Drug decriminalization: a co-designed study outlining the implications for providers of youth services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Death by drug toxicity is now the leading cause of death among youth in British Columbia (BC). In January 2023, BC implemented decriminalization for personal possession (2.5 g) of certain substances for individuals 18 and over. This research aimed to gain a deeper understanding of service providers who work with youth (ages 15-24). Specifically, the study aimed to explore: (1) their attitudes and beliefs regarding drug decriminalization, and (2) the knowledge and resources they need to effectively discuss drug decriminalization with their clients. METHODS: Community-based participatory research and interpretive description were used to co-design an interview guide and recruitment strategy with leaders at a BC integrated youth services initiative. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in the fall of 2023 (pre-period of the decimalization repeal in BC) with service providers and data were coded using reflexive, inductive semantic thematic analysis. RESULTS: The thematic analysis revealed that while decriminalization was perceived as a "step in the right direction," it remains insufficient to address the needs of youth in BC. Service providers expressed a significant disconnect between the policy and practical support required for youth clients. Despite their strong understanding of youth's needs, providers reported a lack of involvement in the policy development process. CONCLUSION: Service providers said that decriminalization is "a step in the right direction, but not enough." Additional youth-centred policies and services are needed to address the drug toxicity crisis in BC, and service providers and people who use drugs need a seat at the table to inform, design, and implement policies that will impact youth who use drugs.
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 | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".