Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Early Implementation Analysis of Syringe Services Programs in Kentucky: Barriers and Facilitators Identified by Program Operators and Local Officials

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Kentucky is one of ten states that require syringe services program (SSP) approval from local officials to operate legally. Public health leaders and local officials participated in semi-structured interviews in 2016 about the barriers and facilitators of SSP adoption and implementation (N = 22). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a thematic content analysis was conducted using Nvivo software. Political support, program champions who led education efforts, and access to resources and training facilitated SSP adoption. The most frequently reported barriers to adoption were often rooted in stigma and included the lack of political will to approve SSPs or lack of recognition of the need for a SSP. Requiring approval from local governing authorities could impose significant implementation delays, limits to the range of harm reduction services provided, and threaten harm reduction program sustainability. Removing barriers to the adoption and implementation of harm reduction programs is critical in order to effectively scale up harm reduction services to reduce the risks of infection and fatal overdose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Additional data available on request. Not currently provided to protect anonymity of participants.

Code Availability

n/a.

References

  1. CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. Drug overdose deaths in the US top 100,000 annually. 2021 Nov 17; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/20211117.htm.

  2. CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. Drug overdose mortality by state. 2022 Mar 1; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mortality/drug_poisoning.htm.

  3. Division of Viral Hepatitis, National Center for HIV. Viral Hepatitis STD, Prevention TB. Viral hepatitis surveillance - United States. 2021 May 19; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/statistics/SurveillanceRpts.htm.

  4. Division of HIV Prevention, National Center for HIV. Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV surveillance report: Statistics overview.

  5. Van Handel MM, Rose CE, Hallisey EJ, Kolling JL, Zibbell JE, Lewis B, et al. County-level vulnerability assessment for rapid dissemination of HIV or HCV infections among persons who inject drugs, United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Nov 1;73(3):323–31.

  6. Rich JD, Adashi EY. Ideological anachronism involving needle and syringe exchange programs: Lessons from the Indiana HIV outbreak. JAMA. 2015 Jul;7(1):23. 314(.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Senate Bill 192 [Internet]. General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; 2015. Available from: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/15RS/sb192/bill.pdf.

  8. Burt RD, Thiede H. Reduction in needle sharing among Seattle-area injection drug users across 4 surveys, 1994–2013. Am J Public Health. 2016 Feb;106(2):301–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Holtzman D, Barry V, Ouellet LJ, Jarlais DCD, Vlahov D, Golub ET, et al. The influence of needle exchange programs on injection risk behaviors and infection with hepatitis C virus among young injection drug users in select cities in the United States, 1994–2004. Prev Med. 2009 Jul;49(1):68–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tempalski B, Flom PL, Friedman SR, Des Jarlais DC, Friedman JJ, McKnight C, et al. Social and political factors predicting the presence of syringe exchange programs in 96 US metropolitan areas. Am J Public Health. 2007 Mar;97(3):437–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hagan H, McGough JP, Thiede H, Hopkins S, Duchin J, Alexander ER. Reduced injection frequency and increased entry and retention in drug treatment associated with needle-exchange participation in Seattle drug injectors. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2000 Oct;19(3):247–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Downing M, Riess TH, Vernon K, Mulia N, Hollinquest M, McKnight C, et al. What’s community got to do with it? Implementation models of syringe exchange programs. AIDS Educ Prev. 2005 Feb;17(1):68–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gent CE. Needle exchange policy adoption in American cities: Why not? Policy Sci. 2000;33(2):125–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones CM. Syringe services programs: An examination of legal, policy, and funding barriers in the midst of the evolving opioid crisis in the US. Int J Drug Policy. 2019 Aug;70:22–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Buchanan D, Shaw S, Ford A, Singer M. Empirical science meets moral panic: An analysis of the politics of needle exchange. J Public Health Policy. 2003;24(3–4):427–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Allen ST, Ruiz MS, O’Rourke A. The evidence does not speak for itself: The role of research evidence in shaping policy change for the implementation of publicly funded syringe exchange programs in three US cities. Int J Drug Policy. 2015 Jul;26(7):688–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Prescription drug abuse policy system. Syringe services programs laws [Internet]. Available from: https://www.pdaps.org/datasets/syringe-services-programs-laws.

  18. KY syringe services program locations and hours by county [Internet]. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services; 2022. Available from: https://chfs.ky.gov/agencies/dph/dehp/hab/Documents/KYSSPHours.pdf.

  19. Scheirer MA. Designing and using process evaluation. In: Handbook of practical program evaluation (Wholey, JS, Hatry, HP, and Newcomer, KE Eds). 2nd ed. San Francisco; 1994. p. 40–68.

  20. Shortell SM. Increasing value: A research agenda for addressing the managerial and organizational challenges facing health care delivery in the United States. Med Care Res Rev. 2004 Sep;61(3 Suppl):12S–30S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Aarons G, Chambers D, Glisson C, Mittman B. Implementation research in mental health services: An emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2009 Jan;36(1):24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2011 Mar;38(2):65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sharp A, Barnett JT, Vroom EB. Community perceptions of harm reduction and its implications for syringe exchange policy. J Drug Issues. 2020 Oct;50(4):507–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript was adapted from a graduate capstone project for completion of a Masters in Public Administration degree with a specialization in Health Policy at the University of Kentucky in 2016. The author thanks project chair Dr. Edward T. Jennings, Jr. and Nick Petrovsky for their thoughtful guidance and support.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, 21205, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Samantha J. Harris PhD

Authors
  1. Samantha J. Harris PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Author created the interview guide, conducted all interviews and subsequent analyses, and prepared the manuscript for peer review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samantha J. Harris PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests:

None.

Ethics approval:

IRB declared as exempt, non-human subjects research.

Consent to participate:

Verbal consent was obtained from study participants and interviews were recorded.

Consent for publication:

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harris, S.J. An Early Implementation Analysis of Syringe Services Programs in Kentucky: Barriers and Facilitators Identified by Program Operators and Local Officials. AIDS Behav 27, 1248–1258 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-022-03861-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-022-03861-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation