Safety and danger: Perceptions of the implementation of harm reduction programs in two communities in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People who use substances (PWUS), and specifically individuals who use injection drugs and/or smoke crack cocaine, experience risks which harm reduction programmes can help reduce. Prior to implementing harm reduction programmes, however, it is critical to understand how programme users and others in the community perceive the programmes as their perceptions may influence implementation. A mixed-methods study asked PWUS and key informants about their perceptions of implementing five harm reduction programmes in their communities, including perceptions of the advantages of the programmes, where best to locate them, and community support. Questionnaires were administered to 160 PWUS, and qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 purposefully sampled key informants. Data were collected in one medium-size and one small-size community/municipality in Nova Scotia, Canada, during 2017-2018. SPSS was used to generate descriptive statistics and means from the quantitative data, and the qualitative data were analysed for key themes using thematic analysis. Both PWUS and key informants perceived numerous advantages of the harm reduction programmes, but some key informants suggested that there might be potential opposition to the implementation of additional needle distribution and disposal programmes in some locations and potential opposition to safer consumption sites. Further research is needed to understand why these programmes were viewed as potentially generating opposition, but findings suggest that a key factor is the association of the programmes with 'danger' because the programmes are directly linked with criminalized drug use. In contrast, the three other programmes are linked to 'safety' because naloxone saves lives, peer navigation programmes support access to existing programmes and detoxification programmes are associated with safety through the reduction/elimination of drug use. Legalization/decriminalization of drugs might help to change the association of some programmes with 'danger' and therefore help support the implementation of harm reduction programmes that appear to be perceived by some as linked to danger.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".