"Politics Versus Policy": Qualitative Insights on Stigma and Overdose Prevention Center Policymaking in the United States.

Substance use & addiction journal Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1177/29767342241253663
Kristin Koehm, Joseph G Rosen, Jesse L Yedinak Gray, Jessica Tardif, Erin Thompson, Ju Nyeong Park
{"title":"\"Politics Versus Policy\": Qualitative Insights on Stigma and Overdose Prevention Center Policymaking in the United States.","authors":"Kristin Koehm, Joseph G Rosen, Jesse L Yedinak Gray, Jessica Tardif, Erin Thompson, Ju Nyeong Park","doi":"10.1177/29767342241253663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Federal, state, and municipal governments in the United States have been reluctant to authorize overdose prevention centers (OPCs), which are evidence-based approaches for preventing overdose deaths and blood-borne pathogen transmission.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From July 2022 to February 2023, we explored how stigma manifests in OPC policymaking by conducting in-depth interviews with 17 advocates, legislators, service providers, and researchers involved with OPC advocacy and policymaking in Rhode Island, California, Pennsylvania, and New York.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that although jurisdictions differed in their OPC policymaking experiences, stigma manifested throughout the process, from planning to authorization. Participants described OPCs as a tool for destigmatizing overdose and substance use, yet confronted institutionalized stigma and discriminatory attitudes toward people who use drugs (PWUD) and harm reduction from multiple sources (eg, politicians, media, and members of the public). Opposition toward OPCs and harm reduction approaches more broadly intersected with public discourse on crime, homelessness, and public disorder. Employed stigma-mitigation strategies included humanizing PWUD, publicizing the benefits of OPCs to the wider community, and strategically engaging media.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings illustrate the importance of understanding stigma at different stages of the policymaking process to better facilitate authorization and eventual implementation of OPCs in the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":" ","pages":"682-689"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11458346/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance use & addiction journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/29767342241253663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Federal, state, and municipal governments in the United States have been reluctant to authorize overdose prevention centers (OPCs), which are evidence-based approaches for preventing overdose deaths and blood-borne pathogen transmission.

Methods: From July 2022 to February 2023, we explored how stigma manifests in OPC policymaking by conducting in-depth interviews with 17 advocates, legislators, service providers, and researchers involved with OPC advocacy and policymaking in Rhode Island, California, Pennsylvania, and New York.

Results: We found that although jurisdictions differed in their OPC policymaking experiences, stigma manifested throughout the process, from planning to authorization. Participants described OPCs as a tool for destigmatizing overdose and substance use, yet confronted institutionalized stigma and discriminatory attitudes toward people who use drugs (PWUD) and harm reduction from multiple sources (eg, politicians, media, and members of the public). Opposition toward OPCs and harm reduction approaches more broadly intersected with public discourse on crime, homelessness, and public disorder. Employed stigma-mitigation strategies included humanizing PWUD, publicizing the benefits of OPCs to the wider community, and strategically engaging media.

Conclusion: These findings illustrate the importance of understanding stigma at different stages of the policymaking process to better facilitate authorization and eventual implementation of OPCs in the United States.

"政治与政策":对美国污名化和用药过量预防中心决策的定性洞察。
背景:美国联邦政府、州政府和市政府一直不愿意批准建立药物过量预防中心(OPC),而这是预防药物过量死亡和血液传播病原体的循证方法:从 2022 年 7 月到 2023 年 2 月,我们对罗德岛州、加利福尼亚州、宾夕法尼亚州和纽约州参与过量用药预防中心宣传和决策的 17 名倡导者、立法者、服务提供者和研究人员进行了深入访谈,探讨了过量用药预防中心决策中的污名化表现:我们发现,尽管各辖区在老年公民保护政策制定方面的经验各不相同,但从规划到授权的整个过程中都存在污名化现象。参与者将 OPCs 描述为消除过量用药和药物使用污名化的工具,但却面临着制度化的污名化,以及来自多方面(如政治家、媒体和公众)对吸毒者和减低伤害的歧视态度。更广泛地说,对 OPC 和减低伤害方法的反对与公众对犯罪、无家可归和公共秩序混乱的讨论交织在一起。所采用的减少污名化策略包括:使艾滋病毒/艾滋病感染者人性化,向更广泛的社区宣传OPCs的益处,以及战略性地吸引媒体参与:这些研究结果说明了在决策过程的不同阶段了解污名化的重要性,从而更好地促进美国对OPCs的授权和最终实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信