A Gendered Analysis of Implemention and Impacts of Prescribed Safer Supply in BC: A Qualitative Exploration during Dural Public Health Emergencies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Women and gender diverse persons often remain underserved by harm reduction programs and initiatives (e.g., needle distribution, supervised consumption services, prescribed safer supply programs). A lack of attention to gender and other intersecting factors in the design of harm reduction programs means that the needs of women and gender diverse persons may be overlooked or unmet. This research provides a gendered analysis of the design, implementation, and impacts of prescribed safer supply during the dual public health emergencies (overdose emergency and the COVID-19 pandemic) in British Columbia (BC), Canada. A qualitative methodology informed by critical, feminist, and implementation theory guided this dissertation. The research questions were: (1) Do the existing clinical guidance and policy direction on prescribed safer supply address the unique needs of women and gender diverse persons in BC? (2) Using prescribed safer supply as a case study, how could health equity be integrated into the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)? (3) What were women’s and gender diverse person’s experiences accessing or attempting to access prescribed safer supply in BC during the dual public health emergencies (overdose emergency and COVID-19 pandemic)? The dissertation is organized into three papers, one for each research question. In paper one, I examine how BC’s prescribed safer supply initiatives (as represented in the Risk Mitigation Guidance [RMG] and prescribed safer supply policy direction) respond to the unique intersecting needs of women and gender diverse persons who use drugs. This study drew on intersectionality-based policy analysis (IBPA) developed by Hankivsky et al. (2012). Findings revealed that the documents were primarily gender silent. When gender was mentioned, it was in the context of reproduction. None of the documents mentioned specific considerations for women or gender diverse persons seeking or receiving prescribed safer supply. In paper two, based on my experience using the CFIR to organize a study evaluating prescribed safer supply in BC, I conducted a critical analysis of the framework with specific attention to equity and gender. Findings from the critical analysis were used to generate recommendations on how to further integrate health equity and gender considerations into the CFIR and implementation science (IS), more generally. Based on my experience, I see community-based participatory research as a potential approach that can help to operationalize equity considerations in the CFIR In paper three interpretive description (ID) was used to analyze 21 in-depth interviews with women and gender diverse persons who accessed prescription opioids or stimulants under the RMG during the dual crisis of drug overdose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were conducted as part of a larger evaluation of the RMG in BC in 2020-21. Findings highlight that women and gender diverse persons experienced a lack of gender-responsive supports when accessing or attempting to access prescribed safer supply. Together, this research offers novel evidence that can be used to improve women’s and gender diverse persons’ access to harm reduction services, specifically prescribed safer supply programs. The findings from this research extend our understanding of current overdose responses and inform ongoing public health and harm reduction efforts in BC, Canada, and beyond. Findings from this research highlight that current policy documents and emerging models of prescribed safer supply are predominately gender silent and do not address the unique and specific barriers faced by women and gender diverse persons who use drugs. Further research is needed to specifically examine how gender intersects with race, class, and sexuality to influence people’s access to safe supply. Implications for nursing policy, practice, research, and education include specialized training and education around harm reduction for nurses and student nurses, expanding registered nurse prescribing to include medications for safer supply, and future research examining nurse’s role (including nurse practitioners) in safer supply responses.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,022 | 0,015 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».