Search

Background: Many studies document high risk of fatal overdose after incarceration. Few explore earlier touchpoints in criminal justice processes, like arrests and court hearings. Understanding these touchpoints is important for several reasons. Arrest and adjudicatory processes are harmful even when not resulting in incarceration. Arrests and criminal hearings also may reflect changes in overdose-related risk factors like transitions in employment and housing stability. Moreover, knowledge about these touchpoints contextualizes debate about the implementation of court-based programs like Drug Treatment Courts. This study described the incidence and accumulation of touchpoints for people who fatally overdosed in Philadelphia in 2016, and depicted how touchpoint incidence and characteristics interface with court-program eligibility., Methods: Criminal court documents were obtained for all individuals who fatally overdosed in Philadelphia in 2016 from the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office. The characteristics of arrests and court hearings were abstracted to compile lifetime criminal histories. Latent class analysis was performed to identify whether these histories followed observably distinct patterns., Results: In 2016, 907 people fatally overdosed in Philadelphia. Of these, 605 had at least one or more of 3,926 arrests and 3,822 hearings over their lifetime. There were 488 arrests and 533 hearings in the two years before death, with public disorder charges especially common closer to death. Less than 20% of these hearings resulted in custodial sentences. Of individuals with touchpoints, only nine participated in Drug Treatment Court, consistent with findings that most individuals were ineligible. Latent class analysis suggested five distinguishable patterns in age, timing, and characteristics of touchpoints., Conclusions: The type and frequency of touchpoints preceding fatal overdose reflect a period of complex vulnerability. Few individuals qualified for court-based programming, underscoring the limitations of supporting this population in specialized court settings. Reducing incidence and improving the health impact of criminal justice touchpoints remain important public health priorities., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To understand how people who inject drugs (PWID) experience skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) and make decisions to seek or delay medical treatment., Methods: We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews in 2015 with 19 PWID at a syringe exchange program in Philadelphia. We analyzed the data using standard qualitative techniques., Results: PWID described adequate knowledge about SSTI, although they could not always implement knowledge about SSTI prevention due to environmental constraints. Participants reported different experiences with incident SSTI. Some sought immediate medical care at initial presentation. Most, however, waited to seek care. Previous positive and negative healthcare experiences, both in general -including stigma and withdrawal- and specific to SSTI, influenced this decision. Among those who delayed medical care, some reported self-treatment, including increased drug use for pain control, and lancing and draining their own wounds., Conclusion: Reducing the incidence of SSTI and promoting earlier treatment are important public health priorities. Both require ongoing attention and improvements to the environments in which PWID inject and receive care., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: People who inject drugs (PWID) are at high risk for infectious diseases, skin and soft tissue infections, and overdose. However, these harms are all avoidable when sterile injection equipment, hygienic places to inject, and medical care are accessible. Unfortunately, many PWID in the U.S lack these resources. The most vulnerable are forced to inject in public spaces, where individual risks are high and communal harms are sometimes many. Supervised Injection Facilities (SIFs) are an established intervention for reducing these harms. Despite positive experiences in other countries, little research explores how PWID in the U.S. perceive the value of such facilities., Methods: We conducted a freelisting exercise with PWID (n=42) and healthcare providers (n=20) at a syringe exchange program (SEP) that provides comprehensive clinical and social services in Philadelphia to inform in-depth semi-structured interviews with PWID (n=19) at the same location., Results: Participants expressed support for a potential SIF as a valuable public health intervention. They suggested that an SIF would improve PWID health while reducing the public disorder associated with injecting drugs in public. The latter was especially important to participants without stable housing, whose decision to inject furtively in secluded places was often motivated by desire not to upset community members, and particularly children. These participants acknowledged that such seclusion elevated the risk of fatal overdose. Despite similarly positive perceptions about an SIF, participants with stable housing reported that they would prefer to continue injecting at home., Conclusion: Results both confirm and extend prior research about PWID and SIFs. Participants expressed support for SIFs as in prior survey research in the U.S. and in other countries. Facility location and housing status were identified as important determinants of facility use. Results extend prior research by illuminating PWID perceptions in the U.S. including motivations grounded in concern for public order., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)