A scoping review of harm reduction practices and possibilities among indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a great diversity of traditions, practices, and experiences among the Indigenous Peoples of North America and Oceania. However, Indigenous Peoples across these regions are affected by the historical and ongoing violence of settler colonialism, resulting in disproportionately heightened drug-related harms. 'Harm reduction' refers to both an ethos and a set of strategies intended to lessen negative social and/or health effects associated with drug use. While harm reduction could therefore be valuable to Indigenous people who use drugs, important concerns remain regarding the culturally specific implementation and outcomes of such strategies. A clearer picture of research regarding harm reduction in Indigenous communities is needed. METHOD: We conducted a scoping review of primary studies regarding drug use harm reduction approaches among Indigenous communities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. We included studies that (1) reported on harm reduction principles or strategies; and (2) either reported disaggregated results for Indigenous participants or were based on a sample in which at least half of the participants identified as Indigenous. Medline and PsycINFO were searched in March 2024; screening by two independent reviewers was completed in April 2024. FINDINGS: Screening 578 references generated a corpus of 28 studies, 16 (57 %) of which were conducted in Canada. Indigenous people who use drugs generally reported favourable attitudes towards harm reduction initiatives; other community members and healthcare providers were more hesitant. A variety of harm reduction strategies were discussed, most commonly needle-syringe programs (n = 8, 29 %). Barriers included the availability and acceptability of harm reduction services. Community members expressed concerns regarding cultural appropriateness, but also offered possibilities for improved integration of harm reduction into Indigenous traditions and practices. INTERPRETATION: This review indicated an emerging, wide-ranging, and somewhat disparate body of literature. While barriers remain, there are promising possibilities for reconceptualizing harm reduction from an Indigenous ethos.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".