ArticleHarm reduction journal2025
Building consensus for harm reduction approaches in UK universities: a qualitative study with staff and students.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHarm reduction approaches to student drug use have been developing in a number of UK universities. Little is known about how to build consensus and effect normative change towards harm reduction in these settings. The aim of this paper is to identify key factors relevant to achieving organisational change and effecting a shift towards the adoption of harm reduction policies and practices.
methodsThe study included twelve UK universities and employed a qualitative research design which included semi-structured interviews with university policy makers (n = 12) and focus groups with students (4 groups with an overall total of 24 students). The universities were at different points in the process of implementing a harm reduction approach.
resultsThere was strong support for harm reduction approaches by both university staff and student participants, but there was confusion and misunderstanding around the concept of harm reduction. Some students were unsure about whether or not their university had a harm reduction policy. This highlights the need for clearer communication and education around harm reduction. A number of challenges in developing and implementing harm reduction strategies were identified including securing resources and gaining institutional support and leadership 'buy-in'. Fears of stakeholders around the reputational risks to universities in advocating for harm reduction needed to be countered. Policy change often relied on committed individuals or 'champions' in the institutions to drive strategy development; however, there was also evidence of a 'community of practice' emerging amongst the network of institutions that had implemented harm reduction strategies which provided support and shared knowledge and experiences. Co-production strategies involving students, staff and external stakeholders were vital in gaining consensus and fostering ownership.
conclusionsThe study has highlighted that there is strong support for a shift away from zero-tolerance approaches to student drug use, although this needs to be accomplished incrementally and in ways that address stakeholder concerns and safeguard university reputations. Working with a 'whole system' philosophy was identified as good practice whereby university policy was embedded within a local or city-wide approach which helped to facilitate the acceptance and development of harm reduction.
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.