The experience of initiating injection drug use and its social context: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Understanding the experience of initiating injection drug use and its social contexts is crucial to inform efforts to prevent transitions into this mode of drug consumption and support harm reduction. We reviewed and synthesized existing qualitative scientific literature systematically to identify the socio-structural contexts for, and experiences of, the initiation of injection drug use. METHODS: We searched six databases (Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, IBSS and SSCI) systematically, along with a manual search, including key journals and subject experts. Peer-reviewed studies were included if they qualitatively explored experiences of or socio-structural contexts for injection drug use initiation. A thematic synthesis approach was used to identify descriptive and analytical themes throughout studies. RESULTS: From 1731 initial results, 41 studies reporting data from 1996 participants were included. We developed eight descriptive themes and two analytical (higher-order) themes. The first analytical theme focused on injecting initiation resulting from a social process enabled and constrained by socio-structural factors: social networks and individual interactions, socialization into drug-using identities and choices enabled and constrained by social context all combine to produce processes of injection initiation. The second analytical theme addressed pathways that explore varying meanings attached to injection initiation and how they link to social context: seeking pleasure, responses to increasing tolerance to drugs, securing belonging and identity and coping with pain and trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative research shows that injection drug use initiation has varying and distinct meanings for individuals involved and is a dynamic process shaped by social and structural factors. Interventions should therefore respond to the socio-structural influences on injecting drug use initiation by seeking to modify the contexts for initiation, rather than solely prioritizing the reduction of individual harms through behavior change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".