Substance Use Stigma and Community Drug Checking: A Qualitative Study Examining Barriers and Possible Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community drug checking is an emerging response to the overdose crisis. However, stigma has been identified as a potential barrier to service use that requires investigation. METHODS: A qualitative study explored how best to implement drug checking services to the wider population including those at risk of overdose. A secondary analysis of 26 interviews with potential service users examine how stigma may be a barrier to service use and strategies to address this. A Substance Use Stigma Framework was developed to guide analysis. RESULTS: Drug checking is operating in a context of structural stigma produced by criminalization. People fear criminal repercussions, anticipate stigma when accessing services, and internalize stigma resulting in shame and avoidance of services. A perceived hierarchy of substance use creates stigma results in stigma between service users and avoidance of sites associated with certain drugs. Participants frequently recommended drug checking to be located in more public spaces that still maintain privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Criminalization and societal views on substance use can deter service use. Strategies to mitigate stigma include employment of people with lived and living experience from diverse backgrounds; public yet private locations that preserve anonymity; and normalization of drug checking while decriminalization could address the root causes of stigma.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".