Main Article Content
Background & Objective: Canada is in the midst of an opioid crisis. Given the sheer magnitude of the crisis and escalating death toll, the mobilization of harm reduction interventions is an important priority. Currently, little is known about the role played by stigmatization, particularly in terms of how this may impact the endorsement and uptake of harm reduction strategies and initiatives among front-line providers.
Materials & Methods: Opening Minds, the anti-stigma initiative of the Mental Health Commission of Canada, undertook a one-and-a-half-year research project to understand the qualities, characteristics, sources, consequences, and solutions to the problem of stigmatization on the front-lines of the opioid crisis. A qualitative key informant design was selected. Participants included various first responder and health provider groups, people with lived experience of opioid or other drug use, and people in key policy or programming roles. Eight focus groups were held across Canada, and 15 one-on-one key informant interviews were completed.
Results: Analysis of focus group and key informant interviews revealed three main ways in which stigma shows up on the front lines of the opioid crisis among providers. These themes coalesced around a central main problem, that of low compassion satisfaction. Suggestions for how these concerns can be addressed were also identified.
Conclusion: The findings from this research revealed several key ways that stigma ‘shows up’ in the experiences and perceptions of front-line providers and provide several promising avenues for combatting stigmatization related to opioid use and harm reduction. An important avenue for future research is to develop and elaborate on the theoretical connections between the concepts of stigmatization and compassion satisfaction as a way to better understanding the problem of stigmatization in helping environments.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright of articles published in all DPG titles is retained by the author(s). The author(s) grants DPG the rights to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. The author grants DPG exclusive commercial rights to the article. The author grants any party the rights to use the article freely for non-commercial purposes provided that the original work is properly cited under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
2. Canadian Institute for Health Information [ONLINE]. Opioid-related Harms in Canada. Ottawa: Author: 2018. https://www.cihi.ca/en/opioids-in-canada/2018/opioid-related-harms-in-canada. Retrieved May 22, 2019.
3. MacPherson D. A Framework for Action: A Four-Pillar Approach to Drug Problems in Vancouver. Vancouver: City of Vancouver: 2001.
4. Cohen J, Csete J. As strong as the weakest pillar: Harm reduction, law enforcement and human rights, International Journal of Drug Policy 2006; 7:101-103.
5. Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction [ONLINE]. Joint Statement of Action to Address the Opioid Crisis: ANNUAL REPORT 2016-2017. Ottawa: Author: 2017. http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Joint-Statement-of-Action-Opioid-Crisis-Annual-Report-2017-en.pdf. Retrieved February 25, 2019.
6. B.C. Centre for Disease Control, BC Population and Public Health Observatory [ONLINE]. The BC Public Health Opioid Overdose Emergency: March 2017 Update. Vancouver: Author: 2017. http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Educational%20Materials/Epid/Other/Public%20Surveillance%20Report_2017_03_17.pdf. Retrieved February 25, 2019.
7. Logan DE, Marlatt GA. Harm reduction therapy: A practice-friendly review of research. J Clin Psychol 2010;66:201-14.
8. Canadian Nurses Association. Harm Reduction and Currently Illegal Drugs Implications for Nursing Policy, Practice, Education and Research: Discussion Paper. Ottawa: Author: 2011.
9. Marlatt GA, Witkiewitz K. Update on harm-reduction policy and intervention research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2010;6:591-606.
10. Ritter A, Cameron J. A review of the efficacy and effectiveness of harm reduction strategies for alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs. Drug and Alcohol Review 2006;25:485-657.
11. Sumnall HR, Bates G, Jones L. Evidence review summary: drug demand reduction, treatment and harm reduction. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction: 2017.
12. Rees DI, Sabia JJ, Argys LM, Latshaw J, Dave D. With a Little Help from My Friends: The Effects of Naloxone Access and Good Samaritan Laws on Opioid-Related Deaths: Working Paper 23171 1050. Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research: 2017.
13. Wakeman SE. Using science to battle stigma in addressing the opioid epidemic: opioid agonist therapy saves lives. Am J Med 2016;129:455-456.
14. Marshall B, Milloy M, Wood E, Montaner J, Kerr T. Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: A retrospective population-based study. Lancet 2011;377:1429-1437.
15. Walley A, Xuan Z, Hackman H, et al. Opioid overdose rates and implementation of overdose education and nasal naloxone distribution in Massachusetts: Interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 2013;346:f174.
16. Torrens M, Fonseca F, Castillo C, Domingo Salvany A. Opioid substitution treatment in Spain: 20 years of experience in harm reduction programs. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2015;156:e223.
17. Government of Canada [ONLINE]. Harm Reduction: Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy: 2018. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/canadian-drugs-substances-strategy/harm-reduction.html#a2. Retrieved February 28, 2019.
18. Stuart H. Managing the stigma of opioid use. Healthc Manage Forum 2019;32:78-83.
19. Link BG, Phelan JC. Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology 2001;27:363-385.
20. Marshall MN. The key informant technique. Family Practice 1996;13:92-97.
21. Breitmayer B, Ayres L, Knafl KA. Triangulation in qualitative research: Evaluation of completeness and confirmation purposes. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 1993;25:237–243.
22. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006;3:77-101.
23. MAXQDA – The Art of Data Analysis, Version 2018-2. VERBI GmbH.
24. Sacco TL, Carman Copel L. Compassion satisfaction: A concept analysis in nursing. Nurs Forum 2018;53:76–83.
25. Huggard P, Stamm BH, Pearlman LA. Physician stress: Compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue and vicarious traumatization. In C. Figley, P. Huggard, & CE Rees (Eds.), First Do No Self-Harm: Understanding and Promoting Physician Stress Resilience (pp. 127-145). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press, 2013.
26. Dasan S, Gohil P, Cornelius V, Taylor C. Prevalence, causes and consequences of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue in emergency care: a mixed-methods study of UK NHS Consultants. Emerg Med J 2015;32:588–594. doi:10.1136/emermed-2014-203671.
27. Knaak S, Christie R, Mercer S, Stuart H. Stigma and the Opioid Crisis: Final Report. Ottawa: Mental Health Commission of Canada: 2019.
28. Szeto A, Dobson K, Knaak S. The Road to Mental Readiness for First Responders: A meta-analysis of program outcomes. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 2019;Apr 22. doi: 10.1177/0706743719842562. [Epub ahead of print].
29. Knaak S, Mantler E, Szeto AS. Mental illness-related stigma in health care: Barriers to access and care and evidence-based solutions. Healthc Manage Forum 2017; 30: 111-116.
30. Knaak S, Modgill G, Patten S. Key ingredients of anti-stigma programs for health care providers: A data synthesis of evaluative studies, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 2014;59: S19-S28.
31. Knaak S, Patten S. A grounded theory model for reducing stigma in health professionals in Canada, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2016; 34:53-62.
32. Thornicroft G: Shunned: Discrimination against People with Mental Illness. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.