9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Drug checking services for people who use drugs: a systematic review

      review-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

          Background and Aims

          Drug checking services provide people who use drugs with chemical analysis results of their drug samples while simultaneously monitoring the unregulated drug market. We sought to identify and synthesize literature on the following domains: (a) the influence of drug checking services on the behaviour of people who use drugs; (b) monitoring of drug markets by drug checking services; and (c) outcomes related to models of drug checking services.

          Methods

          Systematic review. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Dissertations and Theses Global. Eligible studies were peer‐reviewed articles and conference abstracts or grey literature, published in any language since 1990 and including original data on the domains. We assessed risk of bias for quantitative peer‐reviewed articles reporting on behaviour or models of drug checking services using National Institutes of Health tools.

          Results

          We screened 2463 titles and abstracts and 156 full texts, with 90 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Most ( n = 65, 72.2%) were from Europe and used cross‐sectional designs ( n = 79, 87.7%). Monitoring of drug markets by drug checking services ( n = 63, 70%) was the most reported domain, followed by the influence of drug checking services on behaviour ( n = 31, 34.4%), including intent to use, actual use and disposal of the drug, and outcomes related to models of drug checking services ( n = 17, 18.9%). The most common outcome measures were detection of unexpected substances ( n = 50, 55.6%), expected substances ( n = 44, 48.9%), new psychoactive substances ( n = 40, 44.4%) and drugs of concern ( n = 32, 36.5%) by drug checking services.

          Conclusions

          Drug checking services appear to influence behavioural intentions and the behaviour of people who use drugs, particularly when results from drug checking services are unexpected or drugs of concern. Monitoring of drug markets by drug checking services is well established in Europe, and increasingly in North America. Concerns about drug contents and negative health consequences facilitate the use of drug checking services; lack of concern; trust in drug sellers; lack of accessibility of drug checking services; and legal and privacy concerns are barriers to use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references134

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

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.

            To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

              Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient - reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                dwerb@health.ucsd.edu
                Journal
                Addiction
                Addiction
                10.1111/(ISSN)1360-0443
                ADD
                Addiction (Abingdon, England)
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0965-2140
                1360-0443
                12 December 2021
                March 2022
                : 117
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1111/add.v117.3 )
                : 532-544
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Centre on Drug Policy Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute St Michael's Hospital Toronto ON Canada
                [ 2 ] Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation University of Toronto Toronto ON Canada
                [ 3 ] Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy University of Toronto Toronto ON Canada
                [ 4 ] Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy University of Toronto Toronto ON Canada
                [ 5 ] Library Services, Unity Health Toronto Toronto ON Canada
                [ 6 ] Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health, School of Medicine University of California San Diego La Jolla CA USA
                [ 7 ] Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Dornsife School of Public Health Drexel University Philadelphia PA USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Dan Werb, Centre on Drug Policy Evaluation, St Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5B 1X1.

                Email: dwerb@ 123456health.ucsd.edu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4970-6763
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0614-9386
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8498-9829
                Article
                ADD15734
                10.1111/add.15734
                9299873
                34729849
                d2209120-110a-4c27-a603-39486eb72e8c
                © 2021 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 22 April 2021
                : 14 October 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 13, Words: 10579
                Funding
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research , doi 10.13039/501100000024;
                Funded by: Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse
                Funded by: Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science , doi 10.13039/501100003400;
                Funded by: St Michael's Hospital Foundation , doi 10.13039/100015150;
                Categories
                Review
                Reviews
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                March 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:20.07.2022

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                drug checking,drug safety testing,drug testing,harm reduction,pill testing,street drug analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article