Presentation on theme: "H ARM R EDUCTION : H OW D O W E M EASURE S UCCESS ? Justin Logan, Soo Chan Carusone, Matthew Barnes, Sagar Rohailla, and Carol Strike May 28, 2014 Canadian."— Presentation transcript:
H ARM R EDUCTION : H OW D O W E M EASURE S UCCESS ? Justin Logan, Soo Chan Carusone, Matthew Barnes, Sagar Rohailla, and Carol Strike May 28, 2014 Canadian Public Health Association Conference 2014
O BJECTIVES 1.Define harm reduction 2.Discuss public health interventions for harm reduction in the Canadian context 3.Determine how such programs are evaluated and potential gaps in evaluation 4.Provoke thought and discussion on new and different ways to evaluate harm reduction programs
C ASEY H OUSE Specialty HIV/AIDS hospital in Toronto (founded 1988) 13 in-patient beds Community programs Interdisciplinary care Day program in development
C ASEY H OUSE P OPULATION HIV+ Demographics: 81% male, 19% female 61% homosexual Housing and Income: 20% unstable housing, 89% on disability Mental Health: 93% of patients > 1 Axis I diagnosis Substance Use: 63% Substance Misuse Disorder Cocaine > Marijuana > Alcohol Schaefer-McDaniel, Halman, et al.
W HAT IS H ARM R EDUCTION ? “Harm reduction seeks to minimize the risks and negative consequences associated with alcohol and illicit drug use or other high-risk activities through various public health measures, intervention programs, or individual counseling.” 8 Marlatt and Witkiewicz 2010
P UBLIC H EALTH A GENCY O F C ANADA : P OPULATION H EALTH P ROMOTION M ODEL http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/php-psp/php3-eng.php
R ESEARCH Q UESTION : 1)What outcomes are reported in the literature to evaluate harm reduction programs in adult and adolescent populations? Important in Casey House’s development of evaluation protocols for its harm reduction programs
M ETHODS : L ITERATURE R EVIEW Purpose: to identify outcomes used to evaluate four types of harm reduction programs Opioid Maintenance Therapy Needle Syringe Programs Safe Crack User Kit Programs Alcohol-related programs
M ETHODS : L ITERATURE R EVIEW PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases Inclusion Criteria English Language Adolescent/Adult Population Published since 2008 Evaluating 1 of the 4 above-listed interventions Primary research or program evaluation
Database Search 686 Papers Identified Abstract Screening 97 Papers Included Outcomes Recorded Excel Chart Data for Analysis
G EOGRAPHIC D ISTRIBUTION OF S TUDIES (N = 97) (12) 48 14 0 0 7 10 2 6
M ORE F REQUENTLY R EPORTED O UTCOMES (N=85) OutcomeTotal # Studies Et-OHOMTNSPSCUK Decreased Use 49 (58%)30181 Use-related conseq 18 (21%)18 Psychiatric Illness 18 (21%)711 Use of Services 16 (19%)2923 BBV Risk Behavior 15 (18%)456 Toxicology 11 (13%)38 Infectious Disease 11 (13%)713 Binge Pattern Use 10 (12%)73 Incarceration/Crime 9 (11%)9 Satisfaction 9 (11%)81 OMT = Opioid Maintenance Therapy Et-OH = Alcohol-related Interventions NSP = Needle Syringe Programs SCUK = Safe Crack User Kits
L ESS F REQUENTLY R EPORTED O UTCOMES (N = 85) OutcomeTotal # Studies Et-OHMMTNSPSCUK Social dysfunction 8 (9%)251 Survival 7 (8%)7 Physical Health 6 (7%)141 Employment/Finance 5 (6%)41 Overdose 3 (4%)3 Academic 1 (1%)1 Healthcare Accessibility 1 (1%)1 OMT = Opioid Maintenance Therapy Et-OH = Alcohol-related Interventions NSP = Needle Syringe Programs SCUK = Safe Crack User Kits
K EY D ETERMINANTS OF H EALTH Income and Social Status (ISS) Social Support Networks (SSN) Education/Literacy(EL) Employment/Working Conditions (EWC) Social Environments (SE) Physical Environments (PE) Personal Health Practices and Coping Skills (PHPCS) Biology and Genetic Endowment (BGE) Healthy Child Development (HCD) Health Services (HS) Gender (G) Culture (C)
S TRATIFYING O UTCOMES BY THE K EY D ETERMINANTS OF H EALTH Determinants without any related outcomes Gender Culture Healthy Child Development Determinants most frequently related to outcomes Personal Health Practices and Coping Skills Biology and Genetic Endowment Health Services
S TRATIFYING O UTCOMES BY K EY D ETERMINANTS OF H EALTH # of Outcomes OMT = Opioid Maintenance Therapy Et-OH = Alcohol-related Interventions NSP = Needle Syringe Programs SCUK = Safe Crack User Kits
U SER S ATISFACTION AS AN O UTCOME Not easily related to any of the key determinants of health Measured in 7 studies, all of them Methadone Maintenance Therapy
Q UALITATIVE S TUDIES 12 qualitative studies included, 10 mixed studies with a qualitative component Common Themes Satisfaction and quality of program Access to program Barriers including stigma Patterns of use Lending Practices/Risk Behaviors Overall Health Socioeconomic health
W HAT H ARMS ? S UBSTANCE U SE -R ELATED H ARMS 1)Health Consequences Infection Mental Health Effects on overall health/nutrition 2)Social Consequences Interpersonal relationships, family, stigma 3)Personal Development Education, Happiness, Legal Issues 4)Economic and Physical Wellbeing Employment, Housing, Incarceration References: 3, 9, 13, 20, 24, 25
S TRATIFYING O UTCOMES BY K EY D ETERMINANTS OF H EALTH # of Outcomes
S TRATEGY : P UBLIC H EALTH A GENCY O F C ANADA : P OPULATION H EALTH P ROMOTION M ODEL http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/php-psp/php3-eng.php
H EALTHCARE A CCESS AS AN I MPORTANT O UTCOME Drug Users in the healthcare system High need for healthcare services (McCoy et al. 2001) Poor access (McCoy et al. 2001) Worse experiences (Edlin BR et al. 2005) Harm reduction programs allow users to be engaged by the healthcare system instead of invisible to it (Rachilis et al. 2001)
H EALTHCARE A CCESS AS AN I MPORTANT O UTCOME : How was access measured? Health Services = 19 (22%) total outcomes 9 measured one-time use of particular service 6 measured retention in treatment 3 measured hospitalizations 1 measured primary care access Why is this important?
S UMMARY As part of a health promotion strategy, harm reduction seeks to make an impact across many key determinants of health Yet evaluations consistently measure outcomes related to only a few determinants Personal Health Practices and Coping Skills Biology and Genetic Endowment Outcomes related to other determinants are used far less frequently Socioeconomic Status Social Support Networks Social Environment Employment/Working Conditions Education and Literacy Physical Environment
R ECOMMENDATIONS This represents a gap in evaluation Development of outcomes which capture benefits related to wide range of determinants Measures of health care access Must recognize practical limitations of harm reduction research Funding Personnel and Expertise
T HANK Y OU Soo Chan Carusone, Ph.D. Casey House McMaster University Carol Strike, Ph.D. University of Toronto Matthew Barnes University of Toronto Sagar Rohailla University of Toronto
R EFERENCES : 1. Harm Reduction Training Manual. Toronto, Ontario: Casey House; 2012. 2. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Dauser D, et al. Brief interventions for at-risk drinking: patient outcomes and cost effectiveness in managed care organizations. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2006;41(6):624-631. 3. Galea S and Vlahov D. Social Determinants and the Health of Drug Users: Socioeconomic Status, Homelessness, and Incarceration Public Health Reports. 2002;117(S1):135-145. 4. Ivsins A, Roth E, Nakamura, N, et al. Uptake, benefits of and barriers to safer crack use kit (SCUK) distribution programmes in Victoria, Canada-A qualitative exploration. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2011;22(4):292-300. 5. Havnes I, Bukten A, Gossop M, Waal H, Stangeland P, Clausen T. Reductions in convictions for violent crime during opioid maintenance treatment: A longitudinal national cohort study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;124(3):307-310.
R EFERENCES : 6. Hays RD, Cunningham WE, Sherbourne CD, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection in the United States: results from the HIV cost and services utilization study. The American Journal of Medicine. 2000; 108(9):714-722). 7. Kim JW, Choi YS, Shin KC, et al. The effectiveness of continuing group psychotherapy for outpatients with alcohol dependence: 77-month outcomes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2012;36(4):686-692. 8. Marlatt GA and Witkiewitz K. Update on harm-reduction policy and intervention research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2010;(6):591– 606 9. McCoy CB, Mesch LR, Chitwood DD, and Miles C. Drug use and barriers to use of healthcare services. Substance Use and Misuse. 2001;36(6&7): 789- 806. 10. Neale J, Sheard L, and Tompkins CN. Factors that help injecting drug users to access and benefit from services: A qualitative study. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. 2007; 2:31-44.
R EFERENCES : 11. Pauly, B. Shifting moral values to enhance access to health care: Harm reduction as a framework for ethical nursing practice. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2008;(19):195-204. 12. Rachilis BS, Kerr T, Montaner JS, Wood E. Harm reduction in hospitals: is it time? Harm Reduction Journal. 2009; 6:19. 13, Regier DA, Farmer ME, Rae DS, et al. Comorbidity of Mental Disorders With Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse: Results From the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) Study. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990;264(19):2511-2518. 14. Shanahan CW, Beers D, Alford DP, Brigandi E, Samet JH. A transitional opioid program to engage hospitalized drug users. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2010;25(8):803-808. 15. Schaefer-McDaniel N, Halman M, Carusone SC, Stranks S, and Stewart A. Complex care of patients with late stage HIV disease: A Retrospective Study. International Conference on Urban Health. March 2014.
R EFERENCES : 16. What Makes Canadians Healthy or Unhealthy?. Public Health Agency of Canada Web site. http://www.phacaspc.gc.ca/phsp/determinants-eng.php #personalhealth. Updated August 21, 2012; Accessed November 14, 2012. 17. Wolitski RJ, Kidder DP, and Fenton KA. HIV, homelessness, and public health: critical issues and a call of increased action. AIDS and Behavior. 2007;11(S2):167-171. 18. Wood E, Kerr T, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS. A review of barriers and facilitators of HIV treatment among injection drug users. AIDS. 2008;22(11):1247-1256. 19. Wood E, Montaner JS, Chan K, et al. Socioeconomic status, access to triple therapy, and survival from HIV-disease since 1996. AIDS. 2002;16(15):2065-2072.
R EFERENCES : 20. Laupland KB and Embil JM. Reducing the adverse impact of injection drug use in Canada. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2012 Autumn; 23(3): 106–107. 21. Erickson et al. CAMH and Harm Reduction: A Background Paper on its Meaning and Application for Substance Use Issues. CAMH web site. May 2002. Accessed April 25, 2014. 22. An integrated model of population health and health promotion. Public Health Agency of Canada web site. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/php-psp/php3- eng.php. Updated December 8, 2001. Accessed April 20 th, 2014. 23. Edlin BR, Krevina TF et al. Overcoming Barriers to Prevention, Care, and Treatment of Hepatitis C in Illicit Drug Users. Clin Infect Dis. (2005) 40 (Supplement 5): S276-S285. 24. Grant JD, et al. Associations of alcohol, nicotine, cannabis and drug use/dependence with educational attainment: evidence from cotwin-control analyses. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, Early View vol. 36 (8), August 2012.
R EFERENCES : 25. Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury W, and Blakemore C. Development of a rationale scale to assess the harms of potential drugs of misuse. The Lancet. 2007;369(3): 1047–53.
S UBSTANCE U SE IN C ANADA Prevalence of substance use: 9.1% of Canadians 15+ used Cannabis in past year 4.8% of Canadians 15-24 reported using cocaine, speed, hallucinogens, ecstasy, or heroin in past year Males twice as likely to use compared to females 78% of Canadians drank alcohol in past year 100,000 intravenous drug users in Canada in 2012 Prevalence of harm: 1.8 % of Canadians (5.8% aged 15-24) reports experiencing at least 1 harm in past year due to illicit drug use