MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959015813 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6712453

Beliefs, attitudes and experiences of virtual overdose monitoring services from the perspectives of people who use substances in Canada: a qualitative study

2024· other· en· W6959015813 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowball samplingQualitative researchThematic analysisHarm reductionPsychological interventionGrounded theoryFeelingHarmPsychosocial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Solitary use of substances is a risk factor for substance use-related mortality. Novel e-health harm reduction interventions such as virtual overdose monitoring services (VOMS) have emerged in North America to improve access to emergency overdose support for people who use substances (PWUS). To date, little research has been published, and the perspectives of PWUS are needed to inform evaluation and policy efforts. Objective To explore the beliefs, values and perceptions of PWUS around using and accessing VOMS in Canada. Methods A qualitative study following grounded theory methodology was conducted. Using existing peer networks, purposive and snowball sampling was conducted to recruit PWUS (≥ 18 years) with previous experience with VOMS. Thematic analysis was used to analyze twenty-three interviews. Several methods were employed to enhance rigor, such as independent data coding and triangulation. Results Twenty-three one-on-one telephone interviews of PWUS with previous experience with VOMS were completed and analyzed. The following themes emerged: (1) feelings of optimism around VOMS to save lives; (2) privacy/confidentiality was highly valued due to stigma and fear of arrest; (3) concerns with reliable cell phones negatively impacting VOMS uptake; (4) concerns around emergency response times, specifically in rural/remote communities; (5) desire for trusting relationships with VOMS operators; (6) importance of mental health supports and referrals to psychosocial services; and (7) possible limited uptake due to low public awareness of VOMS. Conclusion This qualitative study provided novel insights about the VOMS from the perspectives of PWUS. PWUS generally felt optimistic about the potential of VOMS as a suitable harm reduction intervention, but several potential barriers around accessing VOMS were identified that may limit uptake. Future research is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207