Guideline development in harm reduction: Considerations around the meaningful involvement of people who access services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Harm reduction seeks to minimizes the negative effects of drug use while respecting the rights of people with lived and living experience of substance use (PWLLE). Guideline standards ("guidelines for guidelines") provide direction on developing healthcare guidelines. To identify essential considerations for guideline development within harm reduction, we examined whether guideline standards are consistent with a harm reduction approach in their recommendations on involving people who access services. Methods: We searched the literature from 2011-2021 to identify guideline standards used in harm reduction and publications on involving PWLLE in developing harm reduction services. We used thematic analysis to compare their guidance on involving people who access services. Findings were validated with two organizations of PWLLE. Results: . Subthemes varied across the literature. We identified five essential considerations for guideline development in harm reduction: establishing a shared understanding of reasons for involving PWLLE; respecting their expertise; partnering with PWLLE to ensure appropriate engagement; incorporating perspectives of populations disproportionately affected by substance use; and securing resources. Conclusion: Guideline standards and the harm reduction literature approach the involvement of people who access services from different perspectives. Thoughtful integration of the two paradigms can improve guidelines while empowering PWLLE. Our findings can support the development of high-quality guidelines that align with the fundamental principles of harm reduction in their involvement of PWLLE.
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 | 0.157 | 0.306 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".