• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
A qualitative analysis of rural syringe service program fidelity in Appalachian Kentucky: Staff and participant perspectives.阿巴拉契亚肯塔基州农村注射器服务项目忠诚度的定性分析:工作人员和参与者的观点。
J Rural Health. 2023 Mar;39(2):328-337. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12715. Epub 2022 Sep 18.
2
Factors that influence enrollment in syringe services programs in rural areas: a qualitative study among program clients in Appalachian Kentucky.影响农村地区注射器服务项目参与的因素:阿巴拉契亚肯塔基州项目参与者的定性研究。
Harm Reduct J. 2021 Jun 30;18(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s12954-021-00518-z.
3
Capacity for sustainment of recently established syringe service programs in Appalachian Kentucky: The central role of staff champions.阿巴拉契亚肯塔基州新建立的注射器服务项目的持续能力:员工拥护者的核心作用。
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022 May;41(4):863-872. doi: 10.1111/dar.13436. Epub 2022 Feb 3.
4
Law enforcement and syringe services program implementation in rural counties in Kentucky: a qualitative exploration.肯塔基州农村县的执法和注射器服务项目实施情况:一项定性探索。
Harm Reduct J. 2022 Sep 30;19(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s12954-022-00684-8.
5
Motivation to Change and Treatment Participation Among Syringe Service Program Utilizers in Rural Kentucky.肯塔基州农村地区注射器服务项目使用者的改变动机与治疗参与情况
J Rural Health. 2020 Mar;36(2):224-233. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12388. Epub 2019 Aug 15.
6
Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on syringe services programs in rural Kentucky.探讨 COVID-19 大流行对肯塔基州农村地区的注射器服务项目的影响。
Harm Reduct J. 2022 May 19;19(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12954-022-00631-7.
7
Factors associated with perceived ease of access to syringes in Appalachian North Carolina.与阿巴拉契亚北卡罗来纳州感知到的注射器可及性相关的因素。
J Rural Health. 2023 Jan;39(1):212-222. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12698. Epub 2022 Jul 12.
8
Understanding the public health consequences of suspending a rural syringe services program: a qualitative study of the experiences of people who inject drugs.了解暂停农村注射器服务项目对公共卫生的影响:对注射毒品者的经验进行的定性研究。
Harm Reduct J. 2019 May 21;16(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12954-019-0305-7.
9
Syringe Service Program Utilization, Barriers, and Preferences for Design in Rural Appalachia: Differences between Men and Women Who Inject Drugs.农村阿巴拉契亚地区注射吸毒者的 syringe service program 使用情况、障碍和设计偏好:男性和女性之间的差异。
Subst Use Misuse. 2020;55(14):2268-2277. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2020.1800741. Epub 2020 Aug 4.
10
Were Needles Everywhere?: Differing Views on Syringe Waste and Disposal Associated With Needs-Based Syringe Services Programs Among Community Partners and Persons Who Inject Drugs.遍地都是针头?:基于需求的注射器服务项目中,社区合作伙伴和注射毒品者对注射器废物和处理相关的不同看法。
Subst Use Misuse. 2024;59(8):1174-1181. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2024.2330895. Epub 2024 Mar 20.

引用本文的文献

1
Racialized environments and syringe services program implementation: County-level factors.种族化环境与注射器具提供计划实施:县级因素。
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2024 Oct 1;263:112430. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112430. Epub 2024 Aug 28.
2
"I'm not going to lay back and watch somebody die": a qualitative study of how people who use drugs' naloxone experiences are shaped by rural risk environment and overdose education/naloxone distribution intervention.“我不会袖手旁观,任由某人死去”:一项定性研究,探讨吸毒者的纳洛酮使用经验如何受到农村风险环境和过量用药教育/纳洛酮分发干预的影响。
Harm Reduct J. 2023 Nov 10;20(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s12954-023-00900-z.
3
Houselessness and syringe service program utilization among people who inject drugs in eight rural areas across the USA: a cross-sectional analysis.美国八个农村地区的注射吸毒者中的无家可归和注射器服务项目利用情况:一项横断面分析。
Harm Reduct J. 2023 Oct 26;20(1):157. doi: 10.1186/s12954-023-00892-w.

本文引用的文献

1
Healthcare stigma and HIV risk among rural people who inject drugs.农村注射吸毒者中的医疗污名与艾滋病毒风险
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021 Sep 1;226:108878. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108878. Epub 2021 Jun 25.
2
Factors that influence enrollment in syringe services programs in rural areas: a qualitative study among program clients in Appalachian Kentucky.影响农村地区注射器服务项目参与的因素:阿巴拉契亚肯塔基州项目参与者的定性研究。
Harm Reduct J. 2021 Jun 30;18(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s12954-021-00518-z.
3
Understanding rural risk environments for drug-related harms: Progress, challenges, and steps forward.了解农村地区与毒品相关危害的风险环境:进展、挑战与未来方向。
Int J Drug Policy. 2020 Nov;85:102926. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102926. Epub 2020 Sep 8.
4
Syringe Service Program Utilization, Barriers, and Preferences for Design in Rural Appalachia: Differences between Men and Women Who Inject Drugs.农村阿巴拉契亚地区注射吸毒者的 syringe service program 使用情况、障碍和设计偏好:男性和女性之间的差异。
Subst Use Misuse. 2020;55(14):2268-2277. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2020.1800741. Epub 2020 Aug 4.
5
Syringe Service Program Use Among People Who Inject Drugs in Appalachian Kentucky.肯塔基州阿巴拉契亚地区注射吸毒者对注射器服务项目的使用情况
Am J Public Health. 2020 Jan;110(1):34-36. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305333.
6
What is a rural opioid risk and policy environment?什么是农村阿片类药物风险与政策环境?
Int J Drug Policy. 2020 Nov;85:102606. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.11.014. Epub 2019 Nov 30.
7
People, places, and stigma: A qualitative study exploring the overdose risk environment in rural Kentucky.人、地点与污名:一项探索肯塔基州农村地区药物过量风险环境的定性研究
Int J Drug Policy. 2020 Nov;85:102588. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.11.001. Epub 2019 Nov 18.
8
Police officer attitudes towards syringe services programming.警察对注射器服务项目的态度。
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Dec 1;205:107617. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107617. Epub 2019 Nov 3.
9
Community Perceptions of Comprehensive Harm Reduction Programs and Stigma Towards People Who Inject Drugs in Rural Virginia.弗吉尼亚农村地区社区对综合减害项目的认知及对注射吸毒者的污名化
J Community Health. 2020 Apr;45(2):239-244. doi: 10.1007/s10900-019-00732-8.
10
Motivation to Change and Treatment Participation Among Syringe Service Program Utilizers in Rural Kentucky.肯塔基州农村地区注射器服务项目使用者的改变动机与治疗参与情况
J Rural Health. 2020 Mar;36(2):224-233. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12388. Epub 2019 Aug 15.

阿巴拉契亚肯塔基州农村注射器服务项目忠诚度的定性分析:工作人员和参与者的观点。

A qualitative analysis of rural syringe service program fidelity in Appalachian Kentucky: Staff and participant perspectives.

机构信息

Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.

Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

出版信息

J Rural Health. 2023 Mar;39(2):328-337. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12715. Epub 2022 Sep 18.

DOI:10.1111/jrh.12715
PMID:36117151
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10484119/
Abstract

PURPOSE

As drug-related epidemics have expanded from cities to rural areas, syringe service programs (SSPs) and other harm reduction programs have been slow to follow. The recent implementation of SSPs in rural areas demands attention to program fidelity based on core components of SSP success.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews conducted with clients and staff at 5 SSPs in 5 counties within 2 Central Appalachian health districts. Interviews covered fidelity of SSP implementation to 6 core components: (1) meet needs for harm reduction supplies; (2) education and counseling for sexual, injection, and overdose risks; (3) cooperation between SSPs and local law enforcement; (4) provide other health and social services; (5) ensure low threshold access to services; and (6) promote dignity, the impact of poor fidelity on vulnerability to drug-related harms, and the risk environment's influence on program fidelity. We applied thematic methods to analyze the data.

FINDINGS

Rural SSPs were mostly faithful to the 6 core components. Deviations from core components can be attributed to certain characteristics of the local rural risk environment outlined in the risk environment model, including geographic remoteness, lack of resources and underdeveloped infrastructure, and stigma against people who inject drugs (PWID) CONCLUSIONS: As drug-related epidemics continue to expand outside cities, scaling up SSPs to serve rural PWID is essential. Future research should explore whether the risk environment features identified also influence SSP fidelity in other rural areas and develop and test strategies to strengthen core components in these vulnerable areas.

摘要

目的

随着与毒品相关的疫情从城市蔓延到农村地区,注射器服务项目(SSP)和其他减少伤害的项目一直进展缓慢。最近在农村地区实施 SSP 需要关注基于 SSP 成功的核心要素的项目保真度。

方法

在 2 个阿巴拉契亚中部卫生区的 5 个县的 5 个 SSP 中,对客户和工作人员进行了半结构化访谈。访谈涵盖了 SSP 实施对 6 个核心要素的保真度:(1)满足减少伤害用品的需求;(2)对性、注射和过量风险进行教育和咨询;(3)SSP 与当地执法部门之间的合作;(4)提供其他健康和社会服务;(5)确保低门槛获得服务;(6)促进尊严、较差的保真度对与毒品相关的伤害的脆弱性的影响,以及风险环境对项目保真度的影响。我们应用主题方法对数据进行了分析。

结果

农村 SSP 对 6 个核心要素的保真度大多很高。偏离核心要素可以归因于风险环境模型中概述的当地农村风险环境的某些特征,包括地理位置偏远、资源匮乏和基础设施欠发达,以及对注射毒品者(PWID)的污名化。

结论

随着与毒品相关的疫情继续在城市之外蔓延,扩大 SSP 以服务农村地区的 PWID 至关重要。未来的研究应探讨在其他农村地区,确定的风险环境特征是否也会影响 SSP 的保真度,并制定和测试在这些脆弱地区加强核心要素的策略。