↓ Skip to main content

Harm reduction in name, but not substance: a comparative analysis of current Canadian provincial and territorial policy frameworks

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
44 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Harm reduction in name, but not substance: a comparative analysis of current Canadian provincial and territorial policy frameworks
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12954-017-0177-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elaine Hyshka, Jalene Anderson-Baron, Kamagaju Karekezi, Lynne Belle-Isle, Richard Elliott, Bernie Pauly, Carol Strike, Mark Asbridge, Colleen Dell, Keely McBride, Andrew Hathaway, T. Cameron Wild

Abstract

In Canada, funding, administration, and delivery of health services-including those targeting people who use drugs-are primarily the responsibility of the provinces and territories. Access to harm reduction services varies across jurisdictions, possibly reflecting differences in provincial and territorial policy commitments. We examined the quality of current provincial and territorial harm reduction policies in Canada, relative to how well official documents reflect internationally recognized principles and attributes of a harm reduction approach. We employed an iterative search and screening process to generate a corpus of 54 provincial and territorial harm reduction policy documents that were current to the end of 2015. Documents were content-analyzed using a deductive coding framework comprised of 17 indicators that assessed the quality of policies relative to how well they described key population and program aspects of a harm reduction approach. Only two jurisdictions had current provincial-level, stand-alone harm reduction policies; all other documents were focused on either substance use, addiction and/or mental health, or sexually transmitted and/or blood-borne infections. Policies rarely named specific harm reduction interventions and more frequently referred to generic harm reduction programs or services. Only one document met all 17 indicators. Very few documents acknowledged that stigma and discrimination are issues faced by people who use drugs, that not all substance use is problematic, or that people who use drugs are legitimate participants in policymaking. A minority of documents recognized that abstaining from substance use is not required to receive services. Just over a quarter addressed the risk of drug overdose, and even fewer acknowledged the need to apply harm reduction approaches to an array of drugs and modes of use. Current provincial and territorial policies offer few robust characterizations of harm reduction or go beyond rhetorical or generic support for the approach. By endorsing harm reduction in name, but not in substance, provincial and territorial policies may communicate to diverse stakeholders a general lack of support for key aspects of the approach, potentially challenging efforts to expand harm reduction services.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 167 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 34%
Student > Bachelor 34 20%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 3%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 37 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 39 23%
Social Sciences 27 16%
Psychology 18 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 44 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2020.
All research outputs
#486,503
of 19,315,352 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#70
of 763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,021
of 282,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,315,352 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them