Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Overdose is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among people who inject drugs. Illicitly manufactured fentanyl is now a major driver of opioid overdose deaths. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 participants (19 persons who inject drugs and 4 service providers) from rural southern Illinois. Data were analyzed using constant comparison and theoretical sampling methods. RESULTS:Participants were concerned about the growing presence of fentanyl in both opioids and stimulants, and many disclosed overdose experiences. Strategies participants reported using to lower overdose risk included purchasing drugs from trusted sellers and modifying drug use practices by partially injecting and/or changing the route of transmission. Approximately half of persons who inject drugs sampled had heard of fentanyl test strips, however fentanyl test strip use was low. To reverse overdoses, participants reported using cold water baths. Use of naloxone to reverse overdose was low. Barriers to naloxone access and use included fear of arrest and opioid withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS:People who inject drugs understood fentanyl to be a potential contaminant in their drug supply and actively engaged in harm reduction techniques to try to prevent overdose. Interventions to increase harm reduction education and information about and access to fentanyl test strips and naloxone would be beneficial.

BACKGROUND:Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has increased among persons who inject drugs (PWID) in the United States with disproportionate burden in rural areas. We use the Risk Environment framework to explore potential economic, physical, social, and political determinants of hepatitis C in rural southern Illinois. METHODS:Nineteen in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with PWID from August 2019 through February 2020 (i.e., pre-COVID-19 pandemic) and four with key informants who professionally worked with PWID. Interviews were recorded, professionally transcribed, and coded using qualitative software. We followed a grounded theory approach for coding and analyses. RESULTS:We identify economic, physical, policy, and social factors that may influence HCV transmission risk and serve as barriers to HCV care. Economic instability and lack of economic opportunities, a lack of physically available HCV prevention and treatment services, structural stigma such as policies that criminalize drug use, and social stigma emerged in interviews as potential risks for transmission and barriers to care. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The rural risk environment framework acknowledges the importance of community and structural factors that influence HCV infection and other disease transmission and care. We find that larger structural factors produce vulnerabilities and reduce access to resources, which negatively impact hepatitis C disease outcomes.

We sought to disentangle effects of the components of a peer-education intervention on self-reported injection risk behaviors among people who inject drugs (n = 560) in Philadelphia, US. We examined 226 egocentric groups/networks randomized to receive (or not) the intervention. Peer-education training consisted of two components delivered to the intervention network index individual only: (1) an initial training and (2) "booster" training sessions during 6- and 12-month follow up visits. In this secondary data analysis, using inverse-probability-weighted log-binomial mixed effects models, we estimated the effects of the components of the network-level peer-education intervention upon subsequent risk behaviors. This included contrasting outcome rates if a participant is a network member [non-index] under the network exposure versus under the network control condition (i.e., spillover effects). We found that compared to control networks, among intervention networks, the overall rates of injection risk behaviors were lower in both those recently exposed (i.e., at the prior visit) to a booster (rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.61 [0.46"“0.82]) and those not recently exposed to it (0.81 [0.67"“0.98]). Only the boosters had statistically significant spillover effects (e.g., 0.59 [0.41"“0.86] for recent exposure). Thus, both intervention components reduced injection risk behaviors with evidence of spillover effects for the boosters. Spillover should be assessed for an intervention that has an observable behavioral measure. Efforts to fully understand the impact of peer education should include routine evaluation of spillover effects. To maximize impact, boosters can be provided along with strategies to recruit especially committed peer educators and to increase attendance at trainings. Clinical Trials Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00038688 June 5, 2002.