ArticlePloS one2026
Cohort profile: Walking for harm reduction through street engagement (WHiSE 2.0).
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Indigenous people using substances experience health disparities that are compounded by systemic inequities shaped by colonialism. The WHiSE 2.0 study aims to describe substance use patterns and harm reduction approaches among Indigenous people who use drugs in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, and Sault Ste Marie. A community-based research approach was used and guided by Indigenous leadership. Eligible study participants self-identified as Indigenous, lived in the study regions, and used substances within the last 3 months. Participants completed an interviewer-administered 1-hour questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were conducted to summarize participant demographic and cultural characteristics, impacts of colonization, substance use and health behaviours, and harm reduction knowledge, stratified by city. A total of 356 participants were enrolled: 173 in Thunder Bay, 101 in Sault Ste. Marie, and 82 in Sudbury. Most identified as First Nations with 93.1% in Thunder Bay, 76.8% in Sudbury, and 75.2% in Sault Ste. Marie. The percentage of participants across all sites with precarious sleeping situations was high, with 39.0% sleeping on the street, 28.3% staying in a shelter, and 23.3% couch surfing as well as 41.9% staying at a family or friend's home. Across all sites, 43.3% of participants injected drugs, 31.5% ingested drugs, 92.1% smoked drugs, and 38.5% snorted or inhaled drugs. Importantly across all sites, 84.0% knew what harm reduction was, and 82.3% of respondents had ever had HIV screening test and 84.3% hepatitis C testing. Also, 71.3% of all participants engaged in ceremonies and 22.2% reported that cultural teachings affected their harm reduction practices. WHiSE 2.0 is the first prospective cohort study examining the harm reduction needs of Indigenous people using substances in northern Ontario. Through a culturally grounded, community-led study, urgent service gaps are highlighted and the importance of locally tailored harm reduction strategies rooted in Indigenous knowledge and leadership.
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.