Search

Background: The area of substance use is notable for its early uptake of incentives and wealth of research on the topic. This is particularly true for prize-based contingency management (PB-CM), a particular type of incentive that uses a fishbowl prize-draw design. Given that PB-CM interventions are gaining momentum to address the dual public health crises of opiate and stimulant use in North America and beyond, it is imperative that we better understand and critically analyze their implications. Purpose: The purpose of this scoping review paper is to identify the characteristics of PB-CM interventions for people who use substances and explore ethical implications documented in the literature as well as emerging ethical implications that merit further consideration. Methods: The PRISMA-ScR checklist was used in conjunction with Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework to guide this scoping review. We completed a two-pronged analysis of 52 research articles retrieved through a comprehensive search across three key scholarly databases. After extracting descriptive data from each article, we used 9 key domains to identify characteristics of the interventions followed by an analysis of ethical implications. Results: We analyzed the characteristics of PB-CM interventions which were predominantly quantitative studies aimed at studying the efficacy of PB-CM interventions. All of the interventions used a prize-draw format with a classic magnitude of 50%. Most of the interventions combined both negative and positive direction to reward processes, behaviors, and/or outcomes. One ethical implication was identified in the literature: the risk of gambling relapse. We also found three emerging ethical implications by further analyzing participant characteristics, intervention designs, and potential impact on the patient–provider relationship. These implications include the potential deceptive nature of PB-CM, the emphasis placed on the individual behaviors to the detriment of social and structural determinants of health, and failures to address vulnerability and power dynamics. Conclusions: This scoping review offers important insights into the ethics on PB-CM and its implications for research ethics, clinical ethics, and public health ethics. Additionally, it raises important questions that can inform future research and dialogues to further tease out the ethical issues associated with PB-CM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Public experiences of surveillance and control are recreated in SROs. • The liminality of SROs between public and private space structure experiences of privacy and safety. • Using drug alone can be both a way to claim privacy and a survival strategy within the context of SRO housing. • Interventions accounting for broader contextual factors that render using alone as instrumental to survival are needed to reduce vulnerability to overdose and other harms. Across North America most overdose deaths occur in housing, largely due to individuals using drugs alone. In cities, fatalities are disproportionately concentrated in low-income housing, including single room occupancy (SRO) housing. While research has highlighted how SROs operate as risk environments for various poor outcomes, there has been little attention to specific drug use practices (i.e., using alone) associated with overdose vulnerability in these spaces. This study explores how environmental contexts of SROs shape overdose risks, with specific attention to practices of using drugs alone. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 people who use drugs (PWUD) living in Vancouver SROs. Interviews covered topics such as social-structural environments of housing, drug use practices, and housing-based harm reduction. Thematic analysis drew on the intersectional risk environment framework. Narratives positioned SROs as extensions of public space, with similar expectations of risks and behaviours as in public spaces. For some participants, using alone in their room was characterized as a practice in claiming privacy within the context of a public existence. Participants highlighted how certain features of SRO's social-structural environments were routinely leveraged against them (e.g., security cameras, staff surveillance), suggesting using alone as a tactic to minimize risks of hyper-surveillance and punitive policies. Further, participants discussed using alone as "safer," describing how this practice mitigated place-based risks of social-structural harms (e.g., violence, criminalization) in ways that eclipsed overdose risk. Using drugs alone may be understood as a spatial negotiation of vulnerability to diverse harms produced by environmental contexts of SROs. Interventions accounting for broader contextual factors (e.g., improvements housing quality/quantity, providing a safer supply of drugs) that render using alone as instrumental to survival, and that reduce the implicit threat of punishment from intensive surveillance and control practices are critical to reduce vulnerability to overdose and other harms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]