Using nominal group technique with people who are incarcerated in Canadian federal prisons to identify barriers and solutions to improving Prison Needle Exchange Program uptake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prison needle exchange programs (PNEPs) are a critical component for harm reduction in prisons. Little is known about the PNEP access barriers for people who are incarcerated, but the low uptake in the Canadian program highlights these constraints. We aimed to identify the barriers and potential solutions for increasing PNEP coverage in the nine Canadian federal prisons where they operate. Methods: Eighteen focus groups were conducted in nine prisons using nominal group technique (NGT) with two stakeholders: peer advocates and people who use or identified as potential users of the PNEP. NGT uses a round-robin technique followed by generating a list of barriers to PNEP enrolment within their prison. Participants then allocated votes to rank the highest priority barriers, followed by an identical process to generate solutions to address the top three barriers. Interview transcripts describing participant narratives during this process were de-identified and coded to generated themes. Barriers and solutions receiving >10 % of votes within respective participant groups, alongside associated narratives, are discussed more fully. Results: Fear of repercussions due to drug use, lack of confidentiality, and fear of being targeted and sanctioned by correctional authorities were perceived by both stakeholder groups as the top barriers inhibiting PNEP enrolment. Stigma (peer advocates) and the application process for the program (PNEP users) were also ranked as a priority. Proposed solutions included education and external oversight of PNEP (i.e., not via correctional officers) by both groups. Peer advocates regarded improving participant confidentiality and a supervised/safe injection site as potential enablers for program participation, while PNEP users identified wrap-around services as likely to improve access. Conclusion: Barriers to increasing PNEP coverage in Canadian federal prisons proposed by participants highlight the importance of trust and perceived repercussions surrounding program participation. These barriers and proposed solutions highlight a need for changes in implementation to PNEP delivery if the potential health benefits of PNEPs are to be realised.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".