Social and structural determinants of injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

Thomas D. Brothers, Matthew Bonn, Dan Lewer, Emilie Comeau, Inhwa Kim, Duncan Webster, Andrew Hayward, Magdalena Harris
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.02.22280620

ABSTRACT

Background Injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections are increasingly common, and social contexts shape individuals’ injecting practices and treatment experiences. We sought to synthesize qualitative studies of social-structural factors influencing incidence and treatment of injecting-related infections.

Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from January 1, 2000, to February 18, 2021. Informed by Rhodes’ “risk environment” framework, we performed thematic synthesis in three stages: (1) line-by-line coding; (2) organizing codes into descriptive themes, reflecting interpretations of study authors; (3) consolidating descriptive themes into conceptual categories to identify higher-order analytic themes.

Results We screened 4,841 abstracts and included 26 qualitative studies on experiences of injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections. We identified six descriptive themes organized into two analytic themes. The first analytic theme, social production of risk, considered macro-environmental influences. Four descriptive themes highlighted pathways through which this occurs: (1) unregulated drug supply, leading to poor drug quality and solubility; (2) unsafe spaces, influenced by policing practices and insecure housing; (3) health care policies and practices, leading to negative experiences that discourage access to care; and (4) harm reduction programs, including structural barriers to effective service provision. The second analytic theme, practices of care among people who inject drugs, addresses protective strategies that people who inject drugs employ within infection risk environments. Associated descriptive themes were: (5) mutual care, including assisted-injecting and sharing sterile equipment; and (6) self-care, including vein health and self-treatment. Within constraining risk environments, some protective strategies for bacterial infections precipitated other health risks (e.g., HIV transmission).

Conclusions Injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections are shaped by modifiable social-structural factors, including unregulated drug quality, criminalization, insufficient housing, limited harm reduction services, and harmful health care practices. Enabling environment interventions that address these factors could further empower people who inject drugs to protect themselves and their community.

INTRODUCTION

Injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections (e.g. skin and soft-tissue infections, endocarditis, epidural abscess) cause significant morbidity and mortality among people who inject drugs (PWID).1–6 The incidence of hospitalizations for severe injecting-related infections is increasing in Australia,7 Canada,2,8 the United Kingdom (UK),9 and the United States of America (USA).10–14

Efforts to prevent injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections have focused on individual-level behavioural interventions,15,16 including education on hand-washing before drug preparation,17 skin-cleaning before injecting,18 and avoiding subcutaneous/intramuscular injecting.19 While individual-level interventions may be helpful for PWID who can adopt these practices, evaluations of these interventions have shown mixed results20–22 and the incidence of injecting-related infections continues to rise.

Risk for injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections likely reflects contributions of multiple factors external to PWID that enable and/or constrain their behaviour and influence health outcomes.23–26 Identifying, measuring, and ameliorating such social-structural factors has informed clinical and public health responses to other drug-related harms, including HIV,27–29 hepatitis C virus (HCV),30 and overdose.31,32 Understanding the influence of social context on health can broaden awareness of the causes of illness33 and inform more appropriate prevention and treatment interventions.29,34,35

Objectives

To understand social-structural determinants of injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections and to identify opportunities for potential intervention, we aimed to: (1) systematically review qualitative studies on experiences of injecting-related infections, and (2) synthesize analyses of social-structural factors influencing risk for injecting-related infections, their treatment, and subsequent health outcomes.

METHODS

Before conducting the search, we published our protocol1 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021231411). We modified our original protocol after our search and full-text review. Our protocol specified a “mixed studies review” of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies.38,39 As we identified more and richer qualitative sources than anticipated, we decided to consider qualitative and quantitative data separately. Here, we report the qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. Quantitative results will be reported separately. This manuscript follows PRISMA guidelines36 and the ENTREQ statement37 on qualitative systematic reviews.

Conceptual model and framework

The “risk environment”, as developed by Rhodes and others,27,29,40,41 is a socio-ecological model describing how macro-environmental (e.g., criminalization; racism) and micro-environmental (e.g., local availability of needle and syringe programs) factors interplay to influence health practices and outcomes.42 The risk environment model encourages thinking about how people interact with and modify constraining environments (e.g., drug users’ unions organizing to repeal laws banning supervised consumption sites).43 Collins and colleagues recently extended the risk environment to incorporate intersectionality, considering how social-structural factors affect PWID differently depending on other social identities and their locations within power hierarchies, including race and gender.42

Injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections occur through introducing bacteria or fungi into sterile tissues (often from commensal organisms living on the skin) and are precipitated by particulate matter that damages blood vessels, lymphatics, and heart valves.35,44 To conceptualise how the risk environment affects injecting-related infections at different times, we developed a framework (see Figure 1) illustrating a pathway from (a) drug acquisition (e.g. solubility of drugs); (b) drug preparation (e.g. using sterile water to dissolve drugs); (c) drug injection (e.g. accessing veins to avoid intramuscular injecting); (d) development of and care for superficial infections (e.g. self-treatment; primary care); (e) development of and care for severe infections (e.g. hospitalization); and (f) outcomes after infections (e.g. access to follow-up care).1 Not all PWID would progress through all stages; some PWID do not develop infections and many who develop infections never access treatment.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Illustrative schematic of pathway model to conceptualize how the risk environment shapes risk for injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections at different moments.

Macro-environmental, micro-environmental, and individual-level factors interplay to influence risk at each moment.

Eligibility criteria

A full description is in our published protocol.1 Briefly, we included articles in peer-reviewed journals reporting qualitative studies. We followed the Population, Exposures, Outcomes approach to eligibility criteria.45 The population was PWID (i.e., people injecting any psychoactive substance; excluding people only injecting performance-enhancing or gender-affirming hormones). Exposures were any social or environmental factors that may affect risk of infections, such as housing, service availability, or policing practices. Outcomes included incidence, treatment, or outcomes of injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections. Eligible studies were published in English or French between January 1, 2000, and February 18, 2021 (to capture contemporary research more likely to inform policy and clinical practice).

Information sources and search strategy

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases. We developed the search strategy in consultation with a librarian (see Supplementary Table S1 for full search strategy). We supplemented searches with backward and forward citation chaining and with other studies known to the review team (which includes people with lived/past and living/current experience of injection drug use, researchers, and clinicians caring for PWID).

Data management and reference selection

We uploaded titles/abstracts into Covidence software, where they were automatically de-duplicated. Two reviewers (TDB and either MB, DL, EC, or IK) independently screened titles/abstracts, resolving discrepancies through consensus. We obtained full-text reports for sources that passed screening, and one reviewer (TDB) assessed full-text reports.

Quality assessment

We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), which is a validated and commonly-used appraisal tool for mixed studies reviews.46,46,47 TDB and EC independently appraised each study, resolving discrepancies through discussion. For data synthesis, we included studies meeting both MMAT screening questions: “Are there clear research questions?” and “Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?”

Data synthesis

Following Thomas and Harden,48–51 thematic synthesis comprises three stages: (1) line-by-line open coding; (2) organizing codes into descriptive themes reflecting content of studies and study authors’ interpretations; (3) translating descriptive themes and associated codes across studies to generate analytic themes. Coding and generation of descriptive themes focuses on study authors’ analysis and interpretation because reviewers do not have full knowledge of the original study data.48,49

First, TDB (physician and PhD student with qualitative methods training) familiarized himself with the included studies. Next, MB (researcher with lived/living experience of injecting-related infections and a drug policy activist) and TDB independently performed line-by-line coding on the same three purposefully selected, data rich sources.52–54 They compared and contrasted codes and revised them in an iterative, deductive-inductive process, informed by the risk environment model.

The whole review team met to provide feedback on these candidate codes: DL (public health specialist), EC and IK (medical students), DW (infectious diseases and addiction medicine physician), AK (infectious disease epidemiologist), and MH (health sociologist with lived experience of injection drug use). TDB coded the remaining papers over several rounds, including adding and revising new candidate codes after discussing with the team at meetings and through collaborative online writing.

TDB developed descriptive themes by comparing and contrasting codes across studies, seeking to organize codes into related social-structural categories and proposed them to the team for feedback. TDB then consolidated descriptive themes into conceptual categories to generate analytic themes that were finalized over several iterations and team meetings.

RESULTS

Following de-duplication, we screened 4,841 titles/abstracts and evaluated 631 full-text reports. After considering 16 additional reports identified outside the search, we identified 151 eligible studies (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods) for our “mixed studies” review. Here, we report on the 26 studies with qualitative data and analysis (19 qualitative-only and seven mixed-methods). See Figure 2 for PRISMA diagram. All 26 qualitative studies met our quality criteria for inclusion (see Supplementary Table S2 for full MMAT results).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram of included studies in systematic review and thematic synthesis of social and structural determinants of injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections.

Study characteristics

See Table 1 for summaries of individual studies. The majority (n=20 studies) were conducted in North America. Qualitative data came from individual interviews (n=23), observation/ethnography (n=4), and focus groups (n=2). Studies included experiences of injecting-related skin and soft-tissue infections (n=22), endocarditis (n=7), bacteremia (n=3), and osteomyelitis (n=2). All 26 studies included bacterial infections, and only one study55 included fungal infections (candidemia and fungal ophthalmitis).

View this table:
Table 1. Summary of included studies.

Thematic synthesis

Summary

We identified six descriptive themes organized into two analytic themes (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Schematic summary of analytic and descriptive themes on social and structural determinants of injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections.

The first analytic theme, social production of risk, considers how macro-environmental factors, including criminalization, poverty, structural stigma, mandated abstinence, and racism, shape risks for injecting-related infections. Four associated descriptive themes highlighted pathways through which this occurs: (1) unregulated drug supply, leading to poor drug quality and solubility; (2) unsafe spaces, influence by insecure housing and policing practices, and ameliorated by supervised consumption sites; (3) health care policies and practices, leading to experiences of discrimination and undertreated pain and withdrawal, which worsened infectious complications by alienating PWID and discouraging access to care; and (4) harm reduction programs, including structural barriers to effective service delivery.

The second analytic theme, practices of care among people who use drugs, addresses PWID expertise and agency in attempts to prevent and care for bacterial infections within constraining risk environments. Two associated descriptive themes categorized these practices as (5) mutual care, including sharing sterile injecting equipment, assisting others with injecting into veins (rather than intramuscularly), and treating abscesses outside of medical settings; and (6) self-care, including promoting vein health and sourcing safer alternatives when sterile injecting equipment was unavailable. Within constraining risk environments, some of these mutual- and self-care protective strategies for bacterial infections precipitated other health risks, including HIV transmission or arterial injury.

Descriptive themes are detailed below, supplemented by quotations from study authors and participants (indicated in italics).

Unregulated drug supply

In five studies,52,54–57 authors presented perspectives from PWID who attributed infections to the quality of unregulated drugs, including adulterants,52,54,55,57 poor solubility,52,54–57 and bacterial contamination,54 especially through precipitating skin abscesses and vein sclerosis. Phillips and colleagues54 reported that PWID in Denver (USA) commonly linked their bacterial infections to poor drug quality:

“I think it’s the dope because… I’ll use a clean needle every time, and it still, it just depends on what they cut it with. You know, sometimes when you’re cooking it, it’s an okay color, and then the next time you’re doing it you’ve got all this shit floating up, and it’s all burnt around the sides.” (USA)54

In two studies,55,57 authors analysed drivers of variation in the unregulated drug supply and associated infection risks. Mars and coauthors57 identified that PWID in Philadelphia (USA) could purchase only tar heroin (which is less soluble than powder heroin, and is associated with greater bacterial infection risk) due to regional demarcation of supply networks. Harris and colleagues55 highlighted London (England) PWID accounts of changing drug quality over time which has impacted widespread overuse of citric acid, which is used to dissolve poorly soluble cutting agents or adulterants such as paracetamol and quinine.

Unsafe spaces

In eight studies,53,54,56,58–62 investigators attributed increased bacterial infection risk to suboptimal drug preparation and injecting techniques created by unsafe spaces, including when PWID lacked housing and when trying to avoid being seen by police when using outdoors.

In six of these studies,53,56,58,60,61,63 authors explored influences of being deprived of housing on infection risk. Lack of housing made it harder to prepare and inject drugs safely, including where there were no hygienic surfaces to prepare drugs,53,56,61 inadequate lighting to find veins (leading to “missed hits” and inadvertent subcutaneous injection),53 and no clean, running water to wash hands/skin or to dissolve drugs (leading PWID to use unhygienic water alternatives)56,58,60,61:

“…there was no water actually and I had to use a bit of saliva. …It worked, I still got my hit, but I also got the worst infection of my life, I nearly died …Yeah, I was in hospital for nearly 3 months. Septicaemia.” (England)56

In their studies of PWID with endocarditis, Bearnot and colleagues63,64 noted that deprived of housing interfered participants’ with care, including being ineligible for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy and having no fixed address for follow-up clinic contacts.

In six studies53,54,56,58,59,62 authors analysed how criminalizing possession of drugs or injecting equipment (and associated police enforcement) increased risk for injecting-related infections. When lacking safer indoor places to prepare and consume drugs, participants described engaging in riskier practices to avoid being seen by police. This included preparing and injecting drugs in unhygienic abandoned buildings,58 and compromising injecting preparation practice when hurrying and not using a filter, not using sterile water, and/or inadvertently injecting subcutaneously:53,56,58

“I don’t even use cotton [a filter]… boom and I usually get it done. Like that. So, if the cops raid and… several times the cops have pulled over, come right up to me and I’ve already injected it in my arm before they hit me.” (USA)53

In their ethnography, Bourgois and colleagues59 observed “greater and more antagonistic police surveillance” of African American PWID than of white PWID in San Francisco (USA), leading to racist, differential seizure of sterile syringes (obtained from legal needle and syringe programs). They observed police evict homeless encampments and confiscate possessions, causing PWID to miss medical appointments.

Three studies58,65,66 included analyses of how supervised consumption sites create safer spaces to reduce infection risks caused by lack of housing and criminalization, by facilitating individualized education on safer injecting techniques65 and access to wound/abscess care.65,66

Health care policies and practices

In 13 studies, authors analysed why PWID delay or avoid medical care for injecting-related infections (often until infections had progressed and spread). Contributing factors were prior experiences of stigmatizing or discriminatory care (in 12 studies53,54,60,61,64,67–73) and of untreated pain and withdrawal (in six studies53,61,63,64,71,72). In several studies, PWID described both:

“I’m not trying to get drugs. I’m trying to get you to take your sharp scalpel, cut this fucking thing open, squeeze this shit out of me, and get me the fuck out of here. That’s the pain relief that I want you to give me…I can do heroin; your little 5mg Percocet ain’t doing nothing for me. But they automatically think when you come in, ‘I got an abscess. I’m hurting’, ‘Oh, you’re trying to get drugs’, this and that… it does prevent a lot of people from going.” (USA)53

Some negative experiences were driven by hospital policies. Harris61 explains how a London hospital policy mandates that urine drug screens be obtained before methadone can be dispensed, even if the dose is confirmed by pharmacies or treatment programs. This caused delays or missed dosages of methadone, and resulting experiences of opioid withdrawal led PWID to stay away:

“Mainly because how I have been treated at the hospitals, which is just like fucking dirt you’d find on your shoe… also being scared that I was going to be rough [sick] …because if they didn’t [give] me Methadone, like someone’s said he [doctor] won’t do it unless he would have to, and if you don’t know your rights, but yeah, it was that that really scared me more than anything, was being sick [in withdrawal] in a hospital.” (England)61

Four studies60,61,67,69 included analyses of how delays in care due to negative experiences in health care settings had a disproportionate impact by race or gender. Assessing hospital care experiences in Vancouver (Canada), McNeil and colleagues67 described, “Many participants of Aboriginal ancestry further expressed that institutionalized racism reinforced the view among hospital staff that they were ‘drug-seeking’”. Three studies included descriptions of how PWID who were mothers were discouraged from accessing care for injecting-related infections, including feelings of shame at disclosing substance use as a mother,60 and fear of child apprehension if their substance use was reported by health professionals.61,69

In four studies,63,67,70,74 PWID described leaving hospital prematurely, before completing treatment for injecting-related infections. Explanations included leaving hospital in response to discrimination67,74 and because restrictions on their movements in hospital triggered post-traumatic stress.63 Two studies67,70 highlighted participants being involuntarily discharged from hospital because of drug use, despite ongoing medical need. Jafari and colleagues74 evaluated experiences with a care model intending to overcome these issues: clients at a residential, harm-reduction oriented program for people with severe injecting-related infections in Vancouver, Canada, described receiving less judgmental and stigmatizing care compared to their experience in mainstream hospitals.

Only one study specifically explored insufficient health insurance as a barrier to care.69 In other studies, authors explained that insurance is a barrier to health care for some PWID but their study participants had access to public health insurance (universally in Canada67, and Medicaid in USA63,64).

Harm reduction programs

In four studies,52,55,56,71 authors analysed consequences of PWID having insufficient or nonpreferred drug preparation and injecting equipment distributed from harm reduction programs. In their study of experiences of skin and soft-tissue infections in Glasgow (Scotland), Dunleavy and colleagues52 report: “reasons for re-using [needles and syringes included having been] accidentally supplied with the wrong sized needles and preferring to re-use than use the wrong needle”. Three of these studies describe PWID lacking needed equipment and repurposing alcohol skin swabs distributed by harm reduction programs: to clean up blood after injecting,52,71 to filter visible particulate matter out of puddle water when lacking access to sterile water,56 and burning swabs to obtain an adequate flame to heat the drug solution when lacking a sufficient lighter.52 In two studies, Harris and colleagues explored how legal/regulatory and funding restrictions on harm reduction programs limited the distribution of sterile water56 or single-use ascorbic acid packets.55

In three studies, participants described structural barriers to needle and syringe programs that limited effectiveness. This included limited operating hours (e.g. closures on weekends52) and restricted eligibility.67,73 McNeil and colleagues67 assessed consequences of PWID being unable to access sterile equipment in hospital, leading to reuse of contaminated equipment:

“[Nurses] don’t give rigs [syringes] to us. …I think that they should. If not, we’re reusing our rigs or we’re having to risk getting kicked out for stealing them or people’ll be sharing them. …I know one girl was using her same rig for days to the point where it was tearing and she was suffering every time she’d do her fix. She just didn’t have it in her to go and try and steal clean rigs.” (Canada)67

Four further studies62,68,75,76 focused on places without local needle and syringe programs (in USA and Mexico), where PWID were also unable to purchase syringes at pharmacies due to refusal from pharmacists:

“I think that many [pharmacists] think that by prohibiting the sale of syringes that they are going to stop the usage of drugs…but what they are doing is wrong, because of that we have a harder time finding syringes. We need to use drugs in order to feel well, since when we are in need of a fix we feel desperate enough that we don’t care and borrow one from a friend, since it’s a desperate feeling…” (Mexico)76

Paquette and colleagues68 explored how PWID would prefer having multiple access points for sterile injecting equipment, including from both pharmacies and needle and syringe programs: “…one participant indicated that using the [needle and syringe program] could out him as a PWID and expose him to stigma from others because [needle and syringe programs] exclusively serve PWID. If PWID could consistently access syringes at a pharmacy without fear of discrimination, some might prefer this option because it offers a higher level of anonymity than [needle and syringe programs].”68

Two studies highlighted how suboptimal delivery of OAT after hospital discharge could increase risks for recurrent infections, including involuntary discharge from OAT because of ongoing use,63 waiting lists,63,64 and a lack of coordination:64

“So I had methadone maintenance while I was in the hospital and I did not really have anything lined up when I left [hospital], which, ultimately, could be one of the many reasons why I ended up re-infecting my valve and back in the hospital.” (USA)64

Mutual care

Five studies52,53,60,62,71 included descriptions of PWID caring for each other to promote health and reduce risks of infections. Within constraining risk environments, some of these protective strategies for bacterial infections precipitated other health risks.

Mutual care practices include providing or receiving education from fellow PWID,52 sharing sterile needles or injecting equipment in settings of scarcity,62 and offering or receiving assistance with injecting to reduce infection risks53,60:

“I have my boyfriend. I only hit with him, always with him. I do not like to do it with strangers or people to whom I do not know so well. … My boyfriend helps me, because when I do it, it swells up.” (USA)60

Once infections developed, study participants described providing or receiving wound care and abscess treatment or antibiotics from peers in order to avoid negative experiences with the health care system.53,71

While navigating risk environments, protective strategies for bacterial infections could precipitate other health risks. For example, three studies55,60,77 assessed particular risks that women PWID face when relying on assisted injecting in the context of gendered power dynamics. In their study, Epele60 explored these trade-offs: “Abscesses and scars that are more frequent with muscle injection lead to further subordination within the hierarchies of their social networks, and deteriorate the women’s precarious strategies of income production. Although being injected by another increases the probability of HIV infection, it simultaneously prevents the visible physical damage that subjects these women to greater vulnerability.” Similarly, nonmedical abscess treatment or use of potentially inappropriate from nonmedical sources can lead to worsening infections, but PWID described employing these strategies to avoid negative experiences in health care settings.53,71

Self-care

Twelve studies52,53,56–58,60,63–65,68,71,76 included analyses of participants’ practices to prevent and treat bacterial infections. These included practices to promote vein and skin care, including staying hydrated,71 rotating injecting sites,60 taking extra time to access veins,53,57,71 asking for help to access veins,60,77 and self-treating superficial abscesses (e.g., incision and drainage; nonmedical sources of antibiotics) before they progressed.53,68,71

“Little things like drink a lot of liquids, make sure you sleep every night. Make sure you get enough sleep, drink liquids, eat regularly.” (USA)71

In three of these studies, authors highlighted actions to mitigate the risks of poor-quality drugs or injecting equipment, including sharpening the tips of used needle tips to avoid vein damage (when unable to access new needles),76 sourcing safer water by asking passers-by for bottled water,56 and using ascorbic acid (which is safer than citric acid or lemon juice) when preparing heroin.55

In five studies, participants also described changing their drug use practices after experiencing an infection, to avoid another one. This included applying new learnings on safer injecting techniques,52,64,65 switching from injecting to smoking,52 getting wounds assessed by a nurse,52 using the minimum required acidifier to dissolve drugs,55 and seeking addiction treatment to reduce or abstain from injection use.63Three studies included descriptions of self-care practices of PWID to avoid discrimination and structural stigma. This included injecting in central veins at hidden sites to avoid scars at more visible peripheral sites,52,60 and using in unhygienic abandoned buildings to avoid being seen.58 Some of these protective self-care strategies employed within constraining risk environments also led to other potential health risks. For example, injecting in central veins in the groin to avoid discrimination from visible scars increases risks of thrombosis and arterial injury, and likely increase risks for bacterial infections (as the groin has a higher burden of bacterial colonisation). Considering unintended harms of inappropriate self-treatment of bacterial infections, Gilbert and colleagues71 write: “There are certainly risks conferred by the self-care practices that PWID are forced to resort to. However, these risks are not taken lightly by PWID; they are weighed against the risk of inaction and worsening infections, which is well known in these communities.”

DISCUSSION

We reviewed qualitative studies on experiences of injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections, and used thematic synthesis to identify social-structural factors influencing risk for these infections. These include poor quality of unregulated drugs, insufficient housing, policing practices, limited harm reduction services, and harmful health care practices. These are shaped by macro-environmental factors including structural stigma, criminalization, government austerity, and racism. We also identified ways in which PWID care for themselves and others to prevent and treat injecting-related infections, including by sharing sterile equipment and treating infections outside of medical settings. Within constraining risk environments, PWID face trade-offs and some of these protective strategies precipitated other health risks (e.g. in some circumstances of assisted-injecting). Enabling environment interventions that address these social-structural factors could further empower people who inject drugs to protect themselves and their community. While the importance of education on safer injecting technique came up in several studies,52,53,55,66,76 our findings suggest that individual-level behavioural interventions alone are likely insufficient to reduce risk.

Several social-structural determinants of bacterial and fungal infections (as well as practices of mutual- and self-care35,78) that we identified are consistent with prior studies examining risk for HIV and HCV among PWID.27,29,42,79 Insecure housing, hurrying injections to avoid police, insufficient harm reduction services, and laws restricting sterile injecting equipment are known to contribute to HCV79 and HIV27 risks. Stigmatizing and discriminatory health care experiences similarly discourage HCV and HIV treatment access and exacerbate health inequities.30,80 Compared to the literature on HIV and HCV among PWID,81,82 we identified relatively little published research considering intersectionality and risk for injecting-related bacterial or fungal infections.42 A qualitative study by Hrycko and colleagues published after we conducted our search identified several social-structural factors contributing to risk for severe bacterial infections, including availability and use of drugs (e.g. fentanyl, stimulants) associated with a shorter duration of effect and more frequent injecting, and lack of access to sterile water.83

A key motivation for our review was to identify potential opportunities to reduce risks for injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections. Many social-structural factors that we identified are modifiable, and some have already been resolved or ameliorated in some places. These include PWID organizing to access better quality, regulated drugs including via injectable OAT (with liquid formulations of diacetylmorphine, hydromorphone, or fentanyl), and through “safe supply” prescribing programs or compassion clubs.84–86 Injectable OAT is associated with low risk for bacterial infections even when injected intramuscularly, since sterile, liquid formulations of drugs are provided in a hygienic and safe environment.87 Social and supportive housing (including Housing First) can help PWID access and maintain housing; some models combine housing with injectable OAT, safe supply, and/or supervised consumption sites.88–90 In some jurisdictions PWID and their allies have successfully advocated for decriminalization of drug/syringe possession and for laws enabling supervised consumption sites.91

Several initiatives have improved health care experiences for PWID with injecting-related infections,92,93 including incorporating harm reduction and cultural safety principles, 61,94 specialized addiction medicine consultation services,95–97 needle and syringe programs,98,99 and supervised consumption sites100,101 into hospital care. Policy changes are needed at many hospitals to facilitate these initiatives.102,103

Our study has three key limitations. First, our review only included studies describing experiences of injecting-related infections and we did not include all studies investigating determinants of risky injecting practices (e.g. subcutaneous injecting; reuse of contaminated equipment) unless explicitly connected to infections. Second, we did not include gray literature that might have discussed further social-structural factors beyond those we identified in peer-reviewed papers. Third, some commentators48,104 have argued that qualitative evidence syntheses decontextualize the nuanced findings of qualitative studies (conducted in different settings, with different methods) and try to consolidate knowledge that is not generalizable. We undertook this approach to understand how social and structural factors shape risks for injecting-related infections in ways that may be impossible to assess with quantitative research.38,105

Conclusions

Injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections are shaped by modifiable social-structural factors, including unregulated drug quality, criminalization, insufficient housing, limited harm reduction services, and harmful health care practices. Enabling environment interventions that address these factors could further empower people who inject drugs to protect themselves and their community.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

FUNDING

TDB is supported by the Dalhousie University Internal Medicine Research Foundation Fellowship, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship (CIHR-FRN# 171259), and through the Research in Addiction Medicine Scholars Program (National Institutes of Health/ National Institute on Drug Abuse; R25DA033211). For part of this work, he was supported by the Killam Postgraduate Scholarship, Ross Stewart Smith Memorial Fellowship in Medical Research, and Clinician Investigator Programme Graduate Stipend (all from Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine). MB, EC, and IK were supported in this work via the Ross Stewart Smith Memorial Fellowship in Medical Research (PI: TDB). DL was funded by a National Institute of Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (DRF-2018–11-ST2-016). MH was funded by a National Institute of Health Research Career Development Fellowship (CDF-2016-09-014).

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. These funders had no role in the conduct or reporting of the research.

DECLARATIONS OF COMPETING INTEREST

MB reports personal fees from AbbVie, a pharmaceutical research and development company, and grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, a research-based biopharmaceutical company, outside of the submitted work. The other authors report no competing interests.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Louise Gillis (Research Data Librarian at Dalhousie University) for helpful feedback and assistance with our search strategy. We thank Drs. Lindsay Wallace (Cambridge University), Ashish Thakrar (University of Pennsylvania), and Paul Christine (Boston Medical Center) for helpful comments on earlier manuscript drafts.

We acknowledge that TDB, MB, EC, and IK live and work in Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq, and DW lives and works in unsurrendered and unceded territory and traditional lands of Wolastoqiyik. This territory is covered by the Treaties of Peace and Friendship which the Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqiyik Peoples first signed with the British Crown in 1725. The treaties did not deal with surrender of lands and resources but in fact recognized Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqiyik title and established the rules for what was to be an ongoing relationship between nations. We are Treaty people.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Brothers TD, Lewer D, Bonn M, Webster D, Harris M. Social and structural determinants of injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections among people who inject drugs: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review. BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 9;11(8):e049924. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049924
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Gomes T, Kitchen SA, Tailor L, Men S, Murray R, Bayoumi AM, et al. Trends in Hospitalizations for Serious Infections Among People With Opioid Use Disorder in Ontario, Canada. J Addict Med. 2021 Oct 28;Publish Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.1097/adm.0000000000000928
  3. 3.
    Serota DP, Bartholomew TS, Tookes HE. Evaluating Differences in Opioid and Stimulant Use-associated Infectious Disease Hospitalizations in Florida, 2016–2017. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Oct 1;73(7):e1649–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1278
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.
    Meisner JA, Anesi J, Chen X, Grande D. Changes in Infective Endocarditis Admissions in Pennsylvania During the Opioid Epidemic. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(7):1664–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz1038
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.
    Lewer D, Freer J, King E, Larney S, Degenhardt L, Tweed EJ, et al. Frequency of healthcare utilisation by adults who use illicit drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 2020 Jun;115(6):1011–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14892
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Kim JH, Fine DR, Li L, Kimmel SD, Ngo LH, Suzuki J, et al. Disparities in United States hospitalizations for serious infections in patients with and without opioid use disorder: A nationwide observational study. PLoS Med. 2020 Aug 7;17(8):e1003247. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003247
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Wright A, Otome O, Harvey C, Bowe S, Athan E. The Current Epidemiology of Injecting Drug Use-Associated Infective Endocarditis in Victoria, Australia in the Midst of Increasing Crystal Methamphetamine Use. Heart Lung Circ. 2018 Apr 1;27(4):484–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2017.03.166
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Mosseler K, Materniak S, Brothers TD, Webster D. Epidemiology, microbiology, and clinical outcomes among patients with intravenous drug use-associated infective endocarditis in New Brunswick. Can J Cardiol Open. 2020;2(5):379–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjco.2020.05.002
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Lewer D, Harris M, Hope V. Opiate Injection–Associated Skin, Soft Tissue, and Vascular Infections, England, UK, 1997–2016. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019 Sep 23;23(8):1400–3. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2308.170439
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Wurcel AG, Anderson JE, Chui KKH, Skinner S, Knox TA, Snydman DR, et al. Increasing Infectious Endocarditis Admissions Among Young People Who Inject Drugs. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016 Jul 26;3(3):ofw157. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofw157
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    Barocas JA, Eftekhari Yazdi G, Savinkina A, Nolen S, Savitzky C, Samet JH, et al. Long-term Infective Endocarditis Mortality Associated With Injection Opioid Use in the United States: A Modeling Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Dec 6;73(11):ciaa1346. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1346
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.
    McCarthy NL, Baggs J, See I, Reddy SC, Jernigan JA, Gokhale RH, et al. Bacterial Infections Associated With Substance Use Disorders, Large Cohort of United States Hospitals, 2012– 2017. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Oct 23;71(7):e37–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa008
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.
    Cooper HLF, Brady JE, Ciccarone D, Tempalski B, Gostnell K, Friedman SR. Nationwide Increase in the Number of Hospitalizations for Illicit Injection Drug Use-Related Infective Endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Nov 1;45(9):1200–3. https://doi.org/10.1086/522176
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Ronan MV, Herzig SJ. Hospitalizations Related To Opioid Abuse/Dependence And Associated Serious Infections Increased Sharply, 2002–12. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Jan 5;35(5):832–7. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1424
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Larney S, Peacock A, Mathers BM, Hickman M, Degenhardt L. A systematic review of injecting-related injury and disease among people who inject drugs. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017 Feb 1;171:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.11.029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Gordon RJ, Lowy FD. Bacterial Infections in Drug Users. N Engl J Med. 2005 Nov 3;353(18):1945–54. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra042823
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    Dwyer R, Topp L, Maher L, Power R, Hellard M, Walsh N, et al. Prevalences and correlates of non-viral injecting-related injuries and diseases in a convenience sample of Australian injecting drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009 Feb 1;100(1):9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.08.016
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Hope VD, Hickman M, Parry JV, Ncube F. Factors associated with recent symptoms of an injection site infection or injury among people who inject drugs in three English cities. Int J Drug Policy. 2014 Mar 1;25(2):303–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.11.012
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Phillips KT, Stein MD. Risk Practices Associated with Bacterial Infections among Injection Drug Users in Denver, Colorado. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2010 Mar 1;36(2):92–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952991003592311
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Roux P, Donadille C, Magen C, Schatz E, Stranz R, Curano A, et al. Implementation and evaluation of an educational intervention for safer injection in people who inject drugs in Europe: a multi-country mixed-methods study. Int J Drug Policy. 2021 Jan 1;87:102992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102992
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.
    Stein MD, Phillips KT, Herman DS, Keosaian J, Stewart C, Anderson BJ, et al. Skin-cleaning among hospitalized people who inject drugs: a randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2021 May;116(5):122–1130. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15236
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Phillips KT, Stewart C, Anderson BJ, Liebschutz JM, Herman DS, Stein MD. A randomized controlled trial of a brief behavioral intervention to reduce skin and soft tissue infections among people who inject drugs. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021 Feb 27;108646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108646
  23. 23.↵
    Harvey M. The Political Economy of Health: Revisiting Its Marxian Origins to Address 21st-Century Health Inequalities. Am J Public Health. 2021 Feb;111(2):293–300. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305996
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.
    Holman D, Lynch R, Reeves A. How do health behaviour interventions take account of social context? A literature trend and co-citation analysis. Health (N Y). 2018 Jul 1;22(4):389–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459317695630
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.
    Link BG, Phelan J. Social Conditions As Fundamental Causes of Disease. J Health Soc Behav. 1995;35:80. https://doi.org/10.2307/2626958
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    Krieger N. Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st century: an ecosocial perspective. Int J Epidemiol. 2001 Aug 1;30(4):668–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/30.4.668
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    Strathdee SA, Hallett TB, Bobrova N, Rhodes T, Booth R, Abdool R, et al. HIV and risk environment for injecting drug users: the past, present, and future. Lancet Lond Engl. 2010 Jul 24;376(9737):268–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60743-x
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.
    Rhodes T, Simic M. Transition and the HIV risk environment. BMJ. 2005 Jul 23;331(7510):220–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7510.220
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    Rhodes T, Singer M, Bourgois P, Friedman SR, Strathdee SA. The social structural production of HIV risk among injecting drug users. Soc Sci Med. 2005 Sep 1;61(5):1026–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    Harris M, Rhodes T. Hepatitis C treatment access and uptake for people who inject drugs: a review mapping the role of social factors. Harm Reduct J. 2013 May 7;10(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7517-10-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Dasgupta N, Beletsky L, Ciccarone D. Opioid Crisis: No Easy Fix to Its Social and Economic Determinants. Am J Public Health. 2017 Dec 21;108(2):182–6. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2017.304187
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    McLean K. “There’s nothing here”: Deindustrialization as risk environment for overdose. Int J Drug Policy. 2016 Mar 1;29:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.01.009
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Amemiya J, Mortenson E, Heyman GD, Walker CM. Thinking Structurally: A Cognitive Framework for Understanding How People Attribute Inequality to Structural Causes. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 Aug 18;17456916221093592. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221093593
  34. 34.↵
    McNeil R, Small W. ‘Safer environment interventions’: A qualitative synthesis of the experiences and perceptions of people who inject drugs. Soc Sci Med. 2014 Apr;106:151–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.051
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Harris M, Rhodes T. Venous access and care: harnessing pragmatics in harm reduction for people who inject drugs. Addiction. 2012 Jun;107(6):1090–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03749.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Nov 27;12(1):181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the Power of Stories and the Power of Numbers: Mixed Methods Research and Mixed Studies Reviews. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35(1):29–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. 39.↵
    Pluye P, Hong QN, Bush PL, Vedel I. Opening-up the definition of systematic literature review: the plurality of worldviews, methodologies and methods for reviews and syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May 1;73:2–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.033
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Rhodes T. The ‘risk environment’: a framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm. Int J Drug Policy. 2002 Jun 1;13(2):85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-3959(02)00007-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    Rhodes T. Risk environments and drug harms: A social science for harm reduction approach. Int J Drug Policy. 2009 May 1;20(3):193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2008.10.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 42.↵
    Collins AB, Boyd J, Cooper HLF, McNeil R. The intersectional risk environment of people who use drugs. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Aug 1;234:112384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112384
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. O’Campo P,
    2. Dunn JR, editors
    Rhodes T, Wagner K, Strathdee SA, Shannon K, Davidson P, Bourgois P. Structural Violence and Structural Vulnerability Within the Risk Environment: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives for a Social Epidemiology of HIV Risk Among Injection Drug Users and Sex Workers. In: O’Campo P, Dunn JR, editors. Rethinking Social Epidemiology: Towards a Science of Change. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2012. p. 205–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2138-8_10
  44. 44.↵
    Robertson R, Broers B, Harris M. Injecting drug use, the skin and vasculature. Addiction. 2021 Jul;116(7):add.15283. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15283
  45. 45.↵
    Moola S, Munn Z, Sears K, Sfetcu R, Currie M, Lisy K, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology): The Joanna Briggs Institute’s approach. JBI Evid Implement. 2015 Sep;13(3):163–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000064
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018 Jan 1;34(4):285–91. https://content.iospress.com/articles/education-for-information/efi180221
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Hong QN, Pluye P. A Conceptual Framework for Critical Appraisal in Systematic Mixed Studies Reviews. J Mix Methods Res. 2019 Oct 1;13(4):446–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818770058
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jul 10;8(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Guise A, Horyniak D, Melo J, McNeil R, Werb D. The experience of initiating injection drug use and its social context: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. Addiction. 2017;112(12):2098–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13957
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. 50.
    Harris M, Guy D, Picchio CA, White TM, Rhodes T, Lazarus JV. Conceptualising hepatitis C stigma: A thematic synthesis of qualitative research. Int J Drug Policy. 2021 Oct 1;96:103320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103320
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    Yoon GH, Levengood TW, Davoust MJ, Ogden SN, Kral AH, Cahill SR, et al. Implementation and sustainability of safe consumption sites: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. Harm Reduct J. 2022 Jul 5;19(1):73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00655-z
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    Dunleavy K, Hope V, Roy K, Taylor A. The experiences of people who inject drugs of skin and soft tissue infections and harm reduction: A qualitative study. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;65:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.09.001
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    Harris RE, Richardson J, Frasso R, Anderson ED. Experiences with skin and soft tissue infections among people who inject drugs in Philadelphia: A qualitative study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 Jun 1;187:8–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.01.029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    Phillips KT, Altman JK, Corsi KF, Stein MD. Development of a risk reduction intervention to reduce bacterial and viral infections for injection drug users. Subst Use Misuse. 2013 Jan;48(1–2):54–64.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Harris M, Scott J, Wright T, Brathwaite R, Ciccarone D, Hope V. Injecting-related health harms and overuse of acidifiers among people who inject heroin and crack cocaine in London: a mixed-methods study. Harm Reduct J. 2019 Nov 13;16(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-019-0330-6
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    Harris M, Scott J, Hope V, Wright T, McGowan C, Ciccarone D. Navigating environmental constraints to injection preparation: the use of saliva and other alternatives to sterile water among unstably housed PWID in London. Harm Reduct J. 2020 Apr 10;17(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00369-0
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    Mars SG, Bourgois P, Karandinos G, Montero F, Ciccarone D. The Textures of Heroin: User Perspectives on “Black Tar” and Powder Heroin in Two U.S. Cities. J Psychoact Drugs. 2016;48(4):270–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2016.1207826
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.↵
    Harris RE, Richardson J, Frasso R, Anderson ED. Perceptions about supervised injection facilities among people who inject drugs in Philadelphia. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;52:56–61.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Bourgois P, Martinez A, Kral A, Edlin BR, Schonberg J, Ciccarone D. Reinterpreting ethnic patterns among white and African American men who inject heroin: a social science of medicine approach. PLoS Med. 2006 Oct;3(10):e452.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    Epele ME. Scars, harm and pain: About being injected among drug using Latina women. J Ethn Subst Abuse. 2002;1(1):47–69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J233v01n01_04
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Harris M. Normalised pain and severe health care delay among people who inject drugs in London: Adapting cultural safety principles to promote care. Soc Sci Med. 2020 Sep 1;260:113183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113183
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    Pollini RA, Paquette CE, Slocum S, LeMire D. ‘It’s just basically a box full of disease’-navigating sterile syringe scarcity in a rural New England state. Addict Abingdon Engl. 2021 Jan;116(1):107–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15113
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    Bearnot B, Mitton JA. “You’re Always Jumping Through Hoops”: Journey Mapping the Care Experiences of Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder-associated Endocarditis. J Addict Med. 2020 Apr 7;Publish Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.1097/adm.0000000000000648
  64. 64.↵
    Bearnot B, Mitton JA, Hayden M, Park ER. Experiences of care among individuals with opioid use disorder-associated endocarditis and their healthcare providers: Results from a qualitative study. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019 Jul 1;102:16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2019.04.008
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    Krüsi A, Small W, Wood E, Kerr T. An integrated supervised injecting program within a care facility for HIV-positive individuals: a qualitative evaluation. AIDS Care. 2009 May;21(5):638–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540120802385645
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    Small W, Wood E, Lloyd-Smith E, Tyndall M, Kerr T. Accessing care for injection-related infections through a medically supervised injecting facility: A qualitative study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008 Nov 1;98(1):159–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.05.014
    OpenUrlPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    McNeil R, Small W, Wood E, Kerr T. Hospitals as a “risk environment”: An ethno-epidemiological study of voluntary and involuntary discharge from hospital against medical advice among people who inject drugs. Soc Sci Med. 2014 Mar;105:59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    Paquette CE, Syvertsen JL, Pollini RA. Stigma at every turn: Health services experiences among people who inject drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2018 Jul;57:104–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.04.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    Colwill JP, Sherman MI, Siedlecki SL, Burchill CN, Siegmund LA. A grounded theory approach to the care experience of patients with intravenous drug use/abuse-related endocarditis. Appl Nurs Res. 2021;57:N.PAG-N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2020.151390
  70. 70.↵
    Bodkin K, Delahunty-Pike A, O’Shea T. Reducing stigma in healthcare and law enforcement: A novel approach to service provision for street level sex workers. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-015-0156-0
  71. 71.↵
    Gilbert AR, Hellman JL, Wilkes MS, Rees VW, Summers PJ. Self-care habits among people who inject drugs with skin and soft tissue infections: a qualitative analysis. Harm Reduct J. 2019 Dec 12;16(1):69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-019-0345-z
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    Summers PJ, Hellman JL, MacLean MR, Rees VW, Wilkes MS. Negative experiences of pain and withdrawal create barriers to abscess care for people who inject heroin. A mixed methods analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 Sep 1;190:200–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.06.010
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    Meyer JP, Culbert GJ, Azbel L, Bachireddy C, Kurmanalieva A, Rhodes T, et al. A qualitative study of diphenhydramine injection in Kyrgyz prisons and implications for harm reduction. Harm Reduct J. 2020;17(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00435-7
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.↵
    Jafari S, Joe R, Elliot D, Nagji A, Hayden S, Marsh DC. A Community Care Model of Intravenous Antibiotic Therapy for Injection Drug Users with Deep Tissue Infection for “Reduce Leaving Against Medical Advice.” Int J Ment Health Addict. 2015;13:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-014-9511-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    Case P, Ramos R, Brouwer KC, Firestone-Cruz M, Pollini RA, Fraga MA, et al. At the borders, on the edge: use of injected methamphetamine in Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. J Immigr Minor Health. 2008 Feb;10(1):23–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-007-9051-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    Pollini RA, Lozada R, Gallardo M, Rosen P, Vera A, Macias A, et al. Barriers to pharmacy-based syringe purchase among injection drug users in Tijuana, Mexico: a mixed methods study. AIDS Behav. 2010 Jun;14(3):679–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-010-9674-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  77. 77.↵
    Sheard L, Tompkins C. Contradictions and Misperceptions: An Exploration of Injecting Practice, Cleanliness, Risk, and Partnership in the Lives of Women Drug Users. Qual Health Res. 2008 Nov 1;18(11):1536–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308325838
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. 78.↵
    Kolla G, Strike C. Practices of care among people who buy, use, and sell drugs in community settings. Harm Reduct J. 2020 May 7;17(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00372-5
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    Rhodes T, Treloar C. The social production of hepatitis C risk among injecting drug users: a qualitative synthesis. Addiction. 2008 Oct;103(10):1593–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02306.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  80. 80.↵
    Krüsi A, Wood E, Montaner J, Kerr T. Social and structural determinants of HAART access and adherence among injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 2010 Jan 1;21(1):4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.08.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  81. 81.↵
    Bluthenthal RN. Structural racism and violence as social determinants of health: Conceptual, methodological and intervention challenges. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021 May;222:108681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108681
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.↵
    Touesnard N, Brothers TD, Bonn M, Edelman EJ. Overdose deaths and HIV infections among people who use drugs: shared determinants and integrated responses. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2022 May 26;0(0):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2022.2081152
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    Hrycko A, Mateu-Gelabert P, Ciervo C, Linn-Walton R, Eckhardt B. Severe bacterial infections in people who inject drugs: the role of injection-related tissue damage. Harm Reduct J. 2022 May 2;19(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00624-6
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.↵
    Bonn M, Palayew A, Bartlett S, Brothers TD, Touesnard N, Tyndall M. Addressing the Syndemic of HIV, Hepatitis C, Overdose, and COVID-19 Among People Who Use Drugs: The Potential Roles for Decriminalization and Safe Supply. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2020 Sep 1;81(5):556–60. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2020.81.556
    OpenUrlPubMed
  85. 85.
    BCCSU. Heroin Compassion Clubs: A cooperative model to reduce opioid overdose deaths & disrupt organized crime’s role in fentanyl, money laundering & housing unaffordability [Internet]. Vancouver, B.C.: British Columbia Centre on Substance Use.; https://www.bccsu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Report-Heroin-Compassion-Clubs.pdf
  86. 86.↵
    Canadian Association of People Who Use Drugs (CAPUD). Safe Supply Concept Document [Internet]. 2019 Feb. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5637607
  87. 87.↵
    Meyer M, Eichenberger R, Strasser J, Dürsteler KM, Vogel M. «One prick and then it’s done»: a mixed-methods exploratory study on intramuscular injection in heroin-assisted treatment. Harm Reduct J. 2021 Dec 18;18(1):134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00584-3
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.↵
    Harris MT, Seliga RK, Fairbairn N, Nolan S, Walley AY, Weinstein ZM, et al. Outcomes of Ottawa, Canada’s Managed Opioid Program (MOP) where supervised injectable hydromorphone was paired with assisted housing. Int J Drug Policy. 2021 Dec 1;98:103400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103400
    OpenUrl
  89. 89.
    Brothers TD, Leaman M, Bonn M, John Fraser, Amy Gillis, Michael Gniewek, et al. Evaluation of an emergency safe supply drugs and managed alcohol program in COVID-19 isolation hotel shelters for people experiencing homelessness. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022 Jun 1;235:109440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109440
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.↵
    Bardwell G, Collins AB, McNeil R, Boyd J. Housing and overdose: an opportunity for the scale-up of overdose prevention interventions? Harm Reduct J. 2017 Dec 6;14(1):77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-017-0203-9
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.↵
    McNeil R, Small W, Lampkin H, Shannon K, Kerr T. “People Knew They Could Come Here to Get Help”: An Ethnographic Study of Assisted Injection Practices at a Peer-Run ‘Unsanctioned’ Supervised Drug Consumption Room in a Canadian Setting. AIDS Behav. 2014 Mar 1;18(3):473–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0540-y
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.↵
    Brothers TD, Fraser J, Webster D. Caring for people who inject drugs when they are admitted to hospital. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 2021 Mar 22;193(12):E423–4. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.202124
    OpenUrl
  93. 93.↵
    CRISM. Guidance Document on the Management of Substance Use in Acute Care [Internet]. Alberta: Canadian Research Initiative on Substance Misuse (CRISM) - Prairie Node; 2020. https://crismprairies.ca/management-of-substance-use-in-acute-care-settings-in-alberta-guidance-document/
  94. 94.↵
    McCall J, Pauly B. Sowing a Seed of Safety: Providing Culturally Safe Care in Acute Care Settings for People who use Drugs. J Ment Health Addict Nurs. 2019 May 31;3(1):e1–7. https://doi.org/10.22374/jmhan.v3i1.33
    OpenUrl
  95. 95.↵
    Englander H, Englander H. “We’ve Learned It’s a Medical Illness, Not a Moral Choice”: Qualitative Study of the Effects of a Multicomponent Addiction Intervention on Hospital Providers’ Attitudes and Experiences. J Hosp Med. 2018 Nov 1;13(11). https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2993
  96. 96.
    Brothers T, Fraser J, MacAdam E, Hickcox S, L Genge, T O’Donnell, et al. Implementation and evaluation of a novel, unofficial, trainee-organized hospital addiction medicine consultation service. Subst Abuse. 2021;42(4):433–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2020.1856291
    OpenUrl
  97. 97.↵
    Hyshka E, Morris H, Anderson-Baron J, Nixon L, Dong K, Salvalaggio G. Patient perspectives on a harm reduction-oriented addiction medicine consultation team implemented in a large acute care hospital. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Nov 1;204:107523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.06.025
    OpenUrl
  98. 98.↵
    Brooks HL, O’Brien DC, Salvalaggio G, Dong K, Hyshka E. Uptake into a bedside needle and syringe program for acute care inpatients who inject drugs. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2019;38(4):423–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12930
    OpenUrl
  99. 99.↵
    Brothers TD, Mosseler K, Kirkland S, Melanson P, Barrett L, Webster D. Unequal access to opioid agonist treatment and sterile injecting equipment among hospitalized patients with injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis. PLoS ONE. 2022 Jan 26;17(1):e0263156. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263156
    OpenUrl
  100. 100.↵
    Dong KA, Brouwer J, Johnston C, Hyshka E. Supervised consumption services for acute care hospital patients. CMAJ. 2020 May 4;192(18):E476–9. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.191365
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  101. 101.↵
    Dogherty E, Patterson C, Gagnon M, Harrison S, Chase J, Boerstler J, et al. Implementation of a nurse-led overdose prevention site in a hospital setting: lessons learned from St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, Canada. Harm Reduct J. 2022 Feb 5;19(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00596-7
    OpenUrl
  102. 102.↵
    Lennox R, Martin L, Brimner C, O’Shea T. Hospital policy as a harm reduction intervention for people who use drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2021 Nov 1;97:103324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103324
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    Harris M, Holland A, Lewer D, Brown M, Eastwood N, Sutton G, et al. Barriers to management of opioid withdrawal in hospitals in England: a document analysis of hospital policies on the management of substance dependence. BMC Med. 2022 Apr 14;20(1):151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02351-y
    OpenUrl
  104. 104.↵
    Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, et al. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006 Feb 1;6(1):27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058867
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  105. 105.↵
    Bjerre-Nielsen A, Glavind KL. Ethnographic data in the age of big data: How to compare and combine. Big Data Soc. 2022 Jan 1;9(1):20539517211069892. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211069893
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted October 04, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Social and structural determinants of injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis
Thomas D. Brothers, Matthew Bonn, Dan Lewer, Emilie Comeau, Inhwa Kim, Duncan Webster, Andrew Hayward, Magdalena Harris
medRxiv 2022.10.02.22280620; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.02.22280620
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area