Search

BackgroundSyringe service programs (SSPs) provide essential harm reduction and prevention services for people who inject drugs in the USA, where SSP coverage is expanding. During the COVID-19 pandemic, US SSPs underwent unprecedented shifts in operational procedures (e.g., closures of physical sites, staff redeployment into pandemic response efforts). Given the critical role of US SSP workers in the pandemic, we sought to explore the occupational experiences and well-being of SSP staff to inform future emergency response efforts.MethodsFrom July-October 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with staff members of four SSPs in diverse regions of Massachusetts. Trained interviewers administered qualitative interviews virtually. Interviews were coded in NVivo v12 and thematic analysis identified common occupational experiences and related impacts on staff well-being in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsAmong 18 participants, 12 (67%) had client-facing roles such as harm reduction specialists and six (33%) worked in program management or leadership. We found that staff were frequently anxious about SARS-CoV-2 transmission, which contributed to staff turnover. SSPs rapidly adapted and expanded their services to meet increasing client needs during the pandemic (e.g., food distribution, COVID-19 testing), leading to staff overexertion. Simultaneously, public health measures such as physical distancing led to staff concerns about reduced social connections with clients and coworkers. Through these challenges, SSPs worked to protect staff well-being by implementing flexible and tangible COVID-19-related policies (e.g., paid sick leave), mental health resources, and frequent communication regarding pandemic-related operational changes.ConclusionSSPs in the USA adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic out of necessity, resulting in operational changes that threatened staff well-being. Despite the protective factors revealed in some narratives, our findings suggest that during prolonged, complex public health emergencies, SSPs may benefit from enhanced occupational supports to prevent burnout and promote wellness for this essential public health workforce.

BackgroundIn the United States, the criminalization and stigmatization of drug use and sex work contribute to infectious disease transmission and healthcare disengagement. People who inject drugs (PWID) and engage in sex work experience exacerbated HIV risk. In the context of the ongoing HIV and overdose epidemics little research describes why PWID engage in sex work and its relative HIV risk. To inform intervention needs, we aimed to create a typology of sex work among PWID with a focus on HIV risk and healthcare utilization behaviours.MethodsWe drew from in-depth interviews conducted across Massachusetts and Rhode Island from 2016-2019. Participants were ≥18 years old and self-reported past-month injection drug use and HIV-negative status. Using data from individuals reporting sex work experience (n=33/78), we utilized the framework method to develop a typology of perspectives on sex work engagement and attributes pertaining to HIV risk and healthcare utilization behaviours.ResultsWe uncovered varying perspectives on sex work and associated HIV risks and prevention needs. A typology included three groups who viewed their sex work engagement as a (1) consistent job, (2) income supplement, or (3) survival method to abate withdrawal symptoms. The first group described more consistent sexual and injection behaviours to mitigate HIV risk than the second group. The third group appeared particularly vulnerable to HIV, describing inconsistent condom use and frequent sharing of injection equipment, low healthcare utilization, and limited disclosure of sex work and injection drug use to healthcare providers.ConclusionFindings highlight distinct perspectives on sex work among PWID involved in it and corresponding perceptions of HIV risk and healthcare utilization behaviours. Understanding the nuances in sex work engagement among PWID can inform interventions to prevent infectious disease transmission, including efforts to further connect this marginalized population to harm reduction, health, and low barrier opioid treatment services.

BackgroundThe estimated 2.2 million people who inject drugs (PWID) in the USA experience significant gaps in preventive healthcare and a high burden of infectious, psychiatric, and other chronic diseases. Many PWID rely on emergency medical services, which are costly and not designed to deliver preventive services, manage chronic conditions, or address social needs.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to primary care utilization from the perspectives of PWID in New England, a region highly affected by the overdose crisis.DesignParticipants completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring substance use and healthcare utilization patterns.ParticipantsWe recruited 78 PWID through community-based organizations (e.g., syringe service programs) in 16 urban and non-urban communities throughout Massachusetts and Rhode Island.ApproachThematic analysis identified barriers and facilitators to primary care utilization at the individual, interpersonal, and systemic levels.Key resultsAmong 78 PWID, 48 described recent primary care experiences; 33 had positive experiences and 15 described negative experiences involving discrimination or mistrust. Individual-level barriers to primary care utilization included perceived lack of need and competing priorities (e.g., avoiding opioid withdrawal, securing shelter beds). Interpersonal-level barriers included stigma and perceived low quality of care for PWID. Systemic-level barriers included difficulty navigating healthcare systems, inadequate transportation, long wait times, and frequent provider turnover. Participants with positive primary care experiences explained how appointment reminders, flexible hours, addiction medicine-trained providers, case management services, and transportation support facilitated primary care utilization and satisfaction.ConclusionsFindings regarding the multilevel barriers and facilitators to accessing primary care among PWID identify potential targets for programmatic interventions to improve primary care utilization in this population. Based on these findings, we make recommendations for improving the engagement of PWID in primary care as a means to advance individual and public health outcomes.

BackgroundAntibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) are required at every hospital regardless of size. We conducted a qualitative study across different hospital settings to examine perspectives of physician and pharmacist stewards about the dynamics within their team and contextual factors that facilitate the success of their programs.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted in March-November 2018 with 46 ASP stewards, 30 pharmacists, and 16 physicians, from 39 hospitals within 2 large hospital systems.ResultsWe identified 5 major themes: antibiotic stewards were enthusiastic about their role, committed to the goals of stewardship for their patients and as a public-health imperative, and energized by successful interventions; responsibilities of pharmacist and physician stewards are markedly different, and pharmacy stewards performed the majority of the day-to-day stewardship work; collaborative teamwork is important to improving care, the pharmacists and physicians supported each other, and pharmacists believed that having a strong physician leader was essential; provider engagement strategies are a critical component of stewardship, and recommendations must be communicated in a collegial manner that did not judge the provider competence, preferably through face-to-face interactions; and hospital leadership support for ASP goals and for protected time for ASP activities is critical for success.ConclusionsThe physician-pharmacist team is essential for ASPs; most have pharmacists leading and performing day-to-day activities with physician support. Collaborative, persuasive approaches for ASP interventions were the norm. Stewards were careful not to criticize or judge inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Further research should examine whether this persuasive approach undercuts provider appreciation of stewardship as a public health mandate.

BackgroundHepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is increasingly prevalent among people who inject drugs (PWID) in the context of the current US opioid crisis. Although curative therapy is available and recommended as a public health strategy, few PWID have been treated. We explore PWID narratives that explain why they have not sought HCV treatment or decided against starting it. We then compare these narratives to evidence-based and guideline-concordant information to better enable health, social service, harm reduction providers, PWID, and other stakeholders to dispel misconceptions and improve HCV treatment uptake in this vulnerable population.MethodsWe recruited HIV-uninfected PWID (n = 33) through community-based organizations (CBOs) to participate in semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews on topics related to overall health, access to care, and knowledge and interest in specific HIV prevention methods.ResultsIn interviews, HCV transmission and delaying or forgoing HCV treatment emerged as important themes. We identified three predominant narratives relating to delaying or deferring HCV treatment among PWID: (1) lacking concern about HCV being serious or urgent enough to require treatment, (2) recognizing the importance of treatment but nevertheless deciding to delay treatment, and (3) perceiving that clinicians and insurance companies recommend that patients who currently use or inject drugs should delay treatment.ConclusionsOur findings highlight persistent beliefs among PWID that hinder HCV treatment utilization. Given the strong evidence that treatment improves individual health regardless of substance use status while also decreasing HCV transmission in the population, efforts are urgently needed to counter the predominant narratives identified in our study. We provide evidence-based, guideline-adherent information that counters the identified narratives in order to help individuals working with PWID to motivate and facilitate treatment access and uptake. An important strategy to improve HCV treatment initiation among PWID could involve disseminating guideline-concordant counternarratives to PWID and the providers who work with and are trusted by this population.

Social psychologists in both sociology and psychology commonly use vignettes to gauge how people might respond in a given situation. Research subjects in such studies, like those in other experiments, are often undergraduates, surveyed or recruited in classes. While there has been significant attention to the generalizability of students' attitudes to other groups, here were turn our attention to differences within the student population and ask how reliable responses are from particular classes. With previous research suggesting that college coursework influences egalitarianism, defection rates in ultimatum games, and attribution of blame, researchers must consider that the differences in subject pools might affect other variables of interest. In this research we compare responses to vignettes about procedural, interactional, and distributive justice from students in popular sociology and business classes. The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the how these two groups conceptualize justice. We discuss the importance of this null-finding. (Contains 2 tables.)