Perspectives of patients who inject drugs on a needle and syringe program at a large acute care hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs in North America often continue to inject while hospitalized, and are at increased risk of premature hospital discharge, unplanned readmission, and death. In-hospital access to sterile injection supplies may reduce some harms associated with ongoing injection drug use. However, access to needle and syringe programs in acute care settings is limited. We explored the implementation of a needle and syringe program integrated into a large urban tertiary hospital in Western Canada. The needle and syringe program was administered by an addiction medicine consult team that offers patients access to specialized clinical care and connection to community services. METHODS: We utilized a focused ethnographic design and semi-structured interviews to elicit experiences and potential improvements from 25 hospitalized people who inject drugs who were offered supplies from the needle and syringe program. RESULTS: Participants were motivated to accept supplies to prevent injection-related harms and access to supplies was facilitated by trust in consult team staff. However, fears of negative repercussions from non-consult team staff, including premature discharge or undesired changes to medication regimes, caused some participants to hesitate or refuse to accept supplies. Participants described modifications to hospital policies regarding inpatient drug use or access to an inpatient supervised consumption service as potential ways to mitigate patients' fears. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care needle and syringe programs may aid hospital providers in reducing harms and improving hospital outcomes for people who inject drugs. However, modifications to hospital policies and settings may be necessary.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".