“Everybody is impacted. Everybody's hurting”: Grief, loss and the emotional impacts of overdose on harm reduction workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emotional impacts of witnessing and responding to overdose and overdose-related deaths have been largely overlooked during the drug toxicity overdose crisis in North America. Scarce research has analyzed these impacts on the health and well-being of harm reduction workers, and the broader determinants of harm reduction work. Our study investigates the experiences and impacts of witnessing and responding to frequent and escalating rates of overdose on harm reduction workers in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: Using semi-structured interviews, 11 harm reduction workers recruited from harm reduction programs with supervised consumption services in Toronto, Canada, explored experiences with and reactions to overdose in both their professional and personal lives. They also provided insights on supports necessary to help people cope with overdose-related loss. We used thematic analysis to develop an initial coding framework, subsequent iterations of codes and emergent themes. RESULTS: Results revealed that harm reductions workers experienced physical, emotional, and social effects from overdose-related loss and grief. While some effects were due to the toll of overdose response and grief from overdose-related losses, they were exacerbated by the lack of political response to the scale of the drug toxicity overdose crisis and the broader socio-economic-political environment of chronic underfunding for harm reduction services. Harm reduction workers described the lack of appropriate workplace supports for trauma from repeated overdose response and overdose-related loss, alongside non-standard work arrangements that resulted in a lack of adequate compensation or access to benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights opportunities for organizational practices that better support harm reduction workers, including formal emotional supports and community-based supportive care services. Improvement to the socio-economic-political determinants of work such as adequate compensation and access to full benefit packages are also needed in the harm reduction sector for all workers.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".