“No Good Choice”: What are the Issues of Having no Harm Reduction Strategies in Hospitals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite an increase in methamphetamine use and subsequent hospitalizations, the majority of Canadian hospitals currently lack harm reduction strategies for substance use. This can mean that people with lived experience of methamphetamine use are faced with a number of difficult decisions to make when admitted to hospital. Caring for people with lived experience of methamphetamine use can also be problematic with zero tolerance policies requiring abstinence to be maintained. This analysis set out to understand potential health care issues due to a lack of harm reduction strategies from the prospective of people with lived experience of methamphetamine use as well as health care/service professionals. Methods: Based on a larger study, this secondary analysis explored issues discussed by people with lived experience of methamphetamine use and health care/service professionals regarding the challenges of providing harm reduction approaches in the hospital setting. A total of 108 individuals with lived experience of methamphetamine use completed a qualitative component of a mixed-method interview. In addition, 31 health care/service professionals participated in virtual focus groups and one-to-one interviews. Responses were analyzed using an ethnographic thematic approach. Results: People with lived experience of methamphetamine use reported 3 choices upon admission: leave or avoid the hospital, stay but experience unsupported withdrawal, or stay but hide their substance usage from health care professionals. Health care/service professionals described 2 options: uphold zero tolerance that can lead to stigma and a lack of knowledge regarding addiction, or accept harm reduction but be unable to implement such strategies. This could lead to health being compromised due to policy and practice that requires abstinence. Neither group of participants described a good choice for them. Conclusion: Current policy and education related to substance use needs to be revised.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".