Differences in overdose rates by gender at supervised consumption services: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Gender differences have been reported regarding patterns of drug use associated with opioid use disorder. In this study, we aimed to identify if gender trends exist in local supervised consumption sites (SCS) overdose data and to understand reasons for gender differences in overdoses from the perceptions of SCS healthcare professionals.Methods A mixed-methods study was conducted at a single SCS. We analyzed 35,777 total visits by SCS clients and interviewed five SCS staff. We assessed overdose rates and naloxone administration, oxygen administration, and emergency medical services (EMS) called. We used Braun and Clark’s reflexive thematic analysis for interview data.Results Among the clinic visits, the frequency of overdoses across the total number of SCS visits was 662, with similar frequency for males and females. When comparing rates of oxygen administration, naloxone administration, and calling EMS, the frequency of all three interventions was higher for males compared to females. Participants attributed these discrepancies to physiological differences between genders and different gender norms that influenced behavior in the SCS.Conclusion Gendered differences impact how men and women utilize and receive SCS care. Staff can be aware of these trends when supporting clients in SCS.No clinical trial registration
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".