Transforming lives and empowering communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We reviewed the global state of harm reduction for people who use and/or inject drugs. KEY FINDINGS: Although harm reduction is now the key response to HIV among people who use drugs globally, intervention coverage remains suboptimal, exacerbated by chronic under-funding, declining donor support and limited domestic investment, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. We describe the current environment and review recent innovations and responses, including peer distribution of naloxone, low dead space syringes, drug consumption rooms and drug-checking services. However, despite efforts by people who use drugs and supporting partners to sustain harm reduction services and to develop and implement novel interventions, programmes are often under-scaled and under-resourced and people who use drugs continue to face significant barriers to accessing services. SUMMARY: There is an urgent need to bring existing harm reduction programmes to scale and to broaden their scope, as well to complement them with innovative interventions targeting new populations and new substances. Under and disinvestment in harm reduction and the absence of enabling legal environments threatens to undermine the global HIV response and exacerbate the morbidity and mortality associated with the current epidemic of opioid overdose.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".