Public communications of drug checking - new report
Drug checking services offer the public the opportunity to submit substances for chemical analysis and get results back within a health and harm reduction conversation. Beyond this primary function, broader dissemination of anonymised findings about market trends and concerning substances can amplify the harm reduction potential of drug checking.
In this report, we reviewed different ways that global drug checking services communicate their findings to audiences beyond individual service users. Through partnering with community organisations and conducting a local consultation process, we gathered feedback from local communities of people who use drugs and people who work in the alcohol and other drug sector to provide local insights and context for how the strategies identified in other jurisdictions might work in Victoria.
Five public outputs were identified: (1) alerts – where higher risk detections are communicated with specific actionable advice, (2) individual sample results – where all results are published individually, (3) dashboards – where all results are displayed in interactive graphics, (4) regular service reports, and (5) education and harm reduction supplements. Various communication channels/formats identified included social media, websites, databases and data dashboards, posters, apps, and community networks. These different types of information and different ways of disseminating had different benefits: the best way of sharing information about substances of concern depends on situation, audience and purpose.
Preferences for data availability and format were highly variable among consultation participants, whose lived experience and contexts shaped what they conceived to be likely effects of such outputs. A significant tension was that wide dissemination and detailed information is likely to reach and be relevant to a wider range of people who use drugs; however, this could also increase risk of such information being used in stigmatising practices and to increase surveillance (e.g. in policing). Despite some complexities that require thoughtful planning and design, there was a strong preference among the Victorians who participated in our consultations for open access to the data produced by drug checking services.
When planning and designing public sharing of drug checking service findings, it is crucial to consider audience, purpose and context to determine what data to collect and report, and how (and whether) to disseminate information. Community preferences in local contexts are likely to differ, including based on local drug markets (e.g. with presence of fentanyl and nitazenes), policing practices, and legal frameworks. Moving ‘beyond alerts’ to publication of anonymised drug checking information that caters for the differing needs of target audiences has the potential to amplify the health benefits of drug checking services – the effects of which can and should be evaluated.
This report provides international exemplars and a framework outlining the considerations required to design, build and implement more fulsome public outputs of drug checking services. To be effective, such work must be done in full partnership with, or led by, people with lived and living experience of drug use.
