MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162761412 · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103275

“You don’t have to squirrel away in a staircase”: Patient motivations for attending a novel supervised drug consumption service in acute care

2021· article· en· W3162761412 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brynn Kosteniuk, Ginetta Salvalaggio, Ryan McNeil, Hannah L. Brooks, Kathryn Dong, Shanell Twan, Jennifer Brouwer, Elaine Hyshka

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Drug Policy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRoyal Alexandra Hospital Foundation
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)Service (business)DrugMedicineSquirrel monkeyPsychologyMedical emergencyBusinessPsychiatryMarketingAestheticsArtNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute care hospitals have been described as a high risk environment for people who use drugs (PWUD). Formal and informal bans on drug use can lead patients to conceal their use and consume under unsafe circumstances. Provision of hospital-based supervised consumption services (SCS) could help reduce drug-related harms and improve patient care. However, no peer-reviewed research documents patient experiences with attending SCS in this setting. To address this gap, the present study examines key factors that shape patients' decisions to attend or not attend a novel SCS embedded within a large, urban acute care hospital in Western Canada. METHODS: We adopted a focused ethnographic design and conducted 28 semi-structured interviews with SCS-eligible patients. We examined participant accounts thematically, and Rhodes' "Risk Environment" framework helped guide our analysis. RESULTS: Most participants perceived the SCS as a safer environment that made it possible to reduce drug-related risks and avoid using in unsafe areas of the hospital where they could be caught by staff, security, or police. However, some participants did not trust that the SCS would provide adequate protection from criminalization, which motivated them to avoid the site. Several participants also worried about the potential for unwanted changes to their patient care following SCS use. Physical site and policy limitations, such as eligibility requirements and a lack of infrastructure to support supervised inhalation, were additional reasons for not attending the SCS. CONCLUSION: PWUD in this study attended the hospital-based SCS in an attempt to reduce risks associated with their hospital stay. However, we note a number of access barriers that should be addressed to ensure optimal uptake. Wider provision of SCS in acute care requires both changes to the hospital environment and broader drug policy reform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Drug PolicySame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207