MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404837091 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6223

Vending machines for harm reduction and community health: a systematic review

2024· review· en· W4404837091 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alice Zhang, Matthew Carrillo, Ryan Wen Liu, Sarah M Ballard, Alexis Reedy-Cooper, Aleksandra Zgierska

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReduction (mathematics)HarmHarm reductionComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyPublic healthSocial psychologyMathematicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: In response to the growing overdose epidemic, communities in US and Canada have started using vending machines (VMs) as a low-barrier method to provide harm reduction (HR) items to the community. These VMs are becoming popular and typically dispense naloxone, drug testing strips, and other items for co-occurring conditions. Objective: To summarize and evaluate existing literature on VMs’ ability to deliver HR and other health items. Study Design, Analysis: Systematic literature review. For each eligible article, data was extracted and summarized on study design, goals, VM description, setting, location, target population, sample, results, outcome measures, and limitations. Dataset: Embase, Cochrane, PubMED, and MEDLINE (searched from inception to November 29, 2023); references of eligible articles and prior reviews. HR organizations were also contacted to share relevant articles on HR-based VMs. Population Studied: Individuals with substance use disorder or co-occurring conditions. Intervention: VMs or automated dispensing machines dispensing HR and/or health items. Outcome Measures: Feasibility, acceptability, reach, impact. Results: Of the 43 eligible articles, few were based in North America (n=10). Most VMs served those who injected drugs (n=27) and dispensed syringes (n=21). Other items included HIV self-tests (n=6), condoms (n=6), naloxone (n=2), and nicotine gum (n=1). Feasibility was most commonly evaluated (n=34), with high demand for VM-dispensed items, especially after business hours. Compared to in-person outreach, some VMs were able to provide more syringes and HIV self-tests. VMs were acceptable (n=20), regardless of item dispensed, and reached high-risk populations (n=14). Outcome measures for impact evaluation (n=16) varied on the dispensed item. Articles evaluating syringe-dispensing VMs’ impact (n=7) noted decreased syringe sharing (n=4) and drug use (n=2), while those evaluating naloxone-dispensing VMs (n=2) reported fewer fatal overdoses. Conclusions: VMs providing HR-related items are a promising community-based intervention to reach underserved populations and improve health outcomes. While HR-based VMs have been commonly studied and implemented, VMs could expand into other realms of community health, such as self-sampling kits for detection of cancer or sexually transmitted diseases. Future studies should utilize implementation science frameworks to develop and evaluate the VMs, with an emphasis on health outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→