How would a certification in harm reduction impact service delivery and the harm reduction workforce? A qualitative study

0 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Orrin D. Ware , Lisa D.S. Zerden , Danya K. Krueger , Brooke N. Lombardi , Brianna M. Lombardi
{"title":"How would a certification in harm reduction impact service delivery and the harm reduction workforce? A qualitative study","authors":"Orrin D. Ware ,&nbsp;Lisa D.S. Zerden ,&nbsp;Danya K. Krueger ,&nbsp;Brooke N. Lombardi ,&nbsp;Brianna M. Lombardi","doi":"10.1016/j.josat.2024.209439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Harm reduction utilizes evidence-based strategies to reduce the negative health and social impacts of substance use. As harm reduction services expand across the U.S. without the requirement of professional certification, variation in how the workforce is regarded and trained on harm reduction principles and practices persists. This study explores the harm reduction workforce's perspectives on how certification would impact service delivery and their profession.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The study employed purposive sampling to identify and survey administrators within a publicly available syringe services program directory (<em>N</em> = 168). This sub-study utilized thematic analysis to evaluate 152 respondents' answers to one dichotomous closed-ended question, “Would a certification in the harm reduction field be helpful?” followed by an open-ended response to the follow-up statement, “<em>Based on your answer to the previous question about a certification to work in harm reduction, please explain why or why not.</em>” Approximately 45 % of the respondents (<em>n</em> = 68) answered no, while 55 % (<em>n</em> = 84) answered yes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seven themes emerged in total. Among those against harm reduction certification, the four themes were: (1) certification is exclusionary and creates barriers, (2) lived experience is more important than certification, (3) certification does not equate to skills, and (4) no regulatory body exists to oversee the certification process. The study identified three themes from individuals who indicated harm reduction certification was helpful: (1) certification helps standardize training, (2) certification validates/legitimizes the harm reduction field, and (3) low barriers to receiving certificates.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The study presents participants' perspectives for and against harm reduction certification emphasizing implications for service delivery and the workforce. Despite varying perceptions on how certification may advance or hinder the field, the sample was unified in their commitment to harm reduction practices and endorsement of its integral role in confronting the U.S. drug use epidemic. This study highlights how certification can impact state and federal harm reduction service delivery and promotes future research on ways to address the needs of harm reduction organizations and their workforce.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73960,"journal":{"name":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949875924001516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Harm reduction utilizes evidence-based strategies to reduce the negative health and social impacts of substance use. As harm reduction services expand across the U.S. without the requirement of professional certification, variation in how the workforce is regarded and trained on harm reduction principles and practices persists. This study explores the harm reduction workforce's perspectives on how certification would impact service delivery and their profession.

Methods

The study employed purposive sampling to identify and survey administrators within a publicly available syringe services program directory (N = 168). This sub-study utilized thematic analysis to evaluate 152 respondents' answers to one dichotomous closed-ended question, “Would a certification in the harm reduction field be helpful?” followed by an open-ended response to the follow-up statement, “Based on your answer to the previous question about a certification to work in harm reduction, please explain why or why not.” Approximately 45 % of the respondents (n = 68) answered no, while 55 % (n = 84) answered yes.

Results

Seven themes emerged in total. Among those against harm reduction certification, the four themes were: (1) certification is exclusionary and creates barriers, (2) lived experience is more important than certification, (3) certification does not equate to skills, and (4) no regulatory body exists to oversee the certification process. The study identified three themes from individuals who indicated harm reduction certification was helpful: (1) certification helps standardize training, (2) certification validates/legitimizes the harm reduction field, and (3) low barriers to receiving certificates.

Conclusions

The study presents participants' perspectives for and against harm reduction certification emphasizing implications for service delivery and the workforce. Despite varying perceptions on how certification may advance or hinder the field, the sample was unified in their commitment to harm reduction practices and endorsement of its integral role in confronting the U.S. drug use epidemic. This study highlights how certification can impact state and federal harm reduction service delivery and promotes future research on ways to address the needs of harm reduction organizations and their workforce.

减低危害认证会如何影响服务提供和减低危害工作队伍?一项定性研究。
导言:减低伤害利用循证策略来减少药物使用对健康和社会的负面影响。随着减低伤害服务在全美范围内的扩展,但却没有专业认证的要求,人们对减低伤害原则和实践的看法和培训方式仍然存在差异。本研究探讨了减低危害工作人员对认证将如何影响服务提供及其职业的看法:本研究采用目的性抽样,在公开的注射器服务项目目录(N = 168)中识别并调查管理员。本子研究利用主题分析评估了152名受访者对一个二分法封闭式问题 "减低伤害领域的认证会有帮助吗?"的回答,以及对后续陈述 "根据您对前一个问题的回答,关于减低伤害工作的认证,请解释为什么或为什么没有 "的开放式回答。大约 45% 的受访者(n = 68)回答 "否",55% 的受访者(n = 84)回答 "是":共有七个主题。在反对减低伤害认证的受访者中,四个主题是(1) 认证具有排斥性并制造障碍,(2) 生活经验比认证更重要,(3) 认证不等同于技能,(4) 没有监管机构监督认证过程。该研究从表示减低伤害认证有帮助的个人中发现了三个主题:(1)认证有助于培训标准化;(2)认证使减低危害领域有效/合法化;(3)获得认证的门槛低:本研究介绍了参与者支持和反对减低伤害认证的观点,强调了对服务提供和劳动力的影响。尽管对认证如何推动或阻碍该领域的发展有不同的看法,但样本在致力于减低伤害实践和认可其在应对美国毒品使用流行中不可或缺的作用方面是一致的。这项研究强调了认证如何影响州和联邦减低危害服务的提供,并促进了未来关于如何满足减低危害组织及其工作人员需求的研究。
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
Journal of substance use and addiction treatment
Journal of substance use and addiction treatment Biological Psychiatry, Neuroscience (General), Psychiatry and Mental Health, Psychology (General)
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