Perceptions of stigma among people with lived experience of methamphetamine use within the hospital setting: qualitative point-in-time interviews and thematic analyses of experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: As part of a larger mixed-methods study into harm reduction in the hospital setting and people with lived experience of methamphetamine use, stigma was found to be a prominent issue. The aim of this secondary analysis was to investigate the issue of stigma. Design: Participants completed a one-time qualitative interview component to assess their experiences in the hospital setting. Setting: The study setting included secondary and tertiary care in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Participants who had received care from these settings were also recruited from an overdose prevention site, a primary healthcare center, a national mental health organization, an affordable housing agency, and six homeless-serving agencies between October 2020 and April 2021. Participants: A total of 104 individuals completed the qualitative component of a mixed-methods interview. Sixty-seven participants identified as male, thirty-six identified as female, and one identified as non-binary. Inclusion criteria included past or current use of methamphetamine, having received services from a hospital, and being able to communicate in English. Methods: using a thematic ethnographic approach due to prominent perceptions of stigma. Results: Three themes were identified. The first theme identified that substance use was perceived as a moral and personal choice; the second theme pertained to social stigmas such as income, housing and substance use, and consequences such as being shunned or feeling less worthy than the general patient population; and the third theme highlighted health consequences such as inadequate treatment or pain management. Conclusion: This study revealed that stigma can have consequences that extend beyond the therapeutic relationship and into the healthcare of the individual. Additional training and education for healthcare providers represents a key intervention to ensure care is non-stigmatizing and patient-centered, as well as changing hospital culture.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".