thematic analysis of responses to open-ended survey questions identified themes related to organizations’ motivations and experiences implementing safer smoking supplies, including challenges with addressing smoking drug use in the communities they serve.
resultsAmong 118 HROs responding to the survey, most were community-based organizations (74%) and had implemented safer smoking supplies (67%). From open-ended responses, the most common motivations for distributing safer smoking supplies included shifting local drug markets (e.g., from heroin to fentanyl) and increased community demand. Offering smoking supplies had positive implications for organizations, including improved engagement with previously underserved communities—such as people who primarily smoke drugs, and younger, unhoused, and racially and ethnically minoritized individuals. Funding restrictions presented a major challenge to implementing safer smoking supplies, and some respondents expressed concerns about potential negative health consequences of smoking drugs, including mouth and lung problems.
conclusionsMany U.S. HROs have implemented safer smoking supplies, resulting in improved engagement of previously underserved communities in their evidence-based prevention services. However, concerns remain regarding the feasibility, sustainability, and health implications of safer smoking supply distribution. In the context of rapid transitions from injecting to smoking unregulated drugs in communities across the U.S., support for HROs and research on shifting drug consumption patterns and impacts are urgently needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.