Women who use drugs: engagement in practices of harm reduction care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Harm reduction services that employ or are operated by people who use drugs are an effective means of mitigating overdose risks and other drug-related harms. However, stereotypes portraying people who use criminalized drugs as incapable caregivers persist. This is especially true for women who use drugs, and to a greater extent racialized women, who are characterized as having diverged from traditional ideals of womanhood as a result of drug-user stigma and the intersections of gender- and class-based and racist stereotypes. In an effort to identify and understand how women who use drugs practise care through harm reduction, we explored the experiences of women accessing a low-threshold supervised consumption site exclusively for women (transgender and non-binary inclusive) in Vancouver, Canada. METHODS: Data were drawn from research conducted from May 2017 to June 2018 exploring women's experiences accessing the supervised consumption site during an overdose crisis. Data included forty-five semistructured interviews with women recruited from the site, analysed thematically to explore practices of care through harm reduction. FINDINGS: Participants reported engaging in both formal and informal care. Acts of care included interventions that both aligned with and deviated from conventional understandings of care practices, including overdose reversal and education, overdose supervision/care, and assisted injection. CONCLUSION: The boundary between formal and informal harm reduction care is fluid. Women who use drugs engage in harm reduction across these borders with acts of care that align with or fill the gaps in current harm reduction services in order to meet the needs of drug-using communities, challenging negative stereotypes of women who use drugs. However, these caregiving practices can increase risks to care providers' physical, mental, and emotional health and wellness. Increased financial, social, and institutional supports, including safer supply, assisted injection, and community resources, are needed to better support women as they continue to engage in harm reduction care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".