These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: A survey of North American drug checking services operating in 2022.
    Author: Park JN, Tardif J, Thompson E, Rosen JG, Lira JAS, Green TC.
    Journal: Int J Drug Policy; 2023 Nov; 121():104206. PubMed ID: 37797571.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Drug overdose deaths have reached record-breaking levels in North America. Drug checking services (DCS) provide localized information on the contents of drugs to individuals and communities. Depending on the design, individuals can submit drug samples for onsite "real-time" testing or offsite testing. The results can shed light on emerging drugs in the community and support ongoing prevention and surveillance efforts. We sought to describe and report aggregate outcomes of DCS operating in North America. METHODS: The North American Drug Checking Survey was launched in 2022 to characterize and monitor DCS operating in the region. Sixteen organizations from the US (n = 9), Canada (n = 5), and Mexico (n = 2) responded to the survey. Each organization reported on their program's operations and provided service delivery outcomes (site- or program-level) in the aggregate. RESULTS: Participating organizations reported testing a total of 49,786 drug samples between 2014 and 2022. DCS were run by community-led organizations (44%), health departments (25%), universities (19%), or clinical/private laboratories (19%). The types of samples tested differed between programs (e.g., solids vs. liquids, drug paraphernalia accepted). While most organizations tested onsite using fentanyl test strips (88%) and Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy (63%), many sent samples offsite for confirmatory testing (63%), most often with mass spectrometry. Common facilitators of operating a DCS included: interest of clients (69%), interest of service providers (63%), and receiving external technical assistance (63%). Barriers included: the lack of funding (81%) or staff (50%), gaps in technical expertise (38%), as well as laws banning the possession and/or distribution of illicit drug samples, drug paraphernalia, or drug checking equipment (38%). CONCLUSION: DCS are scaling up in North America. Given the evolving and localized nature of illicit drug supplies, supporting the establishment and operations of DCS could enhance the public's understanding of local drug supplies to reduce drug-related harms over time.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]