ArticleDrug and alcohol review2026
Discordant Drug Checking Results and Risk Reduction Behaviours: Findings From the ChecKnow Study in France.
Article in Drug and alcohol review, 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
introductionDrug checking services (DCS) provide people with information about the contents of their drugs, reducing uncertainty about the composition of substances from unregulated markets. However, their impact on behaviour change has been sparsely evaluated. This study aimed to assess behaviour change following receipt of a drug checking result among users of French DCS.
methodsData were drawn from ChecKnow, a French e-cohort of people who use drugs. Using cross-sectional, baseline survey data, we identified participants who accessed face-to-face DCS within the previous 6 months. Reported drug checking results were categorised as containing only the expected substance, a non-psychoactive diluent, a psychoactive adulterant, or an entirely different substance. We assessed whether discordance between participants' drug checking result and their expectation was associated with subsequent engagement in risk-reducing behaviour, using Poisson regression adjusted for relevant confounders.
resultsA total of 1363 participants completed the survey and 480 (35.2%) reported ever using DCS. Compared to results containing only the expected substance, the prevalence of engaging in risk-reducing behaviour increased with each category: diluted (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84, 9.18), adulterated (aPR = 3.34; 95% CI 1.52, 7.34) and absent (aPR = 5.48; 95% CI 2.61, 11.50). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsReceipt of unexpected drug checking results was associated with a graded increase in the likelihood of engaging in risk reduction behaviours, with the strongest effects observed when the expected substance was entirely absent. These findings suggest that DCS may effectively promote behavioural adaptation in response to potential drug-related risks.
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.