ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Designing evaluation infrastructure for psychedelic harm reduction at events: a methodological framework with formative mixed-methods field application.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychedelic and other psychoactive substance use is increasing in non-clinical environments, including music festivals, concerts, and other large-scale gatherings. As psychedelic use expands beyond clinical settings, policymakers, healthcare systems, event operators, and researchers require evidence-informed frameworks for understanding and responding to psychoactive-related distress in naturalistic environments. Despite the growing presence of psychedelic harm reduction services, few studies have established reproducible methods for documenting their operation, coordination with event-health services, or role within triage and escalation pathways in naturalistic settings. This methodological paper proposes an evaluation framework for psychedelic harm reduction services and reports a formative mixed-methods field application involving the Zendo Project at two large-scale events. Nineteen pre-event surveys, five retained post-event surveys, and two matched pre/post records were obtained from medical personnel. Quantitative responses were summarized descriptively, while open-ended responses were used formatively to contextualize and refine the proposed measurement domains. The framework positions psychedelic peer support as a complementary intermediate pathway for medically stable but psychologically distressed individuals, operating alongside rather than in place of medical and public-safety services. The field application identified interpretable measurement domains concerning psychological-distress burden, preparedness, workload, safety, interprofessional coordination, escalation, and attendee disposition. Four respondents completed several principal post-event items and reported favorable perceptions of Zendo's operational role. These responses represent staff perceptions and counterfactual estimates rather than independently verified effects. Beyond evaluating a single intervention, this study offers an initial framework for measuring and comparing non-clinical psychedelic support models and for informing future research, policy development, and event-health infrastructure as psychedelic use continues to expand beyond clinical settings. Additionally, by translating field-based psychedelic support into measurable operational, public health, and economic outcomes, the proposed methodology offers a foundation for the future evaluation, comparison, and development of products, services, and care infrastructures designed to support altered-state experiences in non-clinical environments.
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.