ArticleHarm reduction journal2026
"No judgment, no preaching": approaches to harm reduction service provision for people who use drugs in North Carolina.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur study examines how harm reduction service providers (providers) throughout North Carolina (NC) provide services to people who use opioids (PWUO), how these service provision strategies align with PWUO preferences, and implications for care.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews and used a thematic analytic strategy to identify common approaches to service delivery among providers (n = 10), rationales for taking these approaches, and how approaches were received by PWUO (n = 30). To be included in the study, service providers had to provide direct care to PWUO, while PWUO had to be 18 + and be in active opioid use (not as prescribed by a doctor); providers and PWUO had to live in NC.
resultsProviders often allowed PWUO to take the lead in service delivery interactions, asked limited questions about what/how participants use drugs, and rarely offered unsolicited information. Providers believed questioning could feel invasive or stigmatizing to PWUO. They also thought questions were unnecessary, assuming PWUO understood the risks that come with drug use. Providers reported that they would take the lead in interactions to correct PWUO's misconceptions that could make their use more dangerous, and would, occasionally, offer unsolicited information related to upcoming events or new services, or if PWUO appeared open to receiving more information. PWUO varied in desired approach by providers, based on the established rapport between providers and PWUO, and whether PWUO were in withdrawal during the interaction. Still, PWUO generally felt syringe service programs were a safe space, and many wanted to be asked more about their use so providers could provide tailored information about risks, trends, and safe use.
conclusionProviders offer valuable services and safe spaces for PWUO in NC, but should ask program participants' preferences regarding interaction style to ensure the services provided are aligned with the desires of PWUO to have the maximum possible impact.
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.