↓ 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 (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
48 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 213 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 30%
Student > Bachelor 44 21%
Researcher 17 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 2%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 60 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 43 20%
Social Sciences 32 15%
Psychology 21 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 7%
Arts and Humanities 6 3%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 69 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 15 December 2023.
All research outputs
#598,222
of 25,119,447 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#109
of 1,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,632
of 322,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,119,447 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 1,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.2. 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 322,451 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.