Search

Background: The Compassion, Inclusion and Engagement initiative (CIE) was a social contact intervention that operated in British Columbia between 2015 and 2021. The primary objective of CIE was to increase the participation of people with lived experience of substance use (PWLE) in the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of harm reduction supports and services. Case presentation: CIE used the developmental evaluation methodology Outcome Mapping to define and measure progress toward it’s goals. Developmental evaluation emphasizes learning in contrast to other forms of evaluation which are often more focused on determining the value or success of a project or program based on predetermined criteria. Outcome Mapping is a relational practice which acknowledges that change is achieved by an initiative’s partners and the role of the initiative is to provide access to resources, ideas and opportunities that can facilitate and support change .Conclusions: Through the implementation and evaluation of CIE, it became clear that directly supporting PWLE facilitated more meaningful and lasting change than solely working to improve the health and social services that supported them. The impacts of the CIE initiative extend far beyond the outcomes of any of the dialogues it facilitated and are largely the result of an increase in social capital. CIE engagements created the opportunity for change by inviting people most affected by the toxic drug supply together with those committed to supporting them, but their ability to bring about systemic change was limited. Both PWLE and service providers noted the lack of support to attend CIE engagements, lack of support for actions that came from those engagements, and lack of PWLE inclusion in decision-making by health authorities as limiting factors for systemic change. The lack of response at a systemic level, often results in PWLE carrying the burden of responding to toxic drug poisonings, often without resources, support, or compensation.

ImportanceStudies have suggested a rise in opioid- and stimulant-involved overdoses in recent years in North America. This risk may be acute for individuals who have had contact with the criminal justice system, who are particularly vulnerable to overdose risk.ObjectiveTo examine the association of opioid and/or stimulant use disorder diagnoses with overdose (fatal and nonfatal) among people with histories of incarceration.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this cohort study, population-based health and corrections data were retrieved from the British Columbia Provincial Overdose Cohort, which contains a 20% random sample of residents of British Columbia. The analysis included all people in the 20% random sample who had a history of incarceration between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. Outcomes were derived from 5-years of follow-up data (January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019). Statistical analysis took place from January 2022 to June 2022.ExposuresSubstance use disorder diagnosis type (ie, opioid use disorder, stimulant use disorder, both, or neither), sociodemographic, health, and incarceration characteristics.Main Outcomes and MeasuresHazard ratios (HRs) are reported from an Andersen-Gill model for recurrent nonfatal overdose events and from a Fine and Gray competing risk model for fatal overdose events.ResultsThe study identified 6816 people (5980 male [87.7%]; 2820 aged Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study of people with a history of incarceration found an elevated hazard of fatal and nonfatal overdose among people with both opioid and stimulant use disorder diagnoses. This study suggests an urgent need to address the service needs of individuals who have had contact with the criminal justice system and who co-use opioids and stimulants.

The use of person-centred language is well accepted regarding substance use and infectious disease healthcare and research, and appropriate acronyms have become commonplace, e.g., “people who inject drugs (PWID)” has mostly replaced phrases like “injecting drugs users”. However, the use of the term's ‘prisoner’ or ‘prisoners’ remains common. Although less common, terms such as ‘offenders’ and ‘inmates’ are also still used on occasion. This persists despite calls from people with lived experience of incarceration, and fellow academics, to stop using these terms. Given the considerable overlap between substance use, infectious diseases, and incarceration, in this commentary we discuss how they interact, including the stigma that is common to each. We propose that using person-centred language (i.e., people in prison or people formerly in prison) needs to become the default language used when presenting research related to people in prison or people formerly in prison. This is a much-needed step in efforts to overcome the continued stigma that people in prison face while incarcerated from prison officers and other employees, including healthcare providers. Likewise, overcoming stigma, including legalised discrimination, that follows people who were formerly in prison upon gaining their freedom is critical, as this impacts their health and related social determinants, including employment and housing.

Background Interruptions in healthcare services contribute to an elevated risk of overdose in the weeks following release from incarceration. This study examined the association of use of community healthcare with nonfatal and fatal overdose in the 30 days following release. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data from a random sample of 20% of the population of British Columbia. We examined releases from provincial correctional facilities between January 1, 2015 – December 1, 2018. We fit multivariate Andersen-Gill models to examine nonfatal overdoses after release from incarceration and applied Standard Cox regression for analyses of fatal overdoses. Results There were a combined 16,809 releases of 6,721 people in this study. At least one overdose occurred in 2.8% of releases. A community healthcare visit preceded the first nonfatal overdose in 86.4% of releases with a nonfatal overdose event. Only 48.4% of people who had a fatal overdose used community healthcare. In adjusted analysis, people who had used community healthcare had a higher hazard of healthcare-attended nonfatal overdose (aHR 2.83 95% CI 2.13, 3.78) and lower hazard of fatal overdose (aHR 0.58, 95%CI 0.28, 1.19). Conclusions Community healthcare visits after release from custody may be an important opportunity to provide overdose prevention and harm reduction supports. Policies and resourcing are needed to facilitate better connection to primary healthcare during the transition to community. Providers in community should be equipped to offer care to people who have recently experienced incarceration in a way that is accessible, acceptable and trauma-informed.