Sticking points: Incarcerated women's views on barriers to a prison needle exchange program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While prison needle exchange programs, or prison needle and syringe programs, have existed in different parts of the world since the 1990s, little is known about how currently incarcerated people perceive them—particularly in Canada, where such programs have only recently been implemented. This study explores incarcerated women's perceptions of a recently implemented prison needle exchange program using in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews with 56 federally incarcerated women in Western Canada. In particular, we explore the barriers that women perceive in accessing the prison needle exchange program. These perceived barriers contributed to our participants’ negative views of the prison needle exchange program as well as their overwhelming lack of support for its implementation. Our participants felt that the prison needle exchange program acts as an obstacle to sobriety and could increase different types of harm—including encouraging injection drug use and contributing to overdoses—within the prison. Participants also identified other barriers to using the prison needle exchange program, including a perceived lack of confidentiality/anonymity for users of the program and that the prison needle exchange program itself is structurally incompatible with the rules and operations of a prison system that continues to criminalize drugs. Using an implementation science framework, we argue that this situation accentuates the need for significant consultations with incarcerated people about the operation of such programs, and for funds to support other programs that target participant-identified root causes of substance misuse, such as programs that address past trauma and victimization. At the same time, we caution that some barriers may be inherent in how prisons are structured.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".