ArticleHarm reduction journal2026
A mixed methods examination of organizational approaches to fentanyl test strip distribution and training across multiple states.
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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFentanyl test strips (FTS) have become a critical harm reduction tool, allowing people who use drugs (PWUD) to detect fentanyl in their drug supply and make informed decisions about their drug use. While FTS distribution is increasingly common, there is limited understanding of distribution strategies used by community organizations, and the education and training provided around FTS use. Given the proliferation of fentanyl in the drug supply, and the diverse motivations of PWUD, research is needed to better understand FTS distribution and training practices. This study examines FTS distribution strategies, training approaches, and the facilitators and barriers faced by harm reduction organizations in Kentucky, Ohio, and New York.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study as part of the Stay Safe Study, using a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews with organizations distributing FTS. Organizations included syringe service programs, mobile outreach units, recovery centers, and public health departments. Survey data were used to describe organizational characteristics and distribution practices, while interview data were coded and analyzed for themes related to distribution practices, training, and facilitators and barriers of FTS distribution.
resultsTwenty-eight organizations completed the organizational survey, and staff from 21 organizations participated in interviews. FTS distribution settings varied widely. Most organizations distributed between 100 and 500 FTS monthly, primarily on an "as needed" basis. Legalization of FTS was identified as a key facilitator, and innovative distribution methods included vending machines and mail distribution. Partnerships within the community expanded the reach and accessibility of FTS. Training approaches for both staff and PWUD varied substantially, and organizations faced barriers related to securing buy-in and the time required for training.
conclusionsThis study highlights organizational practices related to FTS distribution and training. Participants viewed FTS as a gateway to providing broader harm reduction services, fostering trust and engagement with PWUD. To maximize the impact of FTS as an overdose prevention tool, it is important to address persistent barriers through tailored distribution and training strategies, sustainable funding, and scalable implementation models.
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.