Hoopsick Rachel A, Campbell Benjamin M, Yockey R Andrew
Department of Health and Kinesiology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 1206 S. Fourth St., 2017 Khan Annex, Huff Hall, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA.
Department of Public Health, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, 38677, USA.
Harm Reduct J. 2025 Jul 28;22(1):130. doi: 10.1186/s12954-025-01288-8.
Contactless harm reduction supply methods (e.g., vending machines, mail order, mobile delivery) have become prevalent in the United States. However, this approach has faced some criticisms, including the notion that, unlike staffed syringe services programs, contactless methods do not provide face-to-face support, education, or referrals to treatment, potentially limiting their overall impact.
We collected self-reported data from a sample of people who inject drugs who accessed a syringe services program (N = 50), including their demographics, harm reduction self-efficacy (i.e., confidence to employ specific health-preserving coping skills in high-risk drug using situations), and motivations for contactless harm reduction supply access via vending machine. We explored differences in the participants' demographics and harm reduction self-efficacy by usual method of harm reduction supply access (in-person vs. vending machine).
Participants accessed the harm reduction supply vending machine primarily out of convenience (66%) and limited syringe services program hours (56%). Fear of being seen by someone they knew (28%), law enforcement (34%), and social services (22%) were also motivators. Overall, harm reduction self-efficacy was highest for safer injection practices but lowest for reducing drug use. We did not find any significant differences in participants' demographics or harm reduction self-efficacy by access method.
People who access harm reduction supplies in person and through contactless methods may not meaningfully differ in terms of their demographics and harm reduction self-efficacy, and contactless harm reduction supply methods are more convenient than in-person services. Findings support continued reductions to barriers of harm reduction services.
非接触式减少伤害供应方式(如自动售货机、邮购、移动配送)在美国已变得普遍。然而,这种方法面临一些批评,包括与配备工作人员的注射器服务项目不同,非接触式方法不提供面对面的支持、教育或转介治疗,这可能会限制其总体影响。
我们从使用注射器服务项目的注射吸毒者样本(N = 50)中收集了自我报告的数据,包括他们的人口统计学信息、减少伤害自我效能感(即在高风险吸毒情况下运用特定健康保护应对技能的信心)以及通过自动售货机获取非接触式减少伤害供应的动机。我们通过减少伤害供应获取的常规方法(亲自获取与通过自动售货机获取)来探讨参与者人口统计学和减少伤害自我效能感的差异。
参与者主要出于方便(66%)和注射器服务项目营业时间有限(56%)而使用减少伤害供应自动售货机。害怕被认识的人(28%)、执法人员(34%)和社会服务人员(22%)看到也是动机之一。总体而言,减少伤害自我效能感在更安全的注射做法方面最高,但在减少吸毒方面最低。我们未发现按获取方式划分的参与者人口统计学或减少伤害自我效能感有任何显著差异。
亲自获取和通过非接触式方法获取减少伤害用品的人在人口统计学和减少伤害自我效能感方面可能没有显著差异,并且非接触式减少伤害供应方法比亲自服务更方便。研究结果支持继续减少减少伤害服务的障碍。