RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Financial barriers, facilitators, and strategies among syringe services programs in the U.S., and their impact on implementation and health outcomes
Akiba, C. F., Smith, J., Wenger, L. D., Morris, T., Patel, S. V., Bluthenthal, R. N., Tookes, H. E., Lakosky, P., Kral, A. H., & Lambdin, B. H. (2024). Financial barriers, facilitators, and strategies among syringe services programs in the U.S., and their impact on implementation and health outcomes. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, 5, Article 100421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2024.100421
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.