0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Financial barriers, facilitators, and strategies among syringe services programs in the U.S., and their impact on implementation and health outcomes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Syringe Services Programs (SSPs) provide evidence-based services like drug use equipment to prevent infectious disease, overdose prevention education, and naloxone distribution to people who use drugs (PWUD). However, inadequate funding threatens provision of these interventions. This study aimed to document how the current funding landscape impacted determinants of SSP implementation, particularly describing financial and staffing barriers, facilitators, and proposed strategies, using qualitative methods informed by three implementation research frameworks. We interviewed 20 leaders of SSPs in the United States using a semi-structured interview guide. Participants described how structural stigma against PWUD led to insufficient and restrictive funding, and burdensome reporting for SSPs. This resulted in harming program implementation outcomes like reach, fidelity, and sustainability. Inadequate funding also led to insufficient staffing and subsequent staff stress, burnout, and turnover. Taken together, these barriers threatened the implementation of evidence-based interventions that SSPs provided, ultimately harming their ability to effectively address health outcomes like infectious disease transmission and opioid overdose mortality within their communities. Interviewees described how upstream policy strategies like political advocacy might address structural stigma at the federal level. Participants also highlighted state-level efforts like harm reduction–centered funding, technical assistance and capacity-building, and clearinghouse programs that may facilitate better implementation and health outcomes. A more robust understanding of the relationship between financial barriers, facilitators, and strategies on implementation and health outcomes represents a novel and vital area of research within harm reduction literature.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

            Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

              An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                9918300877606676
                51148
                SSM Qual Res Health
                SSM Qual Res Health
                SSM. Qualitative research in health
                2667-3215
                23 June 2024
                June 2024
                20 March 2024
                02 July 2024
                : 5
                : 100421
                Affiliations
                [a ]RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States
                [b ]Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
                [c ]Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, United States
                [d ]Dave Purchase Project, North American Syringe Exchange Network, Tacoma, WA, United States
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. akiba@ 123456rti.org (C.F. Akiba)
                Article
                NIHMS2002615
                10.1016/j.ssmqr.2024.100421
                11218888
                38957482
                4c17ac33-be37-4512-81fe-01ee4fa7df99

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                harm reduction,syringe services programs,implementation research

                Comments

                Comment on this article