Bridging the Gap: Canadian Health Care Providers Perspectives' of Harm Reduction and Substance Use Education in Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care providers have described inadequate knowledge to fully care for people who use unregulated psychoactive substances during hospitalization. Literature has revealed gaps in understanding health care providers’ perspectives of harm reduction and substance use education in hospital. Through an interpretive lens, this secondary analysis explores gaps which exist in current education and related factors needing to be addressed in hospital settings. This study was conducted across three hospitals in one city in southwestern Ontario with a sample size of 31. Using an ethnographic method of analysis themes emerged including the interconnection between the health care providers’ perspectives of the current state and desired state. Themes which emerged in both states include: (a) insufficient education, (b) lack of resources, (c) inconsistent policy, (d) culture of stigma and suboptimal care, (e) enhanced education, (f) resources, (g) policy change, (h) culture shift and optimal care. The findings of this study demonstrate the need for supportive policy, resources and enhanced harm reduction and substance use education to shift the current culture of care in hospital to better inform policy, practice, education, and future research.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".