Simona Šabić, Association DrogArt Addictions 2017, 26. 10. 2017 The integrated drug checking service and its importance for different types of users Simona Šabić, Association DrogArt Addictions 2017, 26. 10. 2017

No conflict of interest.

Integrated drug checking service A service, which enables that users: get exact information about the content of the drug they intent to use and make an informed decision about their use, get harm reduction information and (if needed) counselling.

Drug checking encourages and enabled decisions to use drugs less risky. 100 % of the people who got a result that their drug is unexpected substance reported they would discard the sample. 64 % of the people who got a result that their drug is expected but adulterated said that they would discard the sample. - Energy control, Spain (DC in drop in center) 74.2% of drug checking service users who received unexpected test results regarding their alleged LSD reported that they did not intend to consume the drug. – Martins et al. (2017) (on-site DC) People are coming normally two weeks before the consumption in their drop-in center to check their drugs. Trends developed through ten year of the service.

Drug checking is important tool in making contact with hard to reach user groups. More than 60 % of people, who used the service said that they would not contact drug related prevention service. Energy control, Spain

Drug checking for different user groups? Users from the nightlife settings, young users, psychonauts IV users, socially excluded users

Main purpose of the evaluation research Evaluation of the drug checking service and outreach of drug checking within the I-SEE project framework. To obtain the views of injecting drug users, included in (7) programs of harm reduction, and nightlife drug users (on-line questionnaire), on drug checking.

When and how? November - December 2016 short (9) interviews with employees in the NGO collecting info points Questionnaire: Handed out by professional workers in the NGO info points (102 completed) online questionnaire (554 completed) 102 od 104; 1356 oseb je kliknilo na nagovor , 610 je bilo ustreznih, 554 pa je bilo popolno rešenih – te smo upoštevali

Sample 1 IV users in harm reduction programs: 71,7% male, 28,3% female 17 – 58 years old (M=35, Mo=32) Completed education: secondary education (60,0%), elementary school (34,0%), higher or university education (5,0%), Master’s or doctoral education (1,0%) Place of living: small city or town (43,4%), larger city (37,4%), village or countryside (19,2%) Employment status: unemployed (85,3%), employed (13,7%), in education (1,1%)

Sample 2 “nightlife” users 56,2 % male, 43,8 % female 14 – 60 years old (M=24, Mo=21) Completed education: secondary school (62,9%), higher or university education (26,9,%), elementary school (8,3%), Master’s or doctoral education (1,8%) Place of living: larger city (49,1%), small city or town (33,3%), village or countryside (17,6%) Employment status: in education (55,9%), employed (36,5%), unemployed (7,6%)

Awareness about DC service 77.5% of users from the HR programs and 44.5% of respondents from the nightlife drug users were informed about the drug checking service at the end of the project. Here we wanted to ask users if they were informed about the DC service In their local environment, but there was the problem that we didn’t know if the people form the internet came from the places where the local info point was established.

How did they get information? Users in HR programs: from professionals, working in the organisations (52.0%), From professionals involved in fieldwork (12.7%). Users in the nightlife context: from a friend (39.3%), on the Internet (38.4%), from onsite DC promoter (30.6%), through media (13.5%) through flyers (12.2%)

Outreach of the DC service 31.3% users from the programmes 17.5 % nightlife drug users reported that they had already used the drug checking service. 41.8% of respondents from the programmes 44.6% of the nightlife drug users confirmed that they obtained information on the results of drug checking. Glede na vzporedne podatke o prejetih vzorcih v času trajanja projekta (v teh programih je bilo skupaj prejetih 13 različnih vzorcev, niso bili različni uporabniki) bi morala biti ta številka v programih nekoliko nižja; uporabniki so si storitev mogoče razlagali širše kot to, da prinesejo vzorec na testiranje (npr. tudi kot pridobivanje informacij o storitvi testiranja v programu, ki ga obiskujejo).

Main reasons for using DC service Both user groups: distrust in the quality of substances on the market, risk reduction, the users’ wish to get information before use of the drug.

Main reasons for not using the DC service Users in the HR programs: they use drugs already tried by others, the waiting period for the results is too long, they fear the loss of anonymity. “Nightlife” users: the fear of police accessing the data on users, they fear the loss of anonymity, the waiting period for the results is too long.

How long would you wait for the results? Users from the harm reduction programs - up to two months (55.0%). Users from the nightlife settings - up to one week (48.9%).

Importance of DC service for the users (I) Avaliability of DC is important to 89,2% users in the HR programs 93,4 % (n=455) respondents in nightlife settings. Informing about substances and risks is important to 95,1 % of respondents from HR programs and nightlife 96,9% of respondants in nightlife settings V vseh primerjavah so bili odgovori na lestvici od 1 do 4, pri čemer je bilo 1 Sploh ni pomembno in 4 Zelo pomembno oziroma Sploh se ne strinjam do Zelo se strinjam.

Importance of DC service for the users (II) DC is perceived as a contribution to risk reduction to 80,2 % respondents in the HR programs 87,6 % in the nightlife settings. Recognition of potentially hazardous substances is more important for nightlife drug users (95.6%) than respondents from the programmes (34.3%).

Brief counselling 59.4% users from the programmes 58.4% of the users from the online sample Aren’t bothered with brief counselling.

Does DC service encourage the use of drugs? Users from both groups believe that the drug checking service does not encourage the use of drugs. 85.9% of respondents from the programs 88.4% of the nightlife drug users 14.1% of respondents from the programes 11.6% of the nightlife drug users agreed with the statement.

Differences among the two groups The contribution to risk reduction and the recognition of potentially hazardous substances in the drugs used by them seems to be of greater importance to the nightlife drug users. The nightlife drug users are willing to wait less time for the results, compared to users from the programmes.

Conclusions and challenges for the future Raising awareness (especially) among IV users about potentially hazardous substances Building trust with users and taking care of the anonymity Shorten waiting time (suggestion: 1 week) and establish quantitative analysis Establishment of stable legal security for NGO staff, performing the service and people, who use the service

Thank you for your attention. simona@drogart.org