People with lived and living experience of methamphetamine use and admission to hospital: what harm reduction do they suggest needs to be addressed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People who use substances may access hospital services for treatment of infections and injuries, substance use disorder, mental health issues and other reasons. Our aim was to identify the experiences, issues and recommendations of people who use methamphetamine and have accessed hospital services. METHODS: Of the 114 people with lived and living experience of methamphetamine use recruited for a mixed-methods study conducted in southwestern Ontario, Canada, 104 completed the qualitative component. Interviews were conducted from October 2020 to April 2021. Participants were asked open-ended questions and the responses were analyzed using an ethnographic thematic approach. RESULTS: Negative patient-staff interactions included stigma and a lack of understanding of addiction and methamphetamine use, leading to distrust, avoidance of hospital care and reduced help-seeking and health care engagement. The consequences can be infections, unsafe needle use, discharge against medical advice and withdrawal. Almost all participants were in favour of in-hospital harm reduction strategies including safe consumption services, provision of sterile equipment and sharps containers, and withdrawal support. Clinical implications include education to reduce knowledge gaps about methamphetamine use and addiction and address stigma, which could facilitate the introduction of harm reduction strategies. CONCLUSION: Although the strategies identified by participants could promote a safer care environment, improving therapeutic relationships through education of health care providers and hospital staff is an essential first step. The addition of in-hospital harm reduction strategies requires attention as the approach remains uncommon in hospitals in Canada.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".