Interventions for stimulant use in people who are homeless or vulnerably housed: a scoping review of the evidence including trauma-informed approaches
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Stimulant use has been increasing globally over the past decade. People using drugs are now most often using both opioids and stimulants. In Canada, stimulants were involved in 68% of overdose deaths from 2020 to 2024. The overdose crisis has disproportionately impacted people experiencing homelessness. People experiencing homelessness are more likely to experience an overdose and stimulants are more likely to contribute directly to an overdose death in this population. Despite the growing need, a comprehensive and effective treatment program for people experiencing homelessness who use stimulants, that also considers trauma and safe supply options, is non-existent. We conducted a scoping review to identify the types of evidence-based treatments available to address stimulant use in people experiencing homelessness; whether any of these services were trauma-informed; and to identify knowledge gaps. METHODS: Using a peer-reviewed search strategy, we conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo via OVID, CINAHL, Global Health via EBSCOhost, and Scopus. Grey literature sources were hand searched. We included any primary research study with no restrictions on language or date. Reporting follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. RESULTS: After de-duplication, 2914 titles and abstracts were screened, and 51 papers were moved to full text screening. Of this, 31 studies met eligibility criteria and were included for data extraction. Papers examined contingency management interventions (n = 20), residential treatment programs (n = 5), safer supply (n = 1), and other types of interventions (n = 4). Of the 31 papers, no studies reported using trauma-informed care approaches, although, seven incorporated some components of trauma-informed care. There was mixed evidence of effectiveness among studies, with rewards-based contingency management being generally effective and acceptable to participants. DISCUSSION: There is limited evidence available regarding stimulant use treatments for people experiencing homelessness, with most studies focusing on contingency management. Studies largely do not consider the effects of trauma in their intervention or study design. Further research is needed on harm reduction interventions such as stimulant safer supply or supervised consumption services, as well as outcomes other than abstinence that may be important to this population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».