Motivators of and barriers to drug checking engagement in British Columbia, Canada: Findings from a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Responding to increasing rates of illicit drug toxicity mortality in British Columbia, regional health authorities introduced various types and models of drug checking services starting in 2016. Uptake has been gradual yet consistent, but motivators and barriers of service use have not been well-described. METHODS: The British Columbia Harm Reduction Client Survey is a cross-sectional survey conducted at harm reduction sites across British Columbia. Data for the present findings were collected between March 2021 and January 2022. Participants (n = 537) were asked about their use of drug checking services and what prevented them from using available services. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of all participants, 519 (96.6 %) answered the survey question on drug checking with 144 (27.7 %) reporting having used services within six months. Participants highlighted barriers such as not knowing where to access services (21.0 %), or not having services in their area (10.0 %). Among people who did not report recent use of fentanyl, 49.6 % stated they would not use their drugs if they tested positive for fentanyl. Other harm reduction behaviors were positively associated with drug checking, such as use of overdose prevention sites (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.75, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.65, 4.59) and having a naloxone kit (AOR: 2.67, 95 %CI: 1.14, 6.28). Receipt of opioid agonist therapy in the previous six months was also positively associated with drug checking (AOR: 1.72, 95 %CI: 1.05, 2.83). DISCUSSION: Drug checking uptake remains low in British Columbia, however this study identified desire for services among participants, suggesting a need for expanded drug checking services. Behavioral change was reported among a high proportion of people who said they would not use their drugs if they tested positive for fentanyl, meaning that immunoassay strips alone have utility in the context of a pervasive fentanyl supply.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".