Still "at risk" : an examination of how street-involved young people understand, experience, and engage with "harm reduction" in Vancouver's inner city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vancouver is an international leader in implementing interventions to reduce harms related to drug use. However, street-involved young people who use drugs continue to be vulnerable to overdose death, hepatitis C (HCV) infection, and high rates of syringe sharing. To better understand this in the context of the intensive public health response, we examined how young people, who are involved in the ‘street drug scene’, understood, experienced and engaged with harm reduction. Methods Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2013 with 13 young people (ages 17–28) recruited from the At-Risk Youth Study, a prospective cohort of street-involved and drug-using young people. These interviews were embedded within a larger, eight-year program of ethnographic research and explored participants’ understandings of harm reduction, their use of specific services, and their ideas about improving their day-to-day lives. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was performed. Results Young peoples’ ideas about harm reduction were diverse and expansive. They articulated the limitations of existing programs, indicating that while they are positioned to reduce the risk of HIV and HCV transmission, they offer little meaningful support to improve young peoples’ broader life chances. Young people described strategies to mitigate risk and harm in their own lives, including transitioning to drugs deemed less harmful and attempting to gain access to drug treatment. Finally, young people indicated that spatial considerations (e.g., distance from Vancouver's Downtown Eastside) strongly determined access to services. Conclusions In Vancouver, a large, well established harm reduction infrastructure seeks to reduce HIV and HCV transmission among street-involved young people. However, young peoples’ multiple understandings, experiences and engagements with harm reduction in this setting illustrate the limitations of the existing infrastructure in improving their broader life chances.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".