MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410284555 · doi:10.1186/s12954-025-01214-y

Establishing a community advisory board to align harm reduction research with the unique needs of Black and Latine communities

2025· article· en· W4410284555 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Kapler, Alexander Jeremiah, Presto Crespo, Nesta Felix, Antonio Morales, Stan Reeves, Ayana Jordan

Bibliographic record

VenueHarm Reduction Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHarm reductionHealth psychologySocial policyAdvisory committeeHarmPublic relationsSociologyPolitical sciencePublic healthPublic administrationLawMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Death from opioid use is a growing public health concern, with stark racial and ethnic disparities. The randomized controlled trial described here aims to improve initiation and engagement in harm reduction services for Black and Latine people who use drugs to minimize mortality in these populations. The trial is informed by a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of stakeholders from racial and ethnic minoritized backgrounds committed to promoting health equity in populations disproportionately impacted by the drug overdose crisis. CABs are an underutilized mechanism for engaging communities in research to improve health outcomes. Hence, in this manuscript we outline the process and methods employed in creating a CAB, describe its impact on our research study, and recognize the challenges and adaptations made to the CAB during the study.CAB recruitment targeted active community members from Black and Latine communities in the Bronx, NY and New Haven, CT. After attending community organizational meetings in each place, follow-up email efforts were unsuccessful, prompting a revised approach. Emphasizing the study's focus on historically excluded voices, "research-naïve" individuals were sought through online searches and local grassroots organizations, excluding those affiliated with harm reduction groups to minimize bias. Once CAB members were identified, a remote orientation was held, and the CAB began providing regular feedback on research activities, from participant recruitment to educational script details. CAB members' diverse identities and life experiences generated nuanced discussions, which were distilled into feedback improving research materials and recruitment strategies. In the future, the CAB will also guide data analysis and research publications. Other areas of emphasis have included straightforward language in study materials, balanced messaging about harm reduction recommendations, and specific community outreach opportunities. Practical barriers that needed to be addressed for optimal CAB functioning included timely compensation with minimal institutional burden and assistance with meeting coordination and communication.The CAB has ensured that Black and Latine community voices are included in guiding our study, promoting equitable and ethical research. As harm reduction research advances, it is essential to center this work around the intersectional identities of people who use drugs to prevent the disproportionate burden and deaths among Black and Latine people.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.555
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.060 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarm Reduction JournalSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207