Skip to main content
Harm Reduction Journal logoLink to Harm Reduction Journal
. 2023 Jan 19;20:7. doi: 10.1186/s12954-023-00733-w

Attitudes towards people who use substances: a survey of mental health clinicians from an urban hospital in British Columbia

Angela Russolillo 1,2,3,, Meijiao Guan 2, Elizabeth J Dogherty 4, Maja Kolar 1, Jennifer Du 4, Elísabet Brynjarsdóttir 3, Michelle Carter 1
PMCID: PMC9850574  PMID: 36658585

Abstract

Stigma and other barriers limit harm reduction practice integration by clinicians within acute psychiatric settings. The objective of our study was to explore mental health clinician attitudes towards substance use and associations with clinical experience and education level. The Brief Substance Abuse Attitudes Survey was completed among a convenience sample of mental health clinicians in Vancouver, British Columbia. Five predefined attitude subgroups were evaluated. Respondents’ attitudes towards substance use were associated with level of education on questions from two (non-stereotyping [p = 0.012] and treatment optimism [p = 0.008]) subscales. In pairwise comparisons, postgraduate education was associated with more positive attitudes towards relapse risk (p = 0.004) when compared to diploma-educated respondents. No significant associations were observed between years of clinical experience and participant responses. Our findings highlight important aspects of clinician attitudes that could improve harm reduction education and integration into clinical practice.

Introduction

North America is currently in the midst of an unprecedented opioid epidemic. The number of opioid-related deaths is rising steadily across Canada, with the highest mortality rate occurring in British Columbia [1]. Many individuals with opioid use present with several comorbidities including co-occurring mental illness and polysubstance use [2]. These factors contribute to several cross-cutting health and social challenges, often limiting treatment initiation and increasing opioid-related harms [3]

Individuals with both psychiatric and substance use issues are at increased risk for drug-related death [4], especially following periods of abstinence and reduced tolerance, such as hospitalization [5]. Harm reduction interventions, such as take-home naloxone and supervised consumption sites, are important elements of care and are associated with a reduced risk of overdose death [6]. Despite a robust body of evidence supporting the public health benefit of harm reduction interventions [7], stigma and related barriers (e.g. discrimination, lack of knowledge) can limit their availability across the health system [8]. Existing research consistently reveals that health care professionals hold negative beliefs about people with substance use disorders [9], and these attitudes may worsen over time for dually diagnosed patients [10]. Unfortunately, these stigmatized perceptions, such as abuse of health system resources or failure to adhere to recommended care and treatment [11, 12], often contribute to inequitable and poor provision of care including reduced access to harm reduction resources [13]. For example, in acute psychiatric settings addiction-related stigma among clinicians has been associated with poor harm reduction integration [14, 15]. The acceptability of harm reduction approaches among clinicians is an important determinant of increased implementation of essential, evidence-based services to combat the ongoing opioid epidemic.

Given the disconnect between the scientific evidence for and the resistance to harm reduction among health care providers, it is critical to examine how clinician attitudes towards substance use influence the harm reduction best practices in psychiatric settings. The objective of our study was to explore mental health clinician attitudes towards substance use and associations with clinical experience and education level.

Methods

We conducted an online cross-sectional survey among a convenience sample (n = 71) of mental health clinicians (nurses, physicians and allied health) between May and June 2022 at a tertiary care hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia. Participants were recruited via email based on internal distribution lists and informed consent was obtained electronically. Eligible participants were employed fulltime, parttime or casual within the hospital and had at least one year of experience in an acute psychiatric setting. The survey included socio-demographic questions (gender, education, clinical experience) and the 25-item Brief Substance Abuse Attitudes Survey (BSAAS). The BSAAS [16] was derived from a 50-item instrument, the Substance Abuse Attitudes Survey, using a Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to examine attitudes towards various aspects of drug and alcohol use and five predefined attitude subgroups were evaluated: permissiveness, non-stereotypes, treatment intervention, treatment optimism and non-moralism [17]. Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact tests were used to examine the association between attitudes towards substance use and years of clinical experience and education level. Hochberg procedure [18] was applied to adjust p values for multiple comparisons. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4. Ethics approval was obtained from the Providence Health Care/University of British Columbia Review Board.

Results

Among the 71 respondents who completed the survey, the majority identified as female (85%), were employed as nurses (48%), with bachelor’s (44%) or master’s (23%) level education and fewer than ten years of experience in their primary clinical role (71%) (Table 1). Over half (60%) of respondents reported a high level of daily contact (> 71% of workload) with individuals who use substances, but low levels of comfort in providing care and treatment (Table 1).

Table 1.

Socio-demographic characterisitcs of respondents

Gender N(%)
 Female 60 (85)
 Male 9 (13)
 Non-binary 1 (1)
 Prefer not to answer 1 (1)
Highest level of education
 Diploma 15 (21)
 Bachelor’s degree 31 (44)
 Master’s degree 16 (23)
 Doctorate degree 3 (4)
 Prefer not to answer 4 (6)
Primary clinical role
 Physician 2 (3)
 Nurse, Registered Psychiatric Nurse 29 (41)
 Nurse, Registered Nurse 6 (8)
 Allied Health (e.g., social worker, psychologist) 19 (27)
 Other (e.g. manager, dietician, care aide) 15 (21)
Years of clinical experience in primary clinical role
 1–5 31 (44)
 6–10 19 (27)
 11–15 5 (7)
 16–20 8 (11)
 21–25 4 (6)
 26–30 2 (3)
 31+ 2 (3)
Primary work setting
 Inpatient unit 46 (65)
 Emergency department 4 (6)
 Outpatient clinic 13 (18)
 Other 8 (11)
Proportion (%) of daily clinical patient volume/workload includes individuals with substance use or dependence
 0–10 6 (8)
 11–20 4 (6)
 21–30 4 (6)
 31–40 3 (4)
 41–50 4 (6)
 51–60 3 (4)
 61–70 5 (7)
 71–80 16 (23)
 81–90 13 (18)
 91–100 13 (18)
Comfortability providing care and treatment for individuals with substance use disorders
 Extremely comfortable 18 (25)
 Somewhat comfortable 23 (32)
 Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 15 (21)
 Somewhat uncomfortable 12 (17)
 Extremely uncomfortable 3 (4)

Respondents’ attitudes and views towards substance use were associated with level of education on questions from two subgroups, non-stereotyping (p = 0.012) and treatment optimism (p = 0.008) (Table 2). In pairwise comparisons within the treatment optimism subgroup, postgraduate education was associated with more positive attitudes towards relapse risk (p = 0.004) when compared to diploma-educated respondents. In contrast, no pairwise effect was observed between education type with respect to propensity for hard drug use (p = 0.310) within the non-stereotyping subgroup. No significant associations were demonstrated between years of clinical experience and attitudes towards substance use (Table 2).

Table 2.

Attitudes towards substance use and associations with years of clinical experience and level of education (n = 71)

Variables All (N = 71) 1–5 y (N = 31) 6–10 y (N = 19)  > 10 y (N = 21) P value Adjusted p value Missing
Permissive category n (%)
 Q3.1.7 Daily use of marijuana is not necessarily harmful 0.496 0
  Strongly agree 8 (11.3) 4 (12.9) 3 (15.8) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat agree 27 (38.0) 13 (41.9) 8 (42.1) 6 (28.6)
  Undecided 8 (11.3) 2 (6.5) 2 (10.5) 4 (19)
  Somewhat disagree 20 (28.2) 10 (32.3) 5 (26.3) 5 (23.8)
  Strongly disagree 8 (11.3) 2 (6.5) 1 (5.3) 5 (23.8)
 Q3.2.4 Lifelong abstinence is a necessary goal in the treatment of substance use 0.549 0
  Strongly agree 7 (9.9) 2 (6.5) 1 (5.3) 4 (19)
  Somewhat agree 24 (33.8) 9 (29) 7 (36.8) 8 (38.1)
  Undecided 4 (5.6) 1 (3.2) 2 (10.5) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat disagree 17 (23.9) 7 (22.6) 5 (26.3) 5 (23.8)
  Strongly disagree 19 (26.8) 12 (38.7) 4 (21.1) 3 (14.3)
 Q3.2.5 Once a person becomes drug free through treatment, they can never become a social user 0.241 0
  Strongly agree 10 (14.1) 1 (3.2) 3 (15.8) 6 (28.6)
  Somewhat agree 8 (11.3) 4 (12.9) 3 (15.8) 1 (4.8)
  Undecided 16 (22.5) 8 (25.8) 4 (21.1) 4 (19)
  Somewhat disagree 26 (36.6) 11 (35.5) 6 (31.6) 9 (42.9)
  Strongly disagree 11 (15.5) 7 (22.6) 3 (15.8) 1 (4.8)
Non-stereotype category
 Q3.1.5 Smoking leads to marijuana use, which in turn leads to hard drugs 0.785 0
  Strongly agree 1 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.3) 0 (0.0)
  Somewhat agree 1 (1.4) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
  Undecided 1 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat disagree 12 (16.9) 6 (19.4) 3 (15.8) 3 (14.3)
  Strongly disagree 56 (78.9) 24 (77.4) 15 (78.9) 17 (81)
 Q3.2.8 A hospital is the best place to treat an individual with substance use issues 0.498 0
  Strongly agree 2 (2.8) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat agree 8 (11.3) 5 (16.1) 3 (15.8) 0 (0.0)
  Undecided 11 (15.5) 5 (16.1) 4 (21.1) 2 (9.5)
  Somewhat disagree 33 (46.5) 13 (41.9) 9 (47.4) 11 (52.4)
  Strongly disagree 17 (23.9) 7 (22.6) 3 (15.8) 7 (33.3)
Non-moralism category
 Q3.1.9 A physician who has been addicted to narcotics should not be allowed to practise medicine again 0.274 0
  Strongly agree 1 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat agree 2 (2.8) 0 (0.0) 2 (10.5) 0 (0.0)
  Undecided 12 (16.9) 6 (19.4) 3 (15.8) 3 (14.3)
  Somewhat disagree 25 (35.2) 14 (45.2) 6 (31.6) 5 (23.8)
  Strongly disagree 31 (43.7) 11 (35.5) 8 (42.1) 12 (57.1)
 Q3.1.1 Alcoholism is associated with a weak will 0.625 0
  Somewhat agree 4 (5.6) 3 (9.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat disagree 13 (18.3) 4 (12.9) 4 (21.1) 5 (23.8)
  Strongly disagree 54 (76.1) 24 (77.4) 15 (78.9) 15 (71.4)
 Q3.3.5 A nurse with a substance use disorder should not be allowed to give medications to patients 0.524 1
  Strongly agree 2 (2.9) 1 (3.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat agree 5 (7.1) 2 (6.7) 1 (5.3) 2 (9.5)
  Undecided 14 (20.0) 8 (26.7) 3 (15.8) 3 (14.3)
  Somewhat disagree 20 (28.6) 10 (33.3) 7 (36.8) 3 (14.3)
  Strongly disagree 29 (41.4) 9 (30.0) 8 (42.1) 12 (57.1)
Treatment intervention category
 Q3.1.6 Physicians who diagnose alcoholism early improve the chance of treatment success 0.357 0
  Strongly agree 13 (18.3) 3 (9.7) 3 (15.8) 7 (33.3)
  Somewhat agree 32 (45.1) 15 (48.4) 11 (57.9) 6 (28.6)
  Undecided 17 (23.9) 9 (29) 4 (21.1) 4 (19)
  Somewhat disagree 6 (8.5) 2 (6.5) 1 (5.3) 3 (14.3)
  Strongly disagree 3 (4.2) 2 (6.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
 Q3.2.7 Group therapy is very important in the treatment of substance use 0.912 0
  Strongly agree 32 (45.1) 13 (41.9) 9 (47.4) 10 (47.6)
  Somewhat agree 23 (32.4) 11 (35.5) 6 (31.6) 6 (28.6)
  Undecided 14 (19.7) 7 (22.6) 3 (15.8) 4 (19)
  Somewhat disagree 2 (2.8) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.3) 1 (4.8)
 Q3.1.8 Urine drug screening can be an important part of substance use treatment 0.701 0
  Strongly agree 15 (21.1) 6 (19.4) 3 (15.8) 6 (28.6)
  Somewhat agree 35 (49.3) 14 (45.2) 11 (57.9) 10 (47.6)
  Undecided 12 (16.9) 4 (12.9) 4 (21.1) 4 (19)
  Somewhat disagree 8 (11.3) 6 (19.4) 1 (5.3) 1 (4.8)
  Strongly disagree 1 (1.4) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Treatment optimism category
 Q3.2.6 Substance use is a treatable illness 0.436 0
  Strongly agree 45 (63.4) 17 (54.8) 12 (63.2) 16 (76.2)
  Somewhat agree 23 (32.4) 12 (38.7) 7 (36.8) 4 (19)
  Undecided 3 (4.2) 2 (6.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
 Q3.2.9 Alcoholism is a treatable illness 0.493 0
  Strongly agree 47 (66.2) 19 (61.3) 11 (57.9) 17 (81)
  Somewhat agree 21 (29.6) 10 (32.3) 7 (36.8) 4 (19)
  Undecided 1 (1.4) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
  Somewhat disagree 1 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.3) 0 (0.0)
  Strongly disagree 1 (1.4) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
 Q3.2.1 An individual who uses alcohol or drugs and has relapsed several times probably cannot be treated 0.86 0
  Undecided 2 (2.8) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat disagree 19 (26.8) 9 (29) 6 (31.6) 4 (19)
  Strongly disagree 50 (70.4) 21 (67.7) 13 (68.4) 16 (76.2)
 Q3.1.2 An individual who uses alcohol or drugs cannot be helped until they hit ‘rock bottom’ 0.675 0
  Strongly agree 1 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat agree 3 (4.2) 0 (0.0) 2 (10.5) 1 (4.8)
  Undecided 5 (7.0) 2 (6.5) 2 (10.5) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat disagree 17 (23.9) 8 (25.8) 4 (21.1) 5 (23.8)
  Strongly disagree 45 (63.4) 21 (67.7) 11 (57.9) 13 (61.9)
 Q3.3.1 Most individuals who use alcohol or drugs are unpleasant to work with as patients 0.541 1
  Somewhat agree 7 (10.0) 1 (3.3) 2 (10.5) 4 (19)
  Undecided 3 (4.3) 2 (6.7) 1 (5.3) 0 (0.0)
  Somewhat disagree 22 (31.4) 11 (36.7) 6 (31.6) 5 (23.8)
  Strongly disagree 38 (54.3) 16 (53.3) 10 (52.6) 12 (57.1)
Variables All (N = 67) Diploma (N = 15) Bachelor’s degree (N = 31) Postgraduate (Master’s, PhD, MD) ( N = 21) P value Adjusted p value Missing
Permissive category
 Q3.1.7 Daily use of marijuana is not necessarily harmful 0.248 0
  Strongly agree 6 (9.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (12.9) 2 (9.5)
  Somewhat agree 26 (38.8) 3 (20.0) 15 (48.4) 8 (38.1)
  Undecided 8 (11.9) 4 (26.7) 3 (9.7) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat disagree 19 (28.4) 6 (40.0) 7 (22.6) 6 (28.6)
  Strongly disagree 8 (11.9) 2 (13.3) 2 (6.5) 4 (19)
 Q3.2.4 Lifelong abstinence is a necessary goal in the treatment of substance use 0.071 0
  Strongly agree 6 (9.0) 3 (20.0) 1 (3.2) 2 (9.5)
  Somewhat agree 22 (32.8) 6 (40.0) 13 (41.9) 3 (14.3)
  Undecided 4 (6.0) 2 (13.3) 2 (6.5) 0 (0.0)
  Somewhat disagree 17 (25.4) 2 (13.3) 8 (25.8) 7 (33.3)
  Strongly disagree 18 (26.9) 2 (13.3) 7 (22.6) 9 (42.9)
 Q3.2.5 Once a person becomes drug free through treatment, they can never become a social user 0.094 0
  Strongly agree 10 (14.9) 3 (20.0) 4 (12.9) 3 (14.3)
  Somewhat agree 7 (10.4) 4 (26.7) 3 (9.7) 0 (0.0)
  Undecided 14 (20.9) 4 (26.7) 8 (25.8) 2 (9.5)
  Somewhat disagree 26 (38.8) 4 (26.7) 11 (35.5) 11 (52.4)
  Strongly disagree 10 (14.9) 0 (0.0) 5 (16.1) 5 (23.8)
Non-stereotype category
 Q3.1.5 Smoking leads to marijuana use, which in turn leads to hard drugs 0.012 0
  Strongly agree 1 (1.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0)
  Somewhat agree 1 (1.5) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
  Undecided 1 (1.5) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
  Somewhat disagree 12 (17.9) 1 (6.7) 10 (32.3) 1 (4.8)
  Strongly disagree 52 (77.6) 12 (80.0) 20 (64.5) 20 (95.2)
Pairwise comparison
 Postgraduate versus bachelor’s 0.072
 Diploma versus bachelor’s 0.094
 Postgraduate versus diploma 0.310
  Q3.2.8 A hospital is the best place to treat an individual with substance use issues 0.494 0
   Strongly agree 1 (1.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0)
   Somewhat agree 8 (11.9) 3 (20.0) 3 (9.7) 2 (9.5)
   Undecided 11 (16.4) 5 (33.3) 4 (12.9) 2 (9.5)
   Somewhat disagree 31 (46.3) 5 (33.3) 14 (45.2) 12 (57.1)
   Strongly disagree 16 (23.9) 2 (13.3) 9 (29) 5 (23.8)
Non-moralism category
 Q3.1.9 A physician who has been addicted to narcotics should not be allowed to practise medicine again 0.983 0
  Strongly agree 1 (1.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0)
  Somewhat agree 2 (3.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2) 1 (4.8)
  Undecided 8 (11.9) 2 (13.3) 4 (12.9) 2 (9.5)
  Somewhat disagree 25 (37.3) 5 (33.3) 13 (41.9) 7 (33.3)
  Strongly disagree 31 (46.3) 8 (53.3) 12 (38.7) 11 (52.4)
 Q3.1.1 Alcoholism is associated with a weak will 0.544 0
  Somewhat agree 4 (6.0) 2 (13.3) 2 (6.5) 0 (0.0)
  Somewhat disagree 13 (19.4) 3 (20.0) 5 (16.1) 5 (23.8)
  Strongly disagree 50 (74.6) 10 (66.7) 24 (77.4) 16 (76.2)
 Q3.3.5 A nurse with a substance use disorder should not be allowed to give medications to patients 0.87 1
  Strongly agree 2 (3.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.3) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat agree 5 (7.6) 0 (0.0) 3 (10.0) 2 (9.5)
  Undecided 12 (18.2) 4 (26.7) 6 (20.0) 2 (9.5)
  Somewhat disagree 19 (28.8) 5 (33.3) 7 (23.3) 7 (33.3)
  Strongly disagree 28 (42.4) 6 (40.0) 13 (43.3) 9 (42.9)
Treatment intervention category
 Q3.1.6 Physicians who diagnose alcoholism early improve the chance of treatment success 0.953 0
  Strongly agree 13 (19.4) 2 (13.3) 6 (19.4) 5 (23.8)
  Somewhat agree 30 (44.8) 7 (46.7) 15 (48.4) 8 (38.1)
  Undecided 16 (23.9) 4 (26.7) 6 (19.4) 6 (28.6)
  Somewhat disagree 5 (7.5) 1 (6.7) 2 (6.5) 2 (9.5)
  Strongly disagree 3 (4.5) 1 (6.7) 2 (6.5) 0 (0.0)
 Q3.2.7 Group therapy is very important in the treatment of substance use 0.192 0
  Strongly agree 31 (46.3) 9 (60.0) 16 (51.6) 6 (28.6)
  Somewhat agree 22 (32.8) 2 (13.3) 10 (32.3) 10 (47.6)
  Undecided 12 (17.9) 3 (20.0) 5 (16.1) 4 (19)
  Somewhat disagree 2 (3.0) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
 Q3.1.8 Urine drug screening can be an important part of substance use treatment 0.457 0
  Strongly agree 13 (19.4) 1 (6.7) 8 (25.8) 4 (19)
  Somewhat agree 34 (50.7) 7 (46.7) 17 (54.8) 10 (47.6)
  Undecided 11 (16.4) 3 (20.0) 3 (9.7) 5 (23.8)
  Somewhat disagree 8 (11.9) 3 (20.0) 3 (9.7) 2 (9.5)
  Strongly disagree 1 (1.5) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Treatment optimism category
 Q3.2.6 Substance use is a treatable illness 0.261 0
  Strongly agree 43 (64.2) 11 (73.3) 18 (58.1) 14 (66.7)
  Somewhat agree 22 (32.8) 4 (26.7) 13 (41.9) 5 (23.8)
  Undecided 2 (3.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (9.5)
 Q3.2.9 Alcoholism is a treatable illness 0.617 0
  Strongly agree 45 (67.2) 11 (73.3) 20 (64.5) 14 (66.7)
  Somewhat agree 19 (28.4) 3 (20.0) 10 (32.3) 6 (28.6)
  Undecided 1 (1.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat disagree 1 (1.5) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
  Strongly disagree 1 (1.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0)
 Q3.2.1 An individual who uses alcohol or drugs and has relapsed several times probably cannot be treated 0.008 0
  Undecided 2 (3.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2) 1 (4.8)
  Somewhat disagree 17 (25.4) 8 (53.3) 8 (25.8) 1 (4.8)
  Strongly disagree 48 (71.6) 7 (46.7) 22 (71) 19 (90.5)
Pairwise comparison
 Postgraduate versus diploma 0.004
 Postgraduate versus bachelor’s 0.149
 Diploma versus bachelor’s 0.172
  Q3.1.2 An individual who uses alcohol or drugs cannot be helped until they hit ‘rock bottom’ 0.646 0
   Somewhat agree 3 (4.5) 1 (6.7) 2 (6.5) 0 (0.0)
   Undecided 5 (7.5) 1 (6.7) 2 (6.5) 2 (9.5)
   Somewhat disagree 17 (25.4) 5 (33.3) 9 (29) 3 (14.3)
   Strongly disagree 42 (62.7) 8 (53.3) 18 (58.1) 16 (76.2)
  Q3.3.1 Most individual who use alcohol or drugs are unpleasant to work with as patients 0.453 1
   Somewhat agree 7 (10.6) 3 (20.0) 1 (3.3) 3 (14.3)
   Undecided 3 (4.5) 1 (6.7) 2 (6.7) 0 (0.0)
   Somewhat disagree 20 (30.3) 5 (33.3) 9 (30.0) 6 (28.6)
   Strongly disagree 36 (54.5) 6 (40.0) 18 (60.0) 12 (57.1)

Discussion

We found that postgraduate education contributes to less stereotyping attitudes and a higher level of treatment optimism when working with individuals with substance use or dependence. These findings highlight important dimensions of clinician attitudes (e.g. beliefs) that could improve harm reduction education and integration into clinical practice.

Prior research has identified that negative attitudes are consistently viewed as barriers to evidence-based harm reduction practices [19]. Even though combating stigma has been a focus of public health professionals, there are few interventions that demonstrate measurable improvements towards stigmatizing beliefs among health care providers [20]. Livingston and colleagues [21] in a systematic review identified that on-the-job education, which includes contact-based training, has demonstrated improvements in reducing stigma but the evidence base remains equivocal. Our results add to the literature by demonstrating a significant effect between less stigmatizing views and individuals with postgraduate education. This finding is important and may reflect the focus on anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practices within postgraduate pedagogy which challenges personal values and social norms regarding substance use [22].

We observed no associations between years of experience and clinician attitudes in our sample. This nonsignificant finding was in contrast to our hypothesis and existing literature which suggests that more experience and therefore increased contact with individuals who use substances fosters more positive attitudes [23]; however, this effect appears to be stronger for the general public [24] than health care providers. Moreover, this null finding highlights opportunities to provide workplace education for clinicians across all stages of their career, regardless of experience level.

Further research is required to understand elements of education and training that are associated with more positive attitudes towards and improved care for individuals who use substances. The limitations of this study include a low proportion of non-nursing providers, generalizability to other regions or settings and the cross-sectional survey design with assessments of attitudes at a single time-point.

Author contributions

Dr. AR had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. AR, MC, EJD and Kolar contributed to concept and design. AR, MG and JD acquired, analysed or interpreted data. AR drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. MG contributed to statistical analysis. MC and EB provided administrative, technical or material support. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Providence Health Care Knowledge Translation Grant. The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from the Providence Health Care/University of British Columbia Review Board.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Coroners B. Illicit drug toxicity deaths in BC. Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General; 2022. p. 1–25. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2022.
  • 2.Degenhardt L, Grebely J, Stone J, et al. Global patterns of opioid use and dependence: harms to populations, interventions, and future action. Lancet. 2019;394(10208):1560–1579. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32229-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Opioid-related harms in Canada. Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2018. https://www.cihi.ca/en/opioid-related-harms-in-canada. Accessed 3 Dec 2022.
  • 4.Fridell M, Bäckström M, Hesse M, Krantz P, Perrin S, Nyhlén A. Prediction of psychiatric comorbidity on premature death in a cohort of patients with substance use disorders: a 42-year follow-up. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19(1):150. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2098-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lewer D, Menezes D, Cornes M, et al. Hospital readmission among people experiencing homelessness in England: a cohort study of 2772 matched homeless and housed inpatients. J Epidemiol Commun H. 2021;75(7):681–688. doi: 10.1136/jech-2020-215204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hawk KF, Vaca FE, D’Onofrio G. Reducing fatal opioid overdose: prevention, treatment and harm reduction strategies. Yale J Biol Med. 2015;88(3):235–245. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tran MTN, Luong QH. Community harm reduction initiatives: essential investments for illicit drug prevention and control in the future. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2022;18:100373. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2021.100373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Aronowitz S, Meisel ZF. Addressing stigma to provide quality care to people who use drugs. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2146980. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.46980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.van Boekel LC, Brouwers EPM, van Weeghel J, Garretsen HFL. Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: systematic review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;131(1–2):23–35. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Avery J, Han BH, Zerbo E, et al. Changes in psychiatry residents’ attitudes towards individuals with substance use disorders over the course of residency training. Am J Addict. 2017;26(1):75–79. doi: 10.1111/ajad.12406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Henderson S, Stacey CL, Dohan D. Social stigma and the dilemmas of providing care to substance users in a safety-net emergency department. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2008;19(4):1336–1349. doi: 10.1353/hpu.0.0088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Weiss MG, Ramakrishna J, Somma D. Health-related stigma: rethinking concepts and interventions. Psychol Health Med. 2006;11(3):277–287. doi: 10.1080/13548500600595053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Knaak S, Christie R, Mercer S, Stuart H. Harm reduction, stigma and the problem of low compassion satisfaction. J Ment Health Addict Nurs. 2019;3(1):e8–e21. doi: 10.22374/jmhan.v3i1.37. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Howard V, Holmshaw J. Inpatient staff perceptions in providing care to individuals with co-occurring mental health problems and illicit substance use. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2010;17(10):862–872. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01620.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Khan GK, Harvey L, Johnson S, et al. Integration of a community-based harm reduction program into a safety net hospital: a qualitative study. Harm Reduct J. 2022;19(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12954-022-00622-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Veach C. Physician attitudes in chemical dependency: The effects of personal experience and recovery. Subst Abuse. 1990;2(11):97–101. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chappel JN, Veach TL, Krug RS. The substance abuse attitude survey: an instrument for measuring attitudes. J Stud Alcohol. 1985;46(1):48–52. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1985.46.48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1995;57(1):289–300. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.McGinty EE, Barry CL. Stigma reduction to combat the addiction crisis—developing an evidence base. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(14):1291–1292. doi: 10.1056/nejmp2000227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bielenberg J, Swisher G, Lembke A, Haug NA. A systematic review of stigma interventions for providers who treat patients with substance use disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;131:108486. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Livingston JD, Milne T, Fang ML, Amari E. The effectiveness of interventions for reducing stigma related to substance use disorders: a systematic review: Reducing substance use-related stigma. Addiction. 2011;107(1):39–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03601.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Richmond I, Foster J. Negative attitudes towards people with co-morbid mental health and substance misuse problems: an investigation of mental health professionals. J Ment Health. 2003;12(4):393–403. doi: 10.1080/0963823031000153439. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kennedy-Hendricks A, McGinty EE, Summers A, Krenn S, Fingerhood MI, Barry CL. Effect of exposure to visual campaigns and narrative vignettes on addiction stigma among health care professionals. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2146971. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.46971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wild TC, Koziel J, Anderson-Baron J, et al. Public support for harm reduction: A population survey of Canadian adults. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0251860. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


Articles from Harm Reduction Journal are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES