Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Houselessness and syringe service program utilization among people who inject drugs in eight rural areas across the USA: a cross-sectional analysis

Harm Reduction Journal volume 20, Article number: 157 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Research conducted in urban areas has highlighted the impact of housing instability on people who inject drugs (PWID), revealing that it exacerbates vulnerability to drug-related harms and impedes syringe service program (SSP) use. However, few studies have explored the effects of houselessness on SSP use among rural PWID. This study examines the relationship between houselessness and SSP utilization among PWID in eight rural areas across 10 states.

Methods

PWID were recruited using respondent-driven sampling for a cross-sectional survey that queried self-reported drug use and SSP utilization in the prior 30 days, houselessness in the prior 6 months and sociodemographic characteristics. Using binomial logistic regression, we examined the relationship between experiencing houselessness and any SSP use. To assess the relationship between houselessness and the frequency of SSP use, we conducted multinomial logistic regression analyses among participants reporting any past 30-day SSP use.

Results

Among 2394 rural PWID, 56.5% had experienced houselessness in the prior 6 months, and 43.5% reported past 30-day SSP use. PWID who had experienced houselessness were more likely to report using an SSP compared to their housed counterparts (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.24 [95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.01, 1.52]). Among those who had used an SSP at least once (n = 972), those who experienced houselessness were just as likely to report SSP use two (aOR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.60, 1.36]) and three times (aOR = 1.18 [95% CI 0.77, 1.98]) compared to once. However, they were less likely to visit an SSP four or more times compared to once in the prior 30 days (aOR = 0.59 [95% CI 0.40, 0.85]).

Conclusion

This study provides evidence that rural PWID who experience houselessness utilize SSPs at similar or higher rates as their housed counterparts. However, housing instability may pose barriers to more frequent SSP use. These findings are significant as people who experience houselessness are at increased risk for drug-related harms and encounter additional challenges when attempting to access SSPs.

Background

Injection drug use continues to be a significant public health concern, with recent global estimates indicating that 23% and 10% of new hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections are attributable to injection drug use, respectively [1, 2]. Rural areas are disproportionately impacted by HCV and HIV infections in many countries due, in part, to a higher prevalence of injection drug use and limited access to harm reduction services in these regions [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. In response to these disparities, syringe services programs (SSPs) are expanding to rural areas [5, 7, 8, 10, 12]. However, coverage remains varied and inequities in access among people who inject drugs (PWID) threaten SSPs’ ability to curb drug-related epidemics [13,14,15,16].

Drug-related epidemics have been expanding to rural areas across the globe for several decades [5], including in the USA [3], Canada [7] and Australia [17]. The rise of prescription opioids and increasing availability of heroin and methamphetamine have contributed to the spread of these epidemics, which have historically been associated with urban areas, to more rural regions over time [3, 11, 18,19,20,21,22,23]. Some countries have begun successfully operating SSPs in rural areas to reduce the spread of bloodborne infections [7, 15, 24, 25], though there are many barriers (e.g., funding, criminalization of substance use, stigma, local policy) to their widespread implementation and use [26,27,28]. The expansion of rural SSPs in the USA has been particularly significant [13, 15, 24, 29, 30]. In 2022, there were more than 100 rural SSPs in operation [29, 31] compared to only 30 in 2013 [29]. However, amidst this rapid expansion of SSPs to rural areas, research to assess utilization and barriers to access among rural PWID has been limited [13, 14, 32, 33].

Research conducted in cities has identified housing instability among PWID as a factor both that exacerbates vulnerability to drug-related harms and also that can significantly impede SSP utilization [34,35,36,37,38,39]. In the USA, urban PWID experience high rates of houselessness [39,40,41,42]. A study conducted in 23 cities found that 68% of PWID had experienced houselessness in the last year [40]. Urban PWID who experience houselessness have been shown to have perceived and measured reductions in healthcare access [43,44,45,46]. Houselessness has also been identified as an important risk factor for acquisition of bloodborne infections [2, 38, 39, 47], and many HIV outbreaks have occurred across multiple countries over the last decade among PWID who were experiencing homelessness [48,49,50,51,52,53]. Notably, some studies have found that PWID who experience houselessness in the urban USA access harm reduction services more than their housed counterparts [35, 54], yet sharing injection equipment and non-fatal overdoses are more likely among this population [35, 38, 55,56,57]. Understanding and addressing inequities in SSP access and utilization for PWID who are unstably housed therefore must be a critical component of efforts to mitigate drug-related epidemics.

Though houselessness is expanding to the rural USA in parallel with, yet distinct from, the opioid epidemic, few studies have explored the relationship between houselessness and SSP use among rural PWID [14, 32, 33]. Rural houselessness counts are likely underestimated due to underreporting and gaps in data. Still, the 2022 Point-In-Time Count estimates that approximately 18% of all people experiencing houselessness in the USA were located in rural areas. Rural areas also experienced the largest overall percentage increase in houselessness between 2020 and 2022 compared to urban and suburban areas [58]. Structural inequities—including economic disparities, lack of employment opportunities and inadequate infrastructure for public housing and supportive services—are the main drivers of growing houselessness in rural areas [59, 60]. At the individual level, houselessness is likely exacerbated by drug use in rural communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the opioid crisis [61,62,63,64].

This study expands upon USA-based research on houselessness and SSPs by examining this relationship among PWID from eight rural areas across 10 states. Specifically, we examine the relationship of houselessness to any recent SSP use and also to the frequency of SSP use among those who had utilized an SSP to get syringes or needles at least once in the prior 30 days. Findings from this study can provide insights into SSP utilization in rural areas and be used to inform the development of targeted strategies to address inequities in access among PWID.

Methods

Study design, sample and data collection

This study analyzed data generated by the Rural Opioid Initiative (ROI), a multistate study that collected data on demographics, drug use, drug-related harms (e.g., HCV and HIV infections, non-fatal overdose) and healthcare use among rural people who use drugs, regardless of whether they inject [3]. The ROI enrolled participants for a cross-sectional survey from eight rural sites spanning 10 states, including Kentucky, Wisconsin, New England (i.e., Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire), Illinois, West Virginia, Oregon, Ohio and North Carolina. Participants across all study studies were recruited from January 2018 to March 2020 using modified chain-referral sampling based on respondent-driven sampling (RDS) methods [3, 65, 66]. This approach relied on waves of peer-to-peer recruitment where referral chains were tracked and chain structure is used in analyses [66].

Eligibility criteria were standardized across research projects with two exceptions. At six of the eight sites, participants had to: (1) be at least 18 years old; (2) self-report any injection drug use or non-injection opioid use in the prior 30 days ‘to get high’; and (3) live in the site’s catchment area. Variations to these criteria were used in Illinois and Wisconsin, where individuals aged 15–17 were eligible because the projects were embedded in organizations that provide services to adolescents, and in Wisconsin, where only clients with a history of injection drug use were included. Surveys were conducted in a private space using multiple methods across study sites: Five of the sites used audio computer-assisted self-interviews, two used computer-assisted self-interviews, and one site used computer-assisted personal interviews. Participants received $40–60 for their participation, depending on the site. Additional data collection and management details for the ROI are published elsewhere [3].

We conducted two analyses. First, we examined the relationship between houselessness and any SSP use. among people who had recently injected drugs. The ROI survey asked all participants, ‘Have you ever injected drugs to get high?’ Participants who reported injection drug use in their lifetime were then asked, ‘When did you last inject drugs to get high?’ Those who reported a date within the past 30 days were included in our analytic sample.

Second, we evaluated the association between houselessness and frequency of SSP use. Participants who reported injecting drugs in the prior 30 days were also asked, ‘During the last 30 days, where have you gotten syringes or needles?’ Multiple answers were provided (e.g., a syringe or needle exchange program in person, from someone else who got them from a syringe or needle exchange program, farm supply store, pharmacy) and participants were able to select all that applied. Those who reported getting syringes or needles from an SSP were included in our analytic sample.

Measures

The primary independent variable of interest in this study was experiencing houselessness in the prior 6 months. All ROI participants were asked, ‘Have you been homeless in the past 6 months? “Homeless” means you were living from place to place, “couch-surfing,” on the street, in a car, park, abandoned building, squat or shelter.’ Participants could respond ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ and ‘don’t know.’ We use the term ‘houseless’—as opposed to the government standard term ‘homeless’—throughout to emphasize that individuals lack a permanent physical structure to live in, but do not lack personal community.

There were two dependent variables of interest related to SSP use: (1) any SSP use in the prior 30 days and (2) the frequency of SSP use in the prior 30 days. Any use was derived from the select all survey question described above, ‘During the last 30 days, where have you gotten syringes or needles?’ The frequency of SSP use was derived from responses to a survey question that asked participants who reported any SSP use in the prior 30 days, ‘How many times in the past 30 days did you get new syringes or needles, cottons or cookers from a syringe or needle exchange program?’ We created a categorical variable by discretizing the original numeric responses into four categories (i.e., once, twice, three times, or four times or more in the prior 30 days) because the distribution was skewed and some SSPs in study areas were only open once a week (i.e., approximately four times per month).

Notably, the recall periods for houselessness and SSP use differed in this study. This is a limitation since we do not know the exact time within the 6-month period when houselessness occurred, nor do we know whether houselessness was persistent throughout the duration. This is acknowledged and incorporated into our study’s scope. Specifically, all interpretations are grounded in the assumption that experiencing houselessness in the prior 6 months either preceded or coincided with the prior 30 days (i.e., the SSP use recall period). Furthermore, while participants may not have been experiencing houselessness during the 30-day time frame, experiencing houselessness at any time is likely indicative of housing instability, which has been shown to be associated with drug-related harms [34, 67,68,69] and access to health services [70, 71].

Analyses

We used descriptive statistics to summarize houselessness and participant characteristics for the entire sample, and by any SSP use and frequency of use in the prior 30 days. We assessed associations between any SSP use and participant characteristics using bivariate logistic regressions, including random effects to account for clustering due to the ROI RDS approach and site of enrollment. Then, we used multivariable binomial and multinomial logistic regression to estimate the association between houselessness and any SSP use and the frequency of SSP use, separately. Specifically, we used the lme4 package [72] in R Studio v4.0.5 [73] to conduct multivariable binomial logistic regression analyses to assess the relationship between houselessness and any SSP use, and the mclogit package [74] to conduct multivariable multinomial logistic regression to assess the relationship between houselessness and the frequency of SSP use. We used a multinomial model because the effect of houselessness on frequency of SSP use was not constant, violating the proportional odds assumption for ordinal regression models. All models included random effects for RDS chains and study site of enrollment. For each set of analyses, we considered covariates for inclusion based on previous literature and a priori hypotheses [32, 34, 36, 56, 64, 75], which included demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, race, educational attainment), entitlements (e.g., food pantry use) and type of drugs used to get high in the last 30 days (e.g., heroin, methamphetamine). Potential confounders with p values ≤ 0.10 in bivariate analyses were included in models.

Results

The ROI enrolled 3048 participants, 84.9% (n = 2587) of whom reported injecting drugs in the prior 30 days. One hundred ninety-three other participants who lacked data on key variables were excluded from the analytic sample to assess the association between houselessness and any SSP use, and 65 were excluded from the sample to assess the relationship between houselessness and frequency of SSP use. Figure 1 provides a flow diagram of the analytic sample.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Analytic sample flow diagram

Full size image

Any SSP use

Our final sample of PWID included 2394 participants, who were predominantly white (85.6%), men (57.3%) and high school graduates (78.6%) (Table 1). Participants were 36 years old on average (standard deviation [SD] = 10). The most prevalent drugs used were methamphetamine (80.5%) and heroin (72.7%). Participants reported varying proximity to SSPs: 40% were within walking distance, 34.7% were less than a 30-min drive, and 11.6% were more than a 30-min drive. Many (10.6%) did not know where the closest SSP was located. Most participants (56.5%) had experienced houselessness in the prior 6 months and less than half (43.5%) reported getting syringes or needles from an SSP in the prior 30 days, though this varied across study sites (Additional file 1: Table S1). The rate of houselessness was the highest among PWID in Oregon (68.2%) and the lowest among those in Kentucky (38.1%). SSP use was the greatest among Wisconsin-based PWID (63.2%) and the smallest among West Virginia-based PWID (10.7%). Unadjusted associations between houselessness, covariates and SSP use are presented in Table 1. Results of adjusted analyses are given in Table 2 and are expanded upon below.

Table 1 Characteristics of people who injected drugs enrolled in the Rural Opioid Initiative by self-report SSP use in the prior 30 days (n = 2394)
Full size table
Table 2 Multivariable binomial logistic regression associations between houselessness in the prior 6 months and using an SSP in the prior 30 days among Rural Opioid Initiative PWID (n = 2394)
Full size table

In adjusted analyses, PWID who had experienced houselessness in the prior 6 months were 24% more likely to report getting syringes or needles from an SSP in the prior 30 days compared to those who had not experienced houselessness (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01, 1.52—Table 2). Self-reported proximity to an SSP was also associated with SSP use in the prior 30 days. Specifically, those who lived more than 30 min by car from an SSP were less likely to report using one in the prior 30 days compared to those who lived within walking distance (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.45 [95% CI 0.31, 0.63]). Participants who did not live reasonably close to an SSP or did not know where the nearest SSP was located were also less likely to use an SSP in the prior 30 days compared to those who lived within walking distance (aOR = 0.25 [95% CI 0.12, 0.52] and aOR = 0.03 [95% CI 0.01, 0.09], respectively). Conversely, PWID who lived less than 30 min by car from an SSP were just as likely to use an SSP in the prior 30 days compared to those who lived in walking distance (aOR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.78, 1.23]).

Frequency of SSP use

The final analytic sample to assess the association between experiencing houselessness and the frequency of SSP use included the 977 participants who reported using an SSP at least once in the prior 30 days. Participant demographics were comparable to the full sample of PWID: predominantly white (83.2%), men (56.5%), high school graduates (81.2%) and 35 years old, on average (SD = 9). Methamphetamine (84.9%) and heroin (75.9%) were the most prevalent drugs (Table 3). Those who used an SSP at least once in the prior 30 days were largely proximal to an SSP: 48.1% of PWID were within walking distance and 42.2% were within 30 min by car. Most (59.6%) had experience houselessness in the prior 6 months. The frequency of SSP use in the prior 30 days varied: 23.8% had gotten new injection equipment from an SSP once, 22.0% had twice, 14.3% had three times, and 39.8% had four or more times. The frequency of SSP use by ROI study site is presented in Additional file 1: Table S2. Unadjusted associations between houselessness, covariates and the frequency of SSP use can be found in Table 4. Results from adjusted analyses are presented in Table 5 and are described below.

Table 3 Characteristics of people who injected drugs and used an SSP at least once in the prior 30 days enrolled in the Rural Opioid Initiative (n = 977)
Full size table
Table 4 Unadjusted multinomial logistic regression associations between houselessness, covariates and the frequency of SSP use in the prior 30 days among Rural Opioid Initiative PWID and used an SSP at least once in the prior 30 days (n = 977)
Full size table
Table 5 Adjusted multinomial logistic regression associations between houselessness and the frequency of SSP use in the prior 30 days among Rural Opioid Initiative PWID and used an SSP at least once in the prior 30 days (n = 972)
Full size table

Compared to their housed counterparts, those who had experienced houselessness were just as likely to use an SSP two or three times compared to once in the prior 30 days (aOR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.60, 1.36] and aOR = 1.23 [95% CI 0.77, 1.98], respectively), as shown in Table 5. Participants who had experienced houselessness were less likely to use an SSP four or more times compared to once, relative to those who had not experienced houselessness in the prior 6 months (aOR = 0.59 [95% CI 0.40, 0.85]). Being further from an SSP was also associated with being less likely to use an SSP more frequently. Compared to those who lived within walking distance of an SSP, PWID who had to travel more than 30 min away were less likely to use it two (aOR = 0.49 [95% CI 0.25, 0.99]), three (aOR = 0.34 [95% CI 0.14, 0.82]), or four or more times (aOR = 0.33 [95% CI 0.17, 0.65]) compared to once. Similarly, those who lived less than 30 min from an SSP were less likely to use it three (aOR = 0.60 [95% CI 0.37, 0.96]) or four or more times (aOR = 0.45 [95% CI 0.31, 0.68]) compared to once, relative to those who could walk to an SSP.

Discussion

This study extends research on the critical issue of houselessness and SSP use to rural areas, and provides evidence that rural US-based PWID who experience houselessness utilize SSPs at a similar or greater rate as their housed counterparts. PWID who experienced houselessness were 24% more likely to use an SSP at least once in the prior 30 days compared to housed PWID, and they were just as likely to use it two or three times compared to once. However, they were less likely to use an SSP four or more times. These findings are encouraging, since people who experience houselessness are at increased risk for multiple drug-related harms [2, 38, 39, 47, 57, 76,77,78,79]. The findings are also particularly striking in this sample of PWID who reside in rural environments that present unique challenges to accessing SSPs, especially among those experiencing houselessness (e.g., geographic dispersion of people and resources coupled with lack of public transportation).

The results of this study are congruent with the few studies that have examined the relationship between houselessness and SSP use elsewhere in the USA. A study in 23 US cities similarly found that PWID experiencing houselessness were 9% more likely to obtain syringes from an SSP in the past year compared to those who were not experiencing houselessness [35]. Another study in the state of Maine found that those experiencing houselessness were just as likely as their housed counterparts to use an SSP in the prior 3 months [14]. These results could be due to the implementation of more flexible harm reduction approaches in rural areas. For example, in many rural settings, SSPs provide mobile exchanges which may be particularly effective at reducing barriers (e.g., lack of transportation) that are especially prominent among those experiencing houselessness [80,81,82]. Rural people experiencing houselessness may also intentionally stay near areas where SSPs and other services are located for ease of access to resources [62, 83, 84]; conversely, SSPs may strategically open near places where people experiencing houselessness live or spend time. Our results could also indicate an increased need for various resources among unstably housed PWID. People experiencing houselessness may be more motivated to visit SSPs to not only obtain substance use-related resources, but also other resources that are vital to their well-being (e.g., food, clothing and referrals to other social services) [85, 86]. Research to identify how rural SSPs and PWID who experience houselessness are addressing and overcoming barriers to SSP use will be advantageous, providing SSPs an opportunity to implement targeted strategies to improve harm reduction service access among all rural PWID.

Despite these encouraging findings, our analyses also revealed that experiencing houselessness was associated with reduced likelihood of utilizing an SSP four or more times compared to once. This may indicate that visiting an SSP one to three times per month is sufficient for PWID who experience houselessness to meet their needs. However, an alternative explanation for this result—given that some studies have found that houselessness is associated with more frequent injection drug use [76, 87]—is that barriers related to housing instability impede consistent or more frequent SSP access. This is aligned with other studies that have found that PWID who experience houselessness and use SSPs are more likely to report inadequate syringe coverage (i.e., not having new syringes for each injection) [33, 36] and sharing injection equipment [35, 88] compared to their housed counterparts. The ability to frequently and consistently exchange a sufficient number of needles and syringes at SSPs is critical to harm reduction [89]. However, people experiencing houselessness may not use SSPs regularly or may exchange fewer syringes due to transportation challenges [90,91,92], inability to store syringes and/or inability to keep track of syringes to exchange, among others. For example, individuals who are more transient or are residing in public housing with drug-free policies may opt to visit SSPs less often because they lack a private, safe place to store new injection equipment [88]. Others may lose syringes or have them stolen, preventing them from acquiring new syringes at SSPs with strict one-for-one exchange policies. These findings highlight the need to understand and address the unique challenges that rural PWID and experience houselessness face to ensure that SSP exchange policies are equitable and that services are frequently utilized by those at high risk for drug-related harms. Future research should specifically explore SSP policies and practices to increase the implementation of need-based and secondary exchanges, which PWID have named as facilitators for safe injection practices [93].

A final important finding from this analysis is that SSP utilization was suboptimal among rural PWID, regardless of housing (in)stability. Less than half (44.0%) of ROI PWID reported using an SSP in the prior 30 days and in some areas as little as 10.6% used an SSP. Differences in utilization across ROI sites may partly be explained by the suspension and shut down of programs in some areas (e.g., West Virginia) [94] and the use of SSPs as primary sites of recruitment in others (e.g., Wisconsin). Two studies conducted in cities across the USA found that 53% and 65% of PWID reported SSP utilization in the prior 12 months [35, 95]. A study conducted in rural Maine found that 64% of PWID used SSPs in the prior 3 months [14], and another in rural West Virginia found that 68% of PWID used SSPs in the prior 6 months [33]. In our rural sample, PWID who lived within walking distance of an SSP were more likely to use its’ services, indicating that proximity to services will be critical to improve utilization. While SSPs have rapidly expanded to rural US areas in the last decade, our findings highlight the implications of unique challenges that the rural context presents to SSP utilization, including fewer SSPs [11, 15], limited SSP hours of operations and resources [11, 13, 96], geographic dispersion of resources and people [11, 91, 92, 95,96,97], and lack of public, affordable transportation [11, 13, 91, 92, 95]. Continued improvement of SSP access and utilization for rural PWID who are and are not unstably housed will be essential to mitigate drug-related epidemics.

Strengths and limitations

The major strengths of this study come from the scope of the ROI study, which includes an unprecedented number of PWID from eight rural US areas in ten US states. The ROI study offers the most expansive, geographically diverse sample of rural PWID to date, to our knowledge [3]. However, this research is not without limitations. First, the ROI sample may not be representative of all rural PWID. For example, the ROI sample lacks racial diversity, which may or may not be representative of all US rural regions. Second, detailed information about houselessness was not captured, limiting our ability to know when houselessness occurred in the prior 6 months (i.e., participants may not have experienced houselessness in the prior 30 days, which is the recall period for SSP use) and whether it was persistent. Regardless, experiencing houselessness to any degree within a 6-month period is likely indicative of broader experiences of housing instability, which has been shown to be associated with drug-related harms [34, 67,68,69] and access to health services [70, 71]. Lastly, the survey did not ask participants why they did or did not use an SSP in the prior 30 days, whether there were barriers to use or what services they received. Research is needed to understand these nuances to develop approaches to best serve PWID.

Conclusions

This study expands upon the limited research on rural SSP use, providing insights into utilization among PWID who are and are not unstably housed. Findings revealed that SSP use was generally low among ROI PWID, but those who had experienced houselessness were more likely to report using an SSP at least once in the prior 30 days. These results are encouraging as people who experience houselessness are at increased risk for multiple drug-related harms and may encounter additional challenges when attempting to access SSPs. Future research to identify how PWID who experience houselessness overcome barriers and utilize SSPs in rural contexts could offer insights to expand harm reduction service access among all rural PWID.

Availability of data and materials

We welcome collaboration and encourage mentorship and the use of ROI data stripped of all protected health information (PHI) to enable early investigators to address meaningful questions with support to help ensure their success. Additional information can be obtained at the ROI website: ruralopioidinitiative.org or by contacting the ROI DCC at ruralopioidinitiative@uw.edu. Follow the Rural Opioid Initiative on Twitter @ruralopioids.

Abbreviations

AOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

HCV:

Hepatitis C virus

HIV:

Human immunodeficiency virus

OR:

Odds ratio

PWID:

People who inject drugs

RDS:

Respondent-driven sampling

ROI:

Rural Opioid Initiative

SD:

Standard deviation

SNAP:

Supplemental nutrition assistance program

SSP:

Syringe service program

USA:

United States of America

References

  1. World Drug Report 2021. (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.21.XI.8).

  2. Degenhardt L, Peacock A, Colledge S, Leung J, Grebely J, Vickerman P, et al. Global prevalence of injecting drug use and sociodemographic characteristics and prevalence of HIV, HBV, and HCV in people who inject drugs: a multistage systematic review. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(12):e1192–207.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Jenkins RA, Whitney BM, Nance RM, Allen TM, Cooper HLF, Feinberg J, et al. The rural opioid initiative consortium description: providing evidence to understand the fourth wave of the opioid crisis. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2022;17(1):38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Korthuis PT, Cook RR, Foot CA, Leichtling G, Tsui JI, Stopka TJ, et al. Association of methamphetamine and opioid use with nonfatal overdose in rural communities. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(8):e2226544.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Mojtahedzadeh V, Razani N, Malekinejad M, Vazirian M, Shoaee S, Saberi Zafarghandi MB, et al. Injection drug use in rural Iran: Integrating HIV prevention into Iran’s rural primary health care system. AIDS Behav. 2008;12:7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schafer KR, Albrecht H, Dillingham R, Hogg RS, Jaworsky D, Kasper K, et al. The continuum of HIV care in rural communities in the United States and Canada: what is known and future research directions. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;75(1):35–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Parker J, Jackson L, Dykeman M, Gahagan J, Karabanow J. Access to harm reduction services in Atlantic Canada: implications for non-urban residents who inject drugs. Health Place. 2012;18(2):152–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang S, Jike C, Yang S, Liao Q, Yu G, Wang K, et al. Factors related to HIV infection among unmarried youth in rural areas of Southwest China. AIDS Care. 2018;30(8):1058–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Semaan S, Fleming P, Worrell C, Stolp H, Baack B, Miller M. Potential role of safer injection facilities in reducing HIV and hepatitis C infections and overdose mortality in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;118(2–3):100–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Peterson G, Northeast S, Jackson S, Fitzmaurice K. Harm minimization strategies: opinions of health professionals in rural and remote Australia. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007;32(5):497–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Thomas N, van de Ven K, Mulrooney KJD. The impact of rurality on opioid-related harms: a systematic review of qualitative research. Int J Drug Policy. 2020;85:102607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. JAIDS J Acquir Immun Defic Syndr. 2016;73(3):323–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ibragimov U, Cooper KE, Batty E, Ballard AM, Fadanelli M, Gross SB, et al. Factors that influence enrollment in syringe services programs in rural areas: a qualitative study among program clients in Appalachian Kentucky. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18(1):68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Thakarar K, Sankar N, Murray K, Lucas FL, Burris D, Smith RP. Injections and infections: understanding syringe service program utilization in a rural state. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Des Jarlais DC, Nugent A, Solberg A, Feelemyer J, Mermin J, Holtzman D. Syringe service programs for persons who inject drugs in urban, suburban, and rural areas - United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(48):1337–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Larney S, Peacock A, Leung J, Colledge S, Hickman M, Vickerman P, et al. Global, regional, and country-level coverage of interventions to prevent and manage HIV and hepatitis C among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(12):e1208–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sweeney J, Facchini L, Veld M, editors. Alcohol and other drug use in regional and remote Australia: consumption, harms and access to treatment. Drug and alcohol review; 2019: Wiley 111 River st, Hoboken 07030–5774, NJ USA.

  18. Helmerhorst G, Teunis T, Janssen S, Ring D. An epidemic of the use, misuse and overdose of opioids and deaths due to overdose, in the United States and Canada: is Europe next? Bone Jnt J. 2017;99(7):856–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kalkman GA, Kramers C, van Dongen RT, van den Brink W, Schellekens A. Trends in use and misuse of opioids in the Netherlands: a retrospective, multi-source database study. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4(10):e498–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zin CS, Chen LC, Knaggs RD. Changes in trends and pattern of strong opioid prescribing in primary care. Eur J Pain. 2014;18(9):1343–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Fugelstad A, Thiblin I, Johansson LA, Ågren G, Sidorchuk A. Opioid-related deaths and previous care for drug use and pain relief in Sweden. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;201:253–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lalic S, Jokanovic N, Ilomäki J, Gisev N, Lloyd B, Lubman DI, et al. Harms associated with extramedical use of prescription opioid analgesics in Australia: a scoping review. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(8):925–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Donovan PJ, Arroyo D, Pattullo C, Bell A. Trends in opioid prescribing in Australia: a systematic review. Aust Health Rev. 2019;44(2):277–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bixler D, Corby-Lee G, Proescholdbell S, Ramirez T, Kilkenny ME, LaRocco M, et al. Access to syringe services programs—Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia, 2013–2017. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(18):529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sullivan SG, Wu Z. Rapid scale up of harm reduction in China. Int J Drug Policy. 2007;18(2):118–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. O’Keefe D, Ritter A, Stoove M, Hughes C, Dietze P. Harm reduction programs and policy in Australia: barriers and enablers to effective implementation. Sucht. 2020.

  27. Hobden KL, Cunningham JA. Barriers to the dissemination of four harm reduction strategies: a survey of addiction treatment providers in Ontario. Harm Reduct J. 2006;3:1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Marshall BD, Green TC, Yedinak JL, Hadland SE. Harm reduction for young people who use prescription opioids extra-medically: obstacles and opportunities. Int J Drug Policy. 2016;31:25–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. North America Syringe Exchange Network: A Dave Purchase Intiative 2023. [Available from: https://www.nasen.org/].

  30. Des Jarlais DC, Feelemyer J, LaKosky P, Szymanowski K, Arasteh K. Expansion of syringe service programs in the United States, 2015–2018. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(4):517–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Syringe Service Programs 2023 [Available from: https://www.chfs.ky.gov/agencies/dph/dehp/hab/Pages/kyseps.aspx].

  32. Lawson E, Walthall H. Barriers to accessing sterile injecting equipment for people who inject drugs: an integrative review. J Clin Nurs. 2022;32:45020.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Allen ST, White RH, O’Rourke A, Schneider KE, Weir BW, Lucas GM, et al. Syringe coverage among people who inject drugs in West Virginia, USA. AIDS Behav. 2021;25:3377–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Topp L, Iversen J, Baldry E, Maher L. Housing instability among people who inject drugs: results from the Australian needle and syringe program survey. J Urban Health Bullet N Y Acad Med. 2013;90(4):699–716.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Marcus R, Cha S, Sionean C, Kanny D, Group NHBSS. HIV injection risk behaviors among HIV-negative people who inject drugs experiencing homelessness, 23 US cities. J Soc Distress Homeless. 2021;31:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Heller DI, Paone D, Siegler A, Karpati A. The syringe gap: an assessment of sterile syringe need and acquisition among syringe exchange program participants in New York City. Harm Reduct J. 2009;6(1):1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Lowrie R, McPherson A, Mair FS, Stock K, Jones C, Maguire D, et al. Baseline characteristics of people experiencing homelessness with a recent drug overdose in the PHOENIx pilot randomised controlled trial. Harm Reduct J. 2023;20(1):46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Arum C, Fraser H, Artenie AA, Bivegete S, Trickey A, Alary M, et al. Homelessness, unstable housing, and risk of HIV and hepatitis C virus acquisition among people who inject drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6(5):e309–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Strathdee SA, Kuo I, El-Bassel N, Hodder S, Smith LR, Springer SA. Preventing HIV outbreaks among people who inject drugs in the United States: plus ça change, plus ça même chose. AIDS. 2020;34(14):1997–2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Infection Risk, Prevention, and Testing Behaviors among Persons Who Inject Drugs—National HIV Behavioral Surveillance: Injection Drug Use, 23 U.S. Cities, 2018. 2020.

  41. Cranston K, Alpren C, John B, Dawson E, Roosevelt K, Burrage A, et al. Notes from the field: HIV diagnoses among persons who inject drugs - Northeastern Massachusetts, 2015–2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(10):253–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Foster MA, Hofmeister MG, Kupronis BA, Lin Y, Xia G-L, Yin S, et al. Increase in hepatitis A virus infections—United States, 2013–2018. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(18):413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wise C, Phillips K. Hearing the silent voices: narratives of health care and homelessness. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2013;34(5):359–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gunner E, Chandan SK, Marwick S, Saunders K, Burwood S, Yahyouche A, et al. Provision and accessibility of primary healthcare services for people who are homeless: a qualitative study of patient perspectives in the UK. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(685):e526–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Kitson C, Haines M, O’Byrne P. Understanding the perspectives of women who use intravenous drugs and are experiencing homelessness in an urban centre in Canada: an analysis of ethnographic data. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2022;9:23333936221080936.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Purkey E, MacKenzie M. Experience of healthcare among the homeless and vulnerably housed a qualitative study: opportunities for equity-oriented health care. Int J Equit Health. 2019;18(1):101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Des Jarlais DC, Sypsa V, Feelemyer J, Abagiu AO, Arendt V, Broz D, et al. HIV outbreaks among people who inject drugs in Europe, North America, and Israel. Lancet HIV. 2020;7(6):e434–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Golden MR, Lechtenberg R, Glick SN, Dombrowski J, Duchin J, Reuer JR, et al. Outbreak of human immunodeficiency virus infection among heterosexual persons who are living homeless and inject drugs - Seattle, Washington, 2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(15):344–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Randall LM, Dasgupta S, Day J, DeMaria A, Musolino J, John B, et al. An outbreak of HIV infection among people who inject drugs in Northeastern Massachusetts: findings and lessons learned from a medical record review. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):257.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Sypsa V, Paraskevis D, Malliori M, Nikolopoulos GK, Panopoulos A, Kantzanou M, et al. Homelessness and other risk factors for HIV Infection in the current outbreak among injection drug users in Athens, Greece. Am J Pub Health. 2015;105(1):196–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lyss SB, Buchacz K, McClung RP, Asher A, Oster AM. Responding to outbreaks of human immunodeficiency virus among persons who inject drugs—United States, 2016–2019: perspectives on recent experience and lessons learned. J Infect Dis. 2020;222:S239–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Giese C, Igoe D, Gibbons Z, Hurley C, Stokes S, McNamara S, et al. Injection of new psychoactive substance snow blow associated with recently acquired HIV infections among homeless people who inject drugs in Dublin, Ireland, 2015. Eurosurveillance. 2015;20(40):30036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ragonnet-Cronin M, Jackson C, Bradley-Stewart A, Aitken C, McAuley A, Palmateer N, et al. Recent and rapid transmission of HIV among people who inject drugs in scotland revealed through phylogenetic analysis. J Infect Dis. 2018;217(12):1875–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Beletsky L, Heller D, Jenness SM, Neaigus A, Gelpi-Acosta C, Hagan H. Syringe access, syringe sharing, and police encounters among people who inject drugs in New York City: a community-level perspective. Int J Drug Policy. 2014;25(1):105–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Adams M, An Q, Broz D, Burnett J, Wejnert C, Paz-Bailey G, et al. Distributive syringe sharing and use of syringe services programs (SSPs) among persons who inject drugs. AIDS Behav. 2019;23:3306–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bartholomew TS, Tookes HE, Bullock C, Onugha J, Forrest DW, Feaster DJ. Examining risk behavior and syringe coverage among people who inject drugs accessing a syringe services program: a latent class analysis. Int J Drug Policy. 2020;78:102716.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Hotton A, Mackesy-Amiti ME, Boodram B. Trends in homelessness and injection practices among young urban and suburban people who inject drugs: 1997–2017. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;225:108797.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 2022 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. 2022.

  59. Yousey A, Samudra R. Defining homelessness in the rural United States. Online J Rural Res Policy. 2018;13(4):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Shamblin SR, Williams NF, Bellaw JR. Conceptualizing homelessness in rural Appalachia: understanding contextual factors relevant to community mental health practice. J Rural Ment Health. 2012;36(2):3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Johnson G, Chamberlain C. Homelessness and substance abuse: which comes first? Aust Soc Work. 2008;61(4):342–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ballard AM, Cooper HLF, Young AM, Caruso BA. ‘You feel how you look’: Exploring the impacts of unmet water, sanitation, and hygiene needs among rural people experiencing homelessness and their intersection with drug use. PLOS Water. 2022;1(5):e0000019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. McVicar D, Moschion J, Van Ours JC. From substance use to homelessness or vice versa? Soc Sci Med. 2015;136:89–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Thompson RG Jr, Wall MM, Greenstein E, Grant BF, Hasin DS. Substance-use disorders and poverty as prospective predictors of first-time homelessness in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(S2):S282–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997;44(2):174–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Volz E, Heckathorn DD. Probability based estimation theory for respondent driven sampling. J Off Stat. 2008;24(1):79.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Milaney K, Passi J, Zaretsky L, Liu T, O’Gorman CM, Hill L, et al. Drug use, homelessness and health: responding to the opioid overdose crisis with housing and harm reduction services. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18(1):92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Pérez-Figueroa RE, Obonyo DJ, Santoscoy S, Surratt HL, Lekas HM, Lewis CF, et al. Housing instability, structural vulnerability, and non-fatal opioid overdoses among people who use heroin in Washington heights, New York City. Behav Med. 2022;48(4):320–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Degenhardt L, Webb P, Colledge-Frisby S, Ireland J, Wheeler A, Ottaviano S, et al. Epidemiology of injecting drug use, prevalence of injecting-related harm, and exposure to behavioural and environmental risks among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. The Lancet Global Health. 2023.

  70. Kushel MB, Gupta R, Gee L, Haas JS. Housing instability and food insecurity as barriers to health care among low-income Americans. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(1):71–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Martin P, Liaw W, Bazemore A, Jetty A, Petterson S, Kushel M. Adults with housing insecurity have worse access to primary and preventive care. J Am Board Family Med. 2019;32(4):521–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Bates DMM, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67(1):1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. R Team. RStudio: integrated development for R. Boston: RStudio, PBC; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Croissant Y. Estimation of random utility models in R: The mlogit package. J Statist Softw. 2020;95(11):1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Schneider KE, Park JN, Allen ST, Weir BW, Sherman SG. Patterns of polysubstance use and overdose among people who inject drugs in Baltimore, Maryland: a latent class analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;201:71–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Linton SL, Celentano DD, Kirk GD, Mehta SH. The longitudinal association between homelessness, injection drug use, and injection-related risk behavior among persons with a history of injection drug use in Baltimore. MD Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;132(3):457–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Gelberg L, Robertson MJ, Arangua L, Leake BD, Sumner G, Moe A, et al. Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of hepatitis C virus infection among homeless adults in Los Angeles. Public Health Rep. 2012;127(4):407–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Beech BM, Myers L, Beech DJ, Kernick NS. Human immunodeficiency syndrome and hepatitis B and C infections among homeless adolescents. Semin Pediatr Infect Dis. 2003;14(1):12–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Smereck GAD, Hockman EM. Prevalence of HIV infection and HIV risk behaviors associated with living place: on-the-street homeless drug users as a special target population for public health intervention. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1998;24(2):299–319.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Carpenter DM, Zule WA, Hennessy CM, Evon DM, Hurt CB, Ostrach B. Factors associated with perceived ease of access to syringes in Appalachian North Carolina. J Rural Health. 2023;39(1):212–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Walters SM, Felsher M, Frank D, Jaiswal J, Townsend T, Muncan B, et al. I don’t believe a person has to die when trying to get high: overdose prevention and response strategies in rural Illinois. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(2):1648.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Montaque HDG, Christenson E, Spector A, Wogen J, McDonald M, Weeks MR, et al. Mechanisms for expanding harm reduction for opioid use in suburban and rural U.S. Settings. J Drug Issues. 2023;53(2):196–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Kerman N, Gran-Ruaz S, Lawrence M, Sylvestre J. Perceptions of service use among currently and formerly homeless adults with mental health problems. Commun Ment Health J. 2019;55:777–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Herring C, Lutz M. The roots and implications of the USA’s homeless tent cities. City. 2015;19(5):689–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Dickson-Gomez J, Convey M, Hilario H, Corbett AM, Weeks M. Unofficial policy: access to housing, housing information and social services among homeless drug users in Hartford, Connecticut. Subst Abuse Treat Prevent Policy. 2007;2(1):8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Omerov P, Craftman ÅG, Mattsson E, Klarare A. Homeless persons’ experiences of health-and social care: a systematic integrative review. Health Soc Care Commun. 2020;28(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Zivanovic R, Milloy MJ, Hayashi K, Dong H, Sutherland C, Kerr T, et al. Impact of unstable housing on all-cause mortality among persons who inject drugs. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Des Jarlais DC, Braine N, Friedmann P. Unstable housing as a factor for increased injection risk behavior at US syringe exchange programs. AIDS Behav. 2007;11:78–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Fernández-Calderón F, Díaz-Batanero C, Barratt MJ, Palamar JJ. Harm reduction strategies related to dosing and their relation to harms among festival attendees who use multiple drugs. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2019;38(1):57–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Canham SL, Rose J, Jones S, Clay A, García I. Community perspectives on how decentralising an emergency shelter influences transportation needs and use for persons experiencing homelessness. Health Soc Care Commun. 2022;30(6):e6645–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Surratt HL, Cowley AM, Gulley J, Lockard AS, Otachi J, Rains R, et al. Syringe service program use among people who inject drugs in Appalachian Kentucky. Am Publ Health Assoc. 2020;110:34–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Sample K, Ferguson KM. It shouldn’t be this hard: systemic, situational, and intrapersonal barriers to exiting homelessness among homeless young adults. Qual Soc Work. 2020;19(4):580–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Seaman A, Leichtling G, Stack E, Gray M, Pope J, Larsen JE, et al. Harm reduction and adaptations among PWUD in rural oregon during COVID-19. AIDS Behav. 2021;25(5):1331–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. King Q. A new WV law closed Mercer County's needle exchange. What happens next? Mountain State Spotlight. 2021.

  95. Whiteman A, Burmett J, Handanagic S, Wejnert C, Broz D, Group NS. Distance matters: The association of proximity to syringe services programs with sharing of syringes and injecting equipment-17 US cities, 2015. Int J Drug Policy. 2020;85:102923.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Batty E, Ibragimov U, Fadanelli M, Gross S, Cooper K, Klein E, et al. A qualitative analysis of rural syringe service program fidelity in Appalachian Kentucky: Staff and participant perspectives. J Rural Health. 2023;39(2):328–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Greenberg P. Spatial inequality and uneven development: the local stratification of poverty in Appalachia. J Appalachian Stud. 2016;22(2):187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication is based upon data collected as part of the Rural Opioid Initiative (ROI), a multi-site study developed by investigators at eight research institutions and at the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The authors thank the other ROI investigators and their teams, community and state partners, and the participants of the individual ROI studies for their contributions. A full list of participating ROI institutions can be found at http://ruralopioidinitiative.org.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse [UG3DA044829/UH3DA044829, UG3DA044798/UH3DA044798, UG3DA044830/UH3DA044830, UG3DA044823/UH3DA044823, UG3DA044822/UH3DA044822, UG3DA044831/UH3DA044831, UG3DA044825, UG3DA044826/UH3DA044826] with co-funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). Research presented in this manuscript is the result of secondary data harmonization and analysis and was supported by grant U24DA048538 from NIDA. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, CDC, SAMHSA, the Department of Health and Human Services or ARC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

    April M. Ballard, Dylan Falk, Harris Greenwood, Paige Gugerty & Hannah L. F. Cooper

  2. School of Public Health, Georgia State University, 140 Decatur Street SE, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA

    April M. Ballard

  3. School of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Judith Feinberg & Gordon S. Smith

  4. Office of Research, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, MA, USA

    Peter D. Friedmann

  5. Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Vivian F. Go

  6. School of Medicine, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA

    Wiley D. Jenkins

  7. Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    P. Todd Korthuis

  8. College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    William C. Miller

  9. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mai T. Pho

  10. School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    David W. Seal

  11. School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA

    Thomas J. Stopka

  12. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Ryan P. Westergaard

  13. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

    William A. Zule

  14. College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, 111 Washington Avenue, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA

    April M. Young

Authors
  1. April M. Ballard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dylan Falk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Harris Greenwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paige Gugerty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Judith Feinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter D. Friedmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vivian F. Go
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wiley D. Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. P. Todd Korthuis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. William C. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mai T. Pho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. David W. Seal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Gordon S. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Thomas J. Stopka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ryan P. Westergaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. William A. Zule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. April M. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Hannah L. F. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AMB designed the study, conducted data analysis and wrote the manuscript. DF assisted with data analysis and manuscript development. HLFC assisted with study design and data collection, assisted with data analysis, and assisted with manuscript development. AMY assisted with study design, data collection and manuscript development. JF, PDF, VFG, WDJ, PTK, WCM, MTP, DWS, GSS, TJS, RPW and WAZ contributed to data collection. All authors gave meaningful input on the manuscript. All authors have approved the final article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to April M. Ballard.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Each site received approval from their corresponding Institutional Review Board and all data are protected by a Certificate of Confidentiality.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Overall and site-specific SSP use and houselessness among people who injected drugs enrolled in the Rural Opioid Initiative (n = 2394). Table S2. Overall and site-specific frequency of SSP use by people who injected drugs who used an SSP at least once in the prior 30 days enrolled in the Rural Opioid Initiative (n = 977).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ballard, A.M., Falk, D., Greenwood, H. et al. Houselessness and syringe service program utilization among people who inject drugs in eight rural areas across the USA: a cross-sectional analysis. Harm Reduct J 20, 157 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00892-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00892-w

Keywords

Harm Reduction Journal

ISSN: 1477-7517