Skip to main content

The relationship between felt stigma and non-fatal overdose among rural people who use drugs

Abstract

Background

Drug overdose deaths in the United States exceeded 100,000 in 2021 and 2022. Substance use stigma is a major barrier to treatment and harm reduction utilization and is a priority target in ending the overdose epidemic. However, little is known about the relationship between stigma and overdose, especially in rural areas. We aimed to characterize the association between felt stigma and non-fatal overdose in a multi-state sample of rural-dwelling people who use drugs.

Methods

Between January 2018 and March 2020, 2,608 people reporting past 30-day opioid use were recruited via modified chain-referral sampling in rural areas across 10 states. Participants completed a computer-assisted survey of substance use and substance-related attitudes, behaviors, and experiences. We used multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to test the association between felt stigma and recent non-fatal overdose.

Results

6.6% of participants (n = 173) reported an overdose in the past 30 days. Recent non-fatal overdose was significantly associated with felt stigma after adjusting for demographic and substance use-related covariates (aOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.20–1.81). The association remained significant in sensitivity analyses on component fear of enacted stigma items (aOR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.20–1.83) and an internalized stigma item (aOR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.07–2.14).

Conclusions

Felt stigma related to substance use is associated with higher risk of non-fatal overdose in rural-dwelling people who use drugs. Stigma reduction interventions and tailored services for those experiencing high stigma are underutilized approaches that may mitigate overdose risk.

Introduction

The United States (US) overdose epidemic continues to pose a major threat to public health after three decades. 107,000 Americans died from drug overdose in 2021, the largest mortality rate on record and a 16% increase over 2020 [1], and more than 200,000 non-fatal overdoses were reported by emergency medical services in the past 12 months [2]. Rural areas in the US have felt the impact of the overdose epidemic since its beginning: non-medical prescription opioid use, the driver of the epidemic’s first wave, has historically been higher in rural areas, owing in part to greater unintentional injury and higher prescribing rates compared with urban areas [3,4,5,6]. As a result, rural counties outpaced urban counties in age-adjusted overdose death rates between 2007 and 2015 [7]. Though the rural-urban mortality gap has closed during the most recent waves of the epidemic, the state of the epidemic in rural America remains troubling: overdose deaths in rural areas increased five-fold (from 4.0 to 19.6 per 100,000) between 1999 and 2019 [7].

Reducing stigma has long been noted as a key priority in addressing and ending the overdose epidemic [8,9,10,11]. Stigma, a “distinguished and labeled difference” [12], leads to discrimination, social exclusion, and status loss among stigmatized people, including people who use drugs (PWUD) [13,14,15]. While public stigma toward mental illness is generally decreasing in the United States, shifts in attitudes toward PWUD are more mixed [16]. Notably, unlike most other health issues, substance use stigma is still legally sanctioned in the United States. While people with severe mental illnesses are afforded civil rights through the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal statutes, these same protections are typically restricted for PWUD, e.g., limited to those in active treatment [8, 17]. As well, the use of most psychoactive substances remains criminalized, reinforcing associations between substance use and criminality, which explains, in part, why stigmatizing attitudes toward PWUD remain significant and seemingly intractable [18].

Stigma is a central component of the rural risk environment for substance-related harm [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. PWUD have reported experiencing stigma from pharmacists while seeking syringe access, first responders and healthcare staff during overdose experiences, providers in substance use treatment settings, employers during job-seeking and employment, family and friends during social support seeking, and the community at large [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. These experiences can lead to stigma becoming internalized and self-stereotypes being endorsed by PWUD, inducing the so-called ‘why try?’ effect, a feeling of futility about achieving one’s goals, including engagement in treatment [33, 35,36,37,38,39]. In rural areas and elsewhere in the US, substance use stigma is associated with multiple adverse outcomes, including depression, social isolation, familial rejection, suboptimal healthcare, and employment discrimination [9, 28, 33, 40,41,42,43,44].

Despite the multifarious psychosocial and health outcomes of substance-related stigma, the link between stigma and overdose in PWUD is understudied, with the exception of one urban study in Baltimore, Maryland demonstrating an association between stigma and recent self-reported overdose [45]. Building this evidence base is critical to determining the level of investment needed in anti-stigma programming as a possible tool for overdose prevention. Centrally, experiencing stigma is associated with risk factors for overdose, including increased temptation to use, severity of drug use, and injecting risk behaviors [46,47,48]. Stigma further reduces both the availability and utilization of substance use treatment and harm reduction services [22, 49,50,51,52,53], while major increases in uptake of and retention in these services are needed to meet current US government benchmarks for overdose reduction, with higher thresholds in rural than urban areas [54]. However, to our knowledge, no studies have explored the association between stigma and overdose among rural-dwelling PWUD. Given the salience of substance use stigma in rural areas, investigating this relationship is warranted [22, 23, 49, 55,56,57,58,59,60].

In this study we characterize the associations between felt stigma and self-reported non-fatal drug overdose in a cohort of PWUD living in rural counties across 10 states in the US. Felt stigma describes the cognitive outcomes of public stigma in PWUD that inhibit pursuing life goals, including help-seeking [61]. Felt stigma includes fear of encountering stigma from others and internalized stigma/shame [62]. Fear of enacted stigma describes the expected beliefs that others have about PWUD and the interpersonal consequences of these beliefs (e.g., discrimination). Internalized stigma is the acceptance and endorsement of public stigma towards one’s group and the behavior and cognitive consequences thereof [63,64,65]. We hypothesize that felt stigma will be associated with increased odds of non-fatal overdose in this population. A better understanding of this association will be useful to understanding the relative contribution of stigma to the epidemic and to better target overdose prevention efforts.

Methods

Study design

Participants (n = 3048) were recruited in 2018–2020 from study sites across 10 US states (Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, New England [Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont], Ohio, Oregon, Wisconsin, West Virginia) as part of the Rural Opioid Initiative (ROI) Consortium [66]. Eligibility for enrollment was self-reported past 30-day use of any opioid “to get high” (e.g., heroin, prescription pain medications, etc.) or injection of any drug (the Wisconsin site required past 30-day injection of any drug). Modified chain-referral sampling, based closely on Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS), was used to recruit people into the study. Each study site identified between 42 and 279 “seeds” who met participant eligibility criteria and agreed to initiate recruitment chains by referring peers—other PWUD. In general, seeds were selected to represent the sex and racial/ethnic characteristics of the local population of eligible individuals. Seeds were given up to six coupons to distribute to peers. Each eligible and enrolled recruit was offered the opportunity to recruit 3–6 eligible peers who were part of their network, with the process continuing until the sample size goal was met. Incentives were offered for recruitment ($10-$20 per peer, depending on site) and for study participation ($40-$60). All studies included two or more counties in their study area, and chain-referral recruitment chains were initiated in each county.

Standardized surveys were administered using Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, or Computer-Assisted Personal Interview, depending on study site. Participants also completed rapid HIV, hepatitis C virus, and syphilis testing following the interview (standard testing was conducted at the West Virginia site). Participants received $25 for completing the survey and an additional $20 for the rapid tests. The protocol was approved by the IRB at each participating institution, and participants were covered by a federal Certificate of Confidentiality. A complete description of site-specific study procedures is provided in the ROI Consortium overview paper [66].

Measures

Recent overdose

Participants were asked if they had ever experienced symptoms of an opioid overdose, described as “if you passed out, turned blue, or stopped breathing from using drugs.” If participants answered yes, they were then asked the date of their most recent overdose. Recent overdose was categorized as a dichotomous variable with a cut-point of 30 days.

Felt stigma

Felt stigma was assessed based on a 5-item scale adapted from Latkin et al. [41, 67]. Each item had a four-point response option ranging from “not at all” to “very much.” The questions, which elicited participants’ fear of enacted stigma (four items) and internalized stigma (one item), included: “How much do you fear you will lose your friends because you use drugs?”, “How much do you fear family will reject you because you use drugs?”, “How much do you think other people are uncomfortable being around you because you use drugs?”, “How much do you feel people avoid you because you use drugs?”, and “How much do you feel ashamed of using drugs?” To support construct validity of the scale, the items were submitted to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the psych package in R 4.3.3. In factor enumeration, scree plot analysis (one factor above the plot elbow), parallel analysis (one factor with eigenvalue greater than simulated random chance values), and the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (one eigenvalue > 1) each suggested a one-factor solution. EFA was next performed on one factor using maximum likelihood estimation. All items had factor loadings between 0.63 and 0.82, and the single factor accounted for 57% of the variance in the data. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale in the sample was 0.84. Scale items were summed as a composite stigma score and standardized as Z-scores for ease of interpretation during analysis.

Demographics

Covariates were selected to represent standard demographic characteristics, including age, gender, education, homelessness, recent incarceration, full-time work, and selling drugs. Homelessness was measured as participant report of experiencing any homelessness in the previous 6 months. Recent incarceration was dichotomized as yes/no based on participants reporting spending 1 or more day in jail or prison in the previous 6 months. Both full-time work (defined for participants as 40 h/week) and selling drugs were assessed as participants reporting their main sources of income in the previous 6 months.

Drug-related risk factors included any recent injection drug use, daily injection drug use, drugs injected (heroin, methamphetamines, fentanyl, speedball, i.e., opioid and a stimulant), binge drinking, total number of lifetime overdoses, positive screen for opioid dependence, and ever-possession of naloxone. Recent injection drug use was derived from a question asking participants the most recent date they injected drugs and dichotomizing yes for any injecting in the previous 6 months. Daily injection drug use was derived from a question asking participants how often they injected any drugs in the previous 30 days and dichotomizing yes for daily (or more frequent) injection. Injection of a specific drug was dichotomized as yes if participants reported injecting that drug at least one day in the previous 30 days. Binge drinking was dichotomized as yes if participants reported at least one day in the previous 30 days on which they consumed 5 or more alcoholic drinks (for males) or 4 or more alcoholic drinks (for females). Opioid dependence was measured using the 5-item Severity of Dependence Scale [68, 69].

Analysis

Given the definition of overdose in the survey, we restricted the sample to participants who reported using opioids in the past 30 days (n = 2608, i.e., excluding participants only reporting injection use of other drugs). Baseline descriptive characteristics were calculated for those with recent overdose and those without recent overdose, and bivariate group differences were compared using Pearson’s chi-squared test for categorical variables and t-tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables.

We accounted for missingness through multiple imputation using fully conditional specification under a missing at random assumption. All covariates were used in the imputation model, and 20 imputed datasets were created. Missingness by variable ranged from 0% (age) to 10.0% (speedball injecting). Multiple imputation reduces bias in parameter estimates compared with listwise deletion of cases with missing values [70].

Both unadjusted and multivariable logistic regressions were used to test the association between stigma and recent overdose. All covariates were retained in the multivariable models as they were identified a priori as theoretically important. In addition to the theory-based covariates, study site was retained as a fixed effect in the multivariable model. As a sensitivity analysis, and to support the construct validity of the composite stigma measure, we ran two additional multivariable models—one with only the four fear of enacted stigma items (summed and excluding the internalized stigma item), and one with only the internalized stigma item (dichotomized at “very much” given left skew in the response distribution). To aid inference about the temporal association between stigma and overdose (given that recent overdose may, in fact, precede felt stigma), we also conducted a sensitivity analysis using past-year overdose, rather than past-30-day overdose, as the outcome. It is expected that an attenuated association in this sensitivity analysis would lend some support to felt stigma preceding overdose. All models were estimated as generalized estimating equations clustering the standard errors at the RDS seed level to account for autocorrelation that may be present due to nesting within seeds [71]. Analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Sample characteristics

The analytical sample consisted of 2,608 rural-dwelling people who had used opioids within the past 30 days. Of these participants, 51.8% (n = 1352) reported having ever overdosed and 6.6% (n = 173) reported experiencing an overdose in the past 30 days. The average number of lifetime overdoses in the sample was 2.9. The mean age was 36 years and 57.3% of participants were male. Half (53.4%) of the sample reported experiencing homelessness at some point in the last 6 months and 41.5% had spent time in jail or prison in the last 6 months. Most participants (86.2%) had injected drugs in the past 6 months, and slightly more than half of participants (58.4%) reported injecting at least once per day. The most commonly injected drugs within the past 30 days were heroin (65.9%) and methamphetamine (59.7%). Benzodiazepine use was also common (52.5%), as was binge drinking (54.9%). The mean felt stigma score was 9.76 (range: 0–15, SD: 4.09). Approximately two-thirds (66.2%) of participants reported experiencing at least some level of all four fear of enacted stigma items, while 89.6% reported at least some internalized stigma. When evaluating stigma items dichotomized as “very much” vs. other, family rejection (52.6%) and shame (51.6%) were the most commonly reported.

Bivariate analyses

In bivariate analysis, participants who reported an overdose in the previous 30 days had higher felt stigma scores than those without recent overdose (p < .001, Table 1). Participants with recent overdose were more likely to have experienced recent homelessness (p < .001) and incarceration (p < .001), more likely to sell drugs for income (p < .001), and more likely to have engaged in all measured substance use behaviors except binge drinking (p = .26) when compared with those without recent overdose. Higher proportions of those reporting recent overdose also reported ever carrying naloxone (p < .001) and screened positive for opioid dependence (p < .001).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of 2608 people who use drugs from rural regions, stratified by overdose status

Multivariable analyses

In unadjusted analysis, the composite felt stigma measure was significantly associated with odds of recent overdose (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.43–2.07). This association was attenuated but remained significant when adjusting for all demographic and drug-related covariates: A one standard deviation increase in felt stigma was associated with a 1.47-fold increase in the odds of recent overdose (95% CI: 1.20–1.81, Table 2). Sensitivity analyses supported this finding. Examining the association between stigma and overdose using only the four fear of enacted stigma items (i.e., without the internalized stigma item), the association was nearly unchanged (aOR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.20–1.83, p = .0002). Likewise, the association between internalized stigma and recent overdose was significant (p = .02), with those endorsing “very much” on the shame question having 1.51 times the odds of recent overdose compared with those reporting “somewhat,” “just a little,” or “not at all” (95% CI: 1.07–2.14). In the final sensitivity analysis, using past-year overdose as the outcome, the association between felt stigma and overdose was attenuated as expected (aOR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.00-1.23, p = .053).

Table 2 Multivariable logistic regression analyses of recent overdose among 2608 people who use drugs from rural regions

Discussion

Felt stigma, including its components (internalized stigma and fear of enacted stigma), was significantly associated with recent non-fatal opioid overdose in this cross-sectional, multi-state sample of PWUD. Those reporting higher levels of felt stigma were more likely to have experienced an overdose in the previous 30 days independent of demographic and substance use-related factors, including injecting frequency.

These findings are consistent with previous work in Baltimore, Maryland. Latkin et al. found a similar magnitude of association between stigma and self-reported overdose in a majority urban-dwelling, African-American sample, although with different measures of recency (overdose < 1 year ago: aOR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.7; overdose > 1 year ago: aOR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2–1.9) [45]. As in this previous study, we note a relationship between fear of enacted stigma and overdose. In rural areas, which tend to have smaller social circles and fewer treatment providers, the lack of anonymity may exacerbate concerns about discrimination and discourage treatment-seeking for fear of being identified in the community as a PWUD [23, 55, 72, 73].

A key difference between the current study and Latkin et al. is that we found a significant association between overdose and internalized stigma (Latkin et al. reported aOR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.8–1.8) [45]. One possible explanation for this discrepant finding lies in different social perceptions and norms surrounding substance use across US geographies [74, 75]. The cultural and religious landscapes in many rural areas often emphasize addiction as a moral failing and encourage self-reliance and self-sufficiency over help-seeking and social support [56, 75,76,77,78,79,80]. The relationship of internalized stigma to psychosocial health and treatment-seeking may thus be stronger in rural than urban areas. This association needs further exploration in other locations.

On the whole, our findings demonstrate that felt stigma may play a contributing role to the risk of overdose in rural areas. Although our study cannot determine causality, the mechanisms through which stigma might impact overdose are poorly understood and merit further study. We offer two possible frameworks that could be examined in future research: a psychological distress pathway and a stigma avoidance pathway.

In the psychological distress pathway, felt stigma may lead to deteriorated mental health among PWUD, which in turn leads to unsafe drug use practices. Substance-related stigma is associated with worsening mental health, including depression, anxiety, hopelessness, distress, reduced self-esteem, poor sleep, suicidal ideation, and feelings of isolation and guilt [41, 48, 81,82,83,84]. In turn, poor mental health, including depression, anxiety, and suicidality, is associated with increased risk for non-fatal overdose [85,86,87,88,89]. According to the ‘why try’ effect, prosocial, health-protective behaviors are deemed futile in the face of discrimination [36, 90]. PWUD with poor mental health may be less able to engage in coping and other adaptive self-maintenance strategies (e.g., harm reduction), have an increased drive to relieve depression through psychoactive means, and experience inhibited risk perceptions [86, 88, 89, 91, 92]. Notably, many PWUD who are overdose survivors may experience ‘passive suicidal intent’ before overdosing—not wanting to die, but not caring about the risks either [88]. Resulting risk behaviors, like higher-than-usual doses, polysubstance use, faster injecting, and lack of drug checking (e.g., for contaminants like fentanyl) may be mechanisms to overdose in PWUD with poor mental health [22, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93]. Though the psychological distress pathway has not been explored among PWUD, depression mediates the association between HIV-related stigma and risk behaviors among people living with HIV [94].

A stigma avoidance pathway was previously discussed, in part, by Latkin et al. [45]. PWUD with heightened perceived and internalized stigma may behave in ways so as to avoid experiencing stigma and its manifestations (e.g., prejudice and discrimination) [95, 96]. This process may involve concealing drug use from potential stigmatizers in private (friends, family) and public (law enforcement, passersby) spaces. For example, PWUD may use drugs while they are alone [97, 98], a risk factor or overdose fatality [99, 100]. More broadly, site of consumption is a key factor in the risk environment for PWUD in both rural and urban settings, and use in public and semi-public spaces is associated with increased risk for overdose [19, 22, 45, 101,102,103,104,105]. It has been suggested that PWUD who use drugs in open-air spaces (like public parks or parked cars) may rush their consumption in order to avoid detection by police or passersby [22, 103, 106]. Homelessness was one of the few variables significantly associated with overdose in adjusted analyses in our study; it follows that those without housing—who must use in public out of necessity—may be more likely to engage in such risky, stigma-avoidant practices [107]. In addition to public spaces, PWUD may seek refuge from stigma in semi-public spaces, such as “trap houses” (buildings for buying and using drugs), where they are likely to encounter only other PWUD [22, 103, 108]. In previous studies, rural-dwelling PWUD who use drugs in trap houses have described feeling rushed to inject, peer pressured to experiment with different substances or doses, and compelled to share syringes [22, 105, 108], behaviors that can precipitate overdose [103, 109,110,111,112].

If stigma increases overdose likelihood through risky consumption behaviors like rushed injecting, then there is an imperative to reach PWUD experiencing high stigma with tailored overdose prevention and harm reduction outreach and services. Two related but distinct goals in this context are preventing non-fatal overdoses from occurring in the first place and, as importantly, preventing overdoses that do occur from becoming fatal. Several harm reduction strategies have proven essential to promoting safer consumption, including freely available test strips (to check drugs for unexpected adulterants like fentanyl) and sterile syringes (which discourage receptive syringe sharing) [113, 114]. Meanwhile, overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) initiatives are essential tools in preventing fatal overdose [115]. Finally, safe consumption sites, also known as overdose prevention sites, offer a controlled and supervised environment for drug use as well as access to sterile equipment, education, and support services [116, 117]. These sites could serve as a safer alternative for PWUD accustomed to using in semi-public environments like trap houses.

However, solutions are needed for PWUD who are reluctant to attend public harm reduction programs for fear of experiencing stigma. In this regard, it may be beneficial to consider social network approaches to harm reduction. Social networks are important settings for the diffusion of health-related behaviors, both positive and negative [118]. Thus, while networks can increase substance use-related risks, e.g., through the spread of bloodborne infectious diseases, they may also be harnessed to promote health-protective behaviors [118, 119]. Social networks could serve as low-stigma conduits for promoting safer behaviors through peer education, norm shifting, and resource sharing, including clean syringes and fentanyl test strips. Peer support has been demonstrated as an essential feature for increasing trust, legitimacy, and reach of overdose prevention initiatives [120]. Champions—those with high PWUD network centrality—could play a key role in changing harm reduction behaviors outside of institutional settings [121]. Champion-centered peer education was used successfully to reduce HIV risk behaviors and seroconversion in networks of people who inject drugs in Ukraine [122]. Social networks may further provide a source of social support, which can reduce perceived and internalized stigma in PWUD and in turn improve mental health [81, 123, 124]. PWUD with high community attachment to their substance-using networks exhibited lower internalized stigma in one previous study [119]. Social support resources may be particularly valuable for PWUD with recent onset of substance use, as stigma beliefs are more tractable early on in the course of stigmatized conditions [125]. Given strong kinship and social networks in rural areas that often proliferate drug use risk behaviors, these durable ties may likewise be appropriate channels for promoting harm reduction and anti-stigma programming [75, 126].

Recognizing that not all PWUD will have robust networks, however, additional services are appropriate. Especially for those who prefer to use drugs alone—in the absence of bystanders who can administer naloxone or alert emergency services—one key consideration is preventing overdoses from becoming fatal. Recent phone- and app-based innovations, in which a PWUD connects anonymously to a person who can alert emergency services in case of an overdose, have demonstrated good acceptability among PWUD [127]. Third-party solutions (e.g., Never Use Alone, Brave) are available in the United States, while Canada has implemented a government-sanctioned overdose monitoring hotline [128].

It is crucial to acknowledge that the onus must not lie solely on PWUD to manage the consequences of stigma. Substance use is embedded in a social context of prohibition, criminalization, and legally sanctioned discrimination that dates back at least to the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 and has been concretized through decades of regressive policies and a ‘war on drugs’ that punishes and socially devalues PWUD [129, 130]. Policy reform centered on decriminalization and civil protections for PWUD should be considered a priority in the primary prevention of substance use stigma.

This study has some limitations. Participants self-reported recency and frequency of non-fatal overdose. Recall bias may be a source of systematic measurement inaccuracies: It is possible that some participants engaged in telescoping, a tendency in survey response to report events more recently than they actually occurred [131], leading to an overcount of recent overdoses in the sample. However, it has been noted that recall bias diminishes proportionally with the salience of the event [132]. Overdoses are memorable events, producing trauma and grief responses [133, 134], and it is reasonable to assume that recall of recent such events is strong. Further, recent research suggests that standardized, administrative records like hospital diagnostic codes may severely undercount non-fatal overdose as compared with self-report [135].

As data collection was cross-sectional, temporality cannot be established. Rather than a unidirectional association, it is possible that overdose experiences and felt stigma are mutually constitutive. For instance, participants who sought medical care for recent overdose likely encountered law enforcement, emergency medical technicians, or healthcare providers, groups commonly reported to enact stigma against PWUD [27, 30, 32, 56, 136]. Experiences of prejudice or discrimination in these settings may have increased perceptions and internalization of stigma among some participants. It is possible that a feedback loop operates between these two constructs [137]: while stigma may increase the risk of overdose through the distress and avoidance pathways discussed above, stigmatizing experiences in the aftermath of an overdose may in turn magnify these very pathways, increasing risk for future overdose. One study of children impacted by HIV/AIDS in China demonstrated such a bidirectional, longitudinal relationship, with path analyses indicating that enacted stigma increased depressive symptoms, which in turn increased perceived stigma, and finally enacted stigma [138]. Our sensitivity analysis using a longer period of overdose recency demonstrated an attenuated association, lending some limited support to stigma preceding overdose in this cross-sectional study. Nonetheless, temporal evidence for causality is weak, and further longitudinal research is warranted to disentangle the causal relationship between stigma and factors precipitating overdose risk, as well as how PWUD stigma-related beliefs and management strategies change through time.

Conclusions

This large, multi-site study demonstrates an association between felt stigma and recent overdose in PWUD living across several diverse, rural areas of the US. Non-fatal overdose has a dose-response relationship with subsequent fatal overdose; addressing known risk factors for non-fatal overdose is thus critical to preventing overdose deaths [139, 140]. Further work is needed to understand the psychosocial mechanisms that might underlie the association between stigma and overdose in order to interrupt this pathway. Given growing concerns with polydrug overdose, future studies should also explore this association among PWUD using non-opioid drugs with potential for contamination [141, 142]. Nonetheless, stigma reduction interventions—as well as tailored services for PWUD experiencing high felt stigma—are likely underutilized approaches that may decrease the risk of overdose.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to the sensitive nature of the data but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

OEND:

Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution

PWUD:

Person/People Who Uses Drugs

RDS:

Respondent Driven Sampling

ROI:

Rural Opioid Initiative

US:

United States

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control &, Prevention US, Overdose Deaths. In 2021 Increased Half as Much as in 2020 - But Are Still Up 15% [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Oct 15]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/202205.htm.

  2. National Emergency Medical Services Information System. NEMSIS. 2023 [cited 2023 May 26]. Opioid Overdose Tracker. Available from: https://nemsis-aws.org/opioid-overdose-tracker/.

  3. Coben JH, Tiesman HM, Bossarte RM, Furbee PM. Rural-urban differences in injury hospitalizations in the U.S., 2004. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(1):49–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Keyes KM, Cerdá M, Brady JE, Havens JR, Galea S. Understanding the rural-urban differences in nonmedical prescription opioid use and abuse in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(2):e52–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Leff M, Stallones L, Keefe TJ, Rosenblatt R, Reeds M. Comparison of urban and rural non-fatal injury: the results of a statewide survey. Inj Prev. 2003;9(4):332–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lund BC, Ohl ME, Hadlandsmyth K, Mosher HJ. Regional and Rural-Urban Variation in Opioid Prescribing in the Veterans Health Administration. Mil Med. 2019;184(11–12):894–900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hedegaard H, Spencer MR. Urban–rural differences in drug overdose death rates, 1999–2019 [Internet]. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2021 Mar [cited 2022 Dec 14]. (NCHS Data Brief). Report No.: 403. Available from: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/102891.

  8. Corrigan PW, Nieweglowski K. Stigma and the public health agenda for the opioid crisis in America. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;59:44–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Earnshaw VA. Stigma and substance use disorders: a clinical, research, and advocacy agenda. Am Psychol. 2020;75(9):1300–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. National Academies of Sciences E and Medicine. Ending Discrimination Against People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders: The Evidence for Stigma Change [Internet]. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 [cited 2022 Mar 5]. https://doi.org/10.17226/23442.

  11. Tsai AC, Kiang MV, Barnett ML, Beletsky L, Keyes KM, McGinty EE, et al. Stigma as a fundamental hindrance to the United States opioid overdose crisis response. PLoS Med. 2019;16(11):e1002969.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Stangl AL, Earnshaw VA, Logie CH, van Brakel W, Simbayi C, Barré L. The health stigma and discrimination Framework: a global, crosscutting framework to inform research, intervention development, and policy on health-related stigmas. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Goffman E. Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hatzenbuehler ML, Phelan JC, Link BG. Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(5):813–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Link BG, Phelan JC. Conceptualizing stigma. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27(1):363–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pescosolido BA, Halpern-Manners A, Luo L, Perry B. Trends in Public Stigma of Mental Illness in the US, 1996–2018. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(12):e2140202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Volkow ND. Stigma and the toll of addiction. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(14):1289–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. West ML, Yanos PT, Mulay AL. Triple Stigma of Forensic Psychiatric patients: Mental Illness, Race, and criminal history. Int J Forensic Mental Health. 2014;13(1):75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Collins AB, Boyd J, Cooper HLF, McNeil R. The intersectional risk environment of people who use drugs. Soc Sci Med. 2019;234:112384.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rhodes T. Risk environments and drug harms: a social science for harm reduction approach. Int J Drug Policy. 2009;20(3):193–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kolak MA, Chen YT, Joyce S, Ellis K, Defever K, McLuckie C, et al. Rural risk environments, opioid-related overdose, and infectious diseases: a multidimensional, spatial perspective. Int J Drug Policy. 2020;85:102727.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Fadanelli M, Cloud DH, Ibragimov U, Ballard AM, Prood N, Young AM, et al. People, places, and stigma: a qualitative study exploring the overdose risk environment in rural Kentucky. Int J Drug Policy. 2020;85:102588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 

  24. Palombi LC, St Hill CA, Lipsky MS, Swanoski MT, Lutfiyya MN. A scoping review of opioid misuse in the rural United States. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(9):641–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Walters SM, Frank D, Felsher M, Jaiswal J, Fletcher S, Bennett AS, et al. How the rural risk environment underpins hepatitis C risk: qualitative findings from rural southern Illinois, United States. Int J Drug Policy. 2023;112:103930.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Baldwin ML, Marcus SC, De Simone J. Job loss discrimination and former substance use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;110(1–2):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Cheetham A, Picco L, Barnett A, Lubman DI, Nielsen S. The impact of Stigma on people with Opioid Use Disorder, Opioid Treatment, and policy. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2022;13:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Earnshaw VA, Smith L, Copenhaver M. Drug Addiction Stigma in the context of Methadone maintenance therapy: an investigation into understudied sources of Stigma. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2013;11(1):110–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hunter BA, Jason LA. Correlates of employment among men in substance use recovery: the influence of discrimination and social support. J Prev Interv Community. 2022;50(2):163–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kruis NE, McLean K, Perry P, Nackley MK. First responders’ views of naloxone: does stigma matter? Subst Use Misuse. 2022;57(10):1534–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nieweglowski K, Corrigan PW, Tyas T, Tooley A, Dubke R, Lara J, et al. Exploring the public stigma of substance use disorder through community-based participatory research. Addict Res Theory. 2017;26(4):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Paquette CE, Syvertsen JL, Pollini RA. Stigma at every turn: health services experiences among people who inject drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;57:104–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Walters SM, Bolinski RS, Almirol E, Grundy S, Fletcher S, Schneider J, et al. Structural and community changes during COVID-19 and their effects on overdose precursors among rural people who use drugs: a mixed-methods analysis. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2022;17(1):24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Corrigan PW, Larson JE, Rüsch N. Self-stigma and the why try effect: impact on life goals and evidence-based practices. World Psychiatry. 2009;8(2):75–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Corrigan PW, Bink AB, Schmidt A, Jones N, Rüsch N. What is the impact of self-stigma? Loss of self-respect and the why try effect. J Ment Health. 2016;25(1):10–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Crapanzano KA, Hammarlund R, Ahmad B, Hunsinger N, Kullar R. The association between perceived stigma and substance use disorder treatment outcomes: a review. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2019;10:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hammarlund R, Crapanzano KA, Luce L, Mulligan L, Ward KM. Review of the effects of self-stigma and perceived social stigma on the treatment-seeking decisions of individuals with drug- and alcohol-use disorders. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2018;9:115–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Luoma JB. Substance Use Stigma as a Barrier to Treatment and Recovery. In: Johnson BA, editor. Addiction Medicine: Science and Practice [Internet]. New York, NY: Springer; 2011 [cited 2023 Feb 14]. p. 1195–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0338-9_59.

  40. Kennedy-Hendricks A, Busch SH, McGinty EE, Bachhuber MA, Niederdeppe J, Gollust SE, et al. Primary care physicians’ perspectives on the prescription opioid epidemic. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;165:61–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Latkin CA, Davey-Rothwell M, Yang Jyan, Crawford N. The relationship between drug user stigma and depression among inner-city drug users in Baltimore, MD. J Urban Health. 2013;90(1):147–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Muncan B, Walters SM, Ezell J, Ompad DC. They look at us like junkies: influences of drug use stigma on the healthcare engagement of people who inject drugs in New York City. Harm Reduct J. 2020;17(1):53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Perry BL, Pescosolido BA, Krendl AC. The unique nature of public stigma toward non-medical prescription opioid use and dependence: a national study. Addiction. 2020;115(12):2317–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rapier R, McKernan S, Stauffer CS. An inverse relationship between perceived social support and substance use frequency in socially stigmatized populations. Addict Behav Rep. 2019;10:100188.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Latkin CA, Gicquelais RE, Clyde C, Dayton L, Davey-Rothwell M, German D, et al. Stigma and drug use settings as correlates of self-reported, non-fatal overdose among people who use drugs in Baltimore, Maryland. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;68:86–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Bayat AH, Mohammadi R, Moradi-Joo M, Bayani A, Ahounbar E, Higgs P, et al. HIV and drug related stigma and risk-taking behaviors among people who inject drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Addict Dis. 2020;38(1):71–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Brown SA, Kramer K, Lewno B, Dumas L, Sacchetti G, Powell E. Correlates of self-stigma among individuals with substance use problems. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2015;13(6):687–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. von Hippel C, Brener L, Horwitz R. Implicit and explicit internalized stigma: relationship with risky behaviors, psychosocial functioning and healthcare access among people who inject drugs. Addict Behav. 2018;76:305–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Baker LS, Smith W, Gulley T, Tomann MM. Community perceptions of comprehensive harm reduction programs and stigma towards people who inject drugs in rural virginia. J Community Health. 2020;45(2):239–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Luoma JB, O’Hair AK, Kohlenberg BS, Hayes SC, Fletcher L. The development and psychometric properties of a new measure of perceived stigma toward substance users. Subst Use Misuse. 2010;45(1–2):47–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Richard EL, Schalkoff CA, Piscalko HM, Brook DL, Sibley AL, Lancaster KE, et al. You are not clean until you’re not on anything: perceptions of medication-assisted treatment in rural Appalachia. Int J Drug Policy. 2020;85:102704.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Trull G, Major E, Harless C, Zule W, Ostrach B, Carpenter D. Rural community pharmacist willingness to dispense Suboxone® - A secret shopper investigation in South-Central Appalachia. Exploratory Res Clin Social Pharm. 2021;4:100082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Yang LH, Wong LY, Grivel MM, Hasin DS. Stigma and substance use disorders: an international phenomenon. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2017;30(5):378–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Linas BP, Savinkina A, Madushani RWMA, Wang J, Eftekhari Yazdi G, Chatterjee A, et al. Projected estimates of Opioid Mortality after Community-Level interventions. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e2037259.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Burgess A, Bauer E, Gallagher S, Karstens B, Lavoie L, Ahrens K, et al. Experiences of stigma among individuals in recovery from opioid use disorder in a rural setting: a qualitative analysis. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;130:108488.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ezell JM, Walters S, Friedman SR, Bolinski R, Jenkins WD, Schneider J, et al. Stigmatize the use, not the user? Attitudes on opioid use, drug injection, treatment, and overdose prevention in rural communities. Soc Sci Med. 2021;268:113470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ondocsin J, Mars SG, Howe M, Ciccarone D. Hostility, compassion and role reversal in West Virginia’s long opioid overdose emergency. Harm Reduct J. 2020;17(1):74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Surratt HL, Otachi JK, McLouth CJ, Vundi N. Healthcare stigma and HIV risk among rural people who inject drugs. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;226:108878.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Sibley AL, Schalkoff CA, Richard EL, Piscalko HM, Brook DL, Lancaster KE, et al. I was raised in addiction: Constructions of the self and the other in discourses of Addiction and Recovery. Qual Health Res. 2020;30(14):2278–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Sibley AL, Baker R, Levander XA, Rains A, Walters SM, Nolte K, et al. I am not a junkie: Social categorization and differentiation among people who use drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2023;114:103999.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Laird KT, Smith CA, Hollon SD, Walker LS. Validation of the Health-related Felt Stigma and Concealment Questionnaire. J Pediatr Psychol. 2020;45(5):509–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Scambler G. Re-framing Stigma: Felt and Enacted Stigma and challenges to the sociology of chronic and disabling conditions. Soc Theory Health. 2004;2(1):29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Corrigan PW, Rao D. On the self-stigma of Mental Illness: stages, Disclosure, and strategies for change. Can J Psychiatry. 2012;57(8):464–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Sheehan L, Nieweglowski K, Corrigan PW. Structures and Types of Stigma. In: Gaebel W, Rössler W, Sartorius N, editors. The Stigma of Mental Illness - End of the Story? [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017 [cited 2023 Feb 23]. p. 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27839-1_3.

  65. Pescosolido BA, Martin JK. The Stigma Complex. Annu Rev Sociol. 2015;41:87–116.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 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 

  67. Latkin CA, Srikrishnan AK, Yang C, Johnson S, Solomon SS, Kumar S, et al. The relationship between drug use stigma and HIV injection risk behaviors among injection drug users in Chennai, India. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;110(3):221–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Iraurgi Castillo I, González Saiz F, Lozano Rojas O, Landabaso Vázquez MA, Jiménez Lerma JM. Estimation of cutoff for the severity of dependence scale (SDS) for opiate dependence by ROC analysis. Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2010;38(5):270–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Gossop M, Darke S, Griffiths P, Hando J, Powis B, Hall W, et al. The severity of dependence scale (SDS): psychometric properties of the SDS in English and Australian samples of heroin, cocaine and amphetamine users. Addiction. 1995;90(5):607–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Baraldi AN, Enders CK. An introduction to modern missing data analyses. J Sch Psychol. 2010;48(1):5–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Sperandei S, Bastos LS, Ribeiro-Alves M, Reis A, Bastos FI. Assessing logistic regression applied to respondent-driven sampling studies: a simulation study with an application to empirical data. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2023;26(3):319–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Browne T, Priester MA, Clone S, Iachini A, DeHart D, Hock R. Barriers and facilitators to substance use treatment in the rural south: a qualitative study. J Rural Health. 2016;32(1):92–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Sexton RL, Carlson RG, Leukefeld CG, Booth BM. Barriers to formal drug abuse treatment in the rural south: a preliminary ethnographic assessment. J Psychoact Drugs. 2008;40(2):121–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Schalkoff CA, Lancaster KE, Gaynes BN, Wang V, Pence BW, Miller WC, et al. The opioid and related drug epidemics in rural Appalachia: a systematic review of populations affected, risk factors, and infectious diseases. Substance Abuse. 2020;41(1):35–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Bolinski R, Ellis K, Zahnd WE, Walters S, McLuckie C, Schneider J, et al. Social norms associated with nonmedical opioid use in rural communities: a systematic review. Transl Behav Med. 2019;9(6):1224–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. DeGuzman PB, Vogel DL, Bernacchi V, Scudder MA, Jameson MJ. Self-reliance, social norms, and self-stigma as barriers to psychosocial help-seeking among Rural Cancer survivors with Cancer-related distress: qualitative interview study. JMIR Formative Res. 2022;6(5):e33262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Szott K. Heroin is the devil’: addiction, religion, and needle exchange in the rural United States. Crit Public Health. 2020;30(1):68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Starcher RW, Geurin L, Shannon L, Whitley A. Assessing the Likelihood of Seeking Health Care in Rural Kentucky: applying the barriers to help seeking scale to Appalachian and Non-appalachian undergraduates. J Appalach Stud. 2017;23(2):239–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Keller EM, Owens GP. Understanding help-seeking in rural counties: a serial mediation analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2022;78(5):857–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Durantini MR, Grid for the Reduction of Vulnerability, Albarracin D. The associations of religious affiliation, religious service attendance, and religious leader norm with support for protective versus punitive drug policies: a look at the States affected by the rural opioid epidemic in the United States. J Rural Mental Health. 2021;45(3):155–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Birtel MD, Wood L, Kempa NJ. Stigma and social support in substance abuse: implications for mental health and well-being. Psychiatry Res. 2017;252:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Cama E, Brener L, Wilson H, von Hippel C. Internalized stigma among people who inject drugs. Subst Use Misuse. 2016;51(12):1664–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. da Silveira PS, Casela ALM, Monteiro ÉP, Ferreira GCL, de Freitas JVT, Machado NM, et al. Psychosocial understanding of self-stigma among people who seek treatment for drug addiction. Stigma Health. 2018;3(1):42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Livingston JD, Boyd JE. Correlates and consequences of internalized stigma for people living with mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(12):2150–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Armoon B, Higgs P, Mohammadi R. Mental health status, health service utilization, drug use behaviors associated with non-fatal overdose among people who use illicit drugs: a meta-analysis. J Subst Use. 2021;1–12.

  86. Bartoli F, Carrà G, Brambilla G, Carretta D, Crocamo C, Neufeind J, et al. Association between depression and non-fatal overdoses among drug users: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;134:12–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Bohnert ASB, Ilgen MA, Ignacio RV, McCarthy JF, Valenstein M, Blow FC. Risk of death from accidental overdose associated with psychiatric and substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169(1):64–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Gicquelais RE, Jannausch M, Bohnert ASB, Thomas L, Sen S, Fernandez AC. Links between suicidal intent, polysubstance use, and medical treatment after non-fatal opioid overdose. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;212:108041.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Tobin KE, Latkin CA. The relationship between depressive symptoms and nonfatal overdose among a sample of drug users in Baltimore, Maryland. J Urban Health. 2003;80(2):220–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Corrigan PW, Nieweglowski K, Sayer J. Self-stigma and the mediating impact of the why try effect on depression. J Community Psychol. 2019;47(3):698–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Schweizer S. Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: a meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30(2):217–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Pabayo R, Alcantara C, Kawachi I, Wood E, Kerr T. The role of depression and social support in non-fatal drug overdose among a cohort of injection drug users in a Canadian setting. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;132(3):603–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Betts KS, McIlwraith F, Dietze P, Whittaker E, Burns L, Cogger S, et al. Can differences in the type, nature or amount of polysubstance use explain the increased risk of non-fatal overdose among psychologically distressed people who inject drugs? Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;154:76–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Clum G, Chung SE, Ellen JM. Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS interventions. Mediators of HIV-related stigma and risk behavior in HIV infected young women. AIDS Care. 2009;21(11):1455–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Luoma JB, Nobles RH, Drake CE, Hayes SC, O’Hair A, Fletcher L, et al. Self-stigma in substance abuse: development of a new measure. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2013;35(2):223–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Luoma JB, Twohig MP, Waltz T, Hayes SC, Roget N, Padilla M, et al. An investigation of stigma in individuals receiving treatment for substance abuse. Addict Behav. 2007;32(7):1331–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Riback L, Pérez-Correa AE, Ghiroli MM, López-Castro T, Fox AD. Injecting alone: practices and preferences among people who inject drugs in New York City. Subst Use Misuse. 2022;57(13):1988–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Winiker AK, Tobin KE, Gicquelais RE, Owczarzak J, Latkin C. When you’re getting High… you just don’t want to be around anybody. A qualitative exploration of reasons for injecting alone: perspectives from Young people who inject drugs. Subst Use Misuse. 2020;55(13):2079–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. British Columbia Coroners Service. BC Coroners Service Death Review Panel: A Review of Illicit Drug Toxicity Deaths [Internet]. 2022 Mar p. 1–60. Available from: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/death-review-panel/review_of_illicit_drug_toxicity_deaths_2022.pdf.

  100. Darke S, Duflou J. The toxicology of heroin-related death: estimating survival times. Addiction. 2016;111(9):1607–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Cooper H, Moore L, Gruskin S, Krieger N. The impact of a police drug crackdown on drug injectors’ ability to practice harm reduction: a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(3):673–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Dovey K, Fitzgerald J, Choi Y. Safety becomes danger: dilemmas of drug-use in public space. Health Place. 2001;7(4):319–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Hunter K, Park JN, Allen ST, Chaulk P, Frost T, Weir BW, et al. Safe and unsafe spaces: non-fatal overdose, arrest, and receptive syringe sharing among people who inject drugs in public and semi-public spaces in Baltimore City. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;57:25–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Ickowicz S, Wood E, Dong H, Nguyen P, Small W, Kerr T, et al. Association between public injecting and drug-related harm among HIV-positive people who use injection drugs in a Canadian setting: a longitudinal analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;180:33–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. White RH, O’Rourke A, Kilkenny ME, Schneider KE, Weir BW, Grieb SM, et al. Prevalence and correlates of receptive syringe-sharing among people who inject drugs in rural Appalachia. Addiction. 2021;116(2):328–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Ti L, Hayashi K, Kaplan K, Suwannawong P, Wood E, Kerr T. Contextual factors associated with rushed injecting among people who inject drugs in Thailand. Prev Sci. 2015;16(2):313–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Doran KM, Fockele CE, Maguire M. Overdose and homelessness-why we need to talk about housing. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(1):e2142685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Cloud DH, Ibragimov U, Prood N, Young AM, Cooper HLF. Rural risk environments for hepatitis c among young adults in appalachian kentucky. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;72:47–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Bazazi AR, Zelenev A, Fu JJ, Yee I, Kamarulzaman A, Altice FL. High prevalence of non-fatal overdose among people who inject drugs in Malaysia: correlates of overdose and implications for overdose prevention from a cross-sectional study. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(7):675–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Jenkins LM, Banta-Green CJ, Maynard C, Kingston S, Hanrahan M, Merrill JO, et al. Risk factors for nonfatal overdose at Seattle-area syringe exchanges. J Urban Health. 2011;88(1):118–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Kerr T, Fairbairn N, Tyndall M, Marsh D, Li K, Montaner J, et al. Predictors of non-fatal overdose among a cohort of polysubstance-using injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;87(1):39–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Lyons RM, Yule AM, Schiff D, Bagley SM, Wilens TE. Risk factors for drug overdose in young people: a systematic review of the literature. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2019;29(7):487–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Peiper NC, Clarke SD, Vincent LB, Ciccarone D, Kral AH, Zibbell JE. Fentanyl test strips as an opioid overdose prevention strategy: findings from a syringe services program in the Southeastern United States. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;63:122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Fernandes RM, Cary M, Duarte G, Jesus G, Alarcão J, Torre C, et al. Effectiveness of needle and syringe programmes in people who inject drugs - an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):309.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Razaghizad A, Windle SB, Filion KB, Gore G, Kudrina I, Paraskevopoulos E, et al. The Effect of Overdose Education and Naloxone distribution: an Umbrella Review of systematic Reviews[1]. Am J Public Health. 2021;111(8):E1–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Pauly B, Wallace B, Pagan F, Phillips J, Wilson M, Hobbs H, et al. Impact of overdose prevention sites during a public health emergency in Victoria, Canada. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0229208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Harocopos A, Gibson BE, Saha N, McRae MT, See K, Rivera S, et al. First 2 months of operation at First Publicly Recognized Overdose Prevention Centers in US. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(7):e2222149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. West BS. Social Networks of Substance-using populations: Key issues and Promising New approaches for HIV. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2019;16(1):48–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Brener L, Broady T, Cama E, Hopwood M, Byrne J, Treloar C. Positive effects of community attachment on internalised stigma and wellbeing among people who inject drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2021;97:103323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Mercer F, Miler JA, Pauly B, Carver H, Hnízdilová K, Foster R et al. Peer Support and Overdose Prevention Responses: A Systematic State-of-the-Art Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021 Nov 17 [cited 2022 Dec 15];18(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212073.

  121. Bouchard M, Hashimi S, Tsai K, Lampkin H, Jozaghi E. Back to the core: a network approach to bolster harm reduction among persons who inject drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;51:95–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Booth RE, Davis JM, Dvoryak S, Brewster JT, Lisovska O, Strathdee SA, et al. HIV incidence among people who inject drugs (PWIDs) in Ukraine: results from a clustered randomised trial. Lancet HIV. 2016;3(10):e482–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Broman MJ, Pasman E, Brown S, Lister JJ, Agius E, Resko SM. Social support is associated with reduced stigma and shame in a sample of rural and small urban adults in methadone treatment. Addict Res Theory. 2022;1–8.

  124. Wang DF, Zhou YN, Liu YH, Hao YZ, Zhang JH, Liu TQ, et al. Social support and depressive symptoms: exploring stigma and self-efficacy in a moderated mediation model. BMC Psychiatry. 2022;22(1):117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Mueller B, Nordt C, Lauber C, Rueesch P, Meyer PC, Roessler W. Social support modifies perceived stigmatization in the first years of mental illness: a longitudinal approach. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(1):39–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Dew B, Elifson K, Dozier M. Social and environmental factors and their influence on drug use vulnerability and resiliency in rural populations. J Rural Health. 2007;23 Suppl:16–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Tsang VWL, Papamihali K, Crabtree A, Buxton JA. Acceptability of technological solutions for overdose monitoring: perspectives of people who use drugs. Subst Abus. 2021;42(3):284–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Matskiv G, Marshall T, Krieg O, Viste D, Ghosh SM. Virtual overdose monitoring services: a novel adjunctive harm reduction approach for addressing the overdose crisis. CMAJ. 2022;194(46):E1568–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Scher BD, Neufeld SD, Butler A, Bonn M, Zakimi N, Farrell J, et al. Criminalization causes the Stigma: perspectives from people who use drugs. Contemp Drug Probl. 2023;50(3):402–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Jones MR, Viswanath O, Peck J, Kaye AD, Gill JS, Simopoulos TT. A brief history of the opioid epidemic and strategies for Pain Medicine. Pain Ther. 2018;7(1):13–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Prohaska V, Brown NR, Belli RF. Forward telescoping: the question matters. Memory. 1998;6(4):455–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Dex S. The reliability of recall data: a literature review. Bull Sociol Methodol. 1995;49(1):58–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Kenny KS, Kolla G, Firestone M, Bannerman M, Greig S, Flores BF, et al. Frequency of fatal and non-fatal overdoses and response to grief and loss among people who inject drugs: an unexplored dimension of the opioid overdose crisis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;237:109539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Schneider KE, Tomko C, Nestadt DF, Silberzahn BE, White RH, Sherman SG. Conceptualizing overdose trauma: the relationships between experiencing and witnessing overdoses with PTSD symptoms among street-recruited female sex workers in Baltimore, Maryland. Int J Drug Policy. 2021;92:102859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Riggs KR, DeRussy AJ, Leisch L, Shover CL, Bohnert ASB, Hoge AE, et al. Sensitivity of health records for self-reported nonfatal drug and alcohol overdose. Am J Addict. 2022;31(6):517–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Kruis NE, Choi J, Donohue RH. Police officers, stigma, and the opioid epidemic. Int J Police Sci Manage. 2020;22(4):393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Quinn DM, Earnshaw VA. Concealable stigmatized identities and Psychological Well-Being. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2013;7(1):40–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Chi P, Li X, Zhao J, Zhao G. Vicious circle of perceived stigma, enacted stigma and depressive symptoms among children affected by HIV/AIDS in China. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(6):1054–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Caudarella A, Dong H, Milloy MJ, Kerr T, Wood E, Hayashi K. Non-fatal overdose as a risk factor for subsequent fatal overdose among people who inject drugs. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;162:51–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. Stoové MA, Dietze PM, Jolley D. Overdose deaths following previous non-fatal heroin overdose: record linkage of ambulance attendance and death registry data. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009;28(4):347–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Jenkins RA. The fourth wave of the US opioid epidemic and its implications for the rural US: a federal perspective. Prev Med. 2021;152:106541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Ciccarone D. The rise of illicit fentanyls, stimulants and the fourth wave of the opioid overdose crisis. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2021;34(4):344–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge all the participants in this research study for bravely sharing their lived experiences.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in partnership with the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), grant numbers: UG3DA044830, UH3DA044830 (Friedmann, Stopka); K01DA053159 (Walters); P30DA01104 (Hagan); UG3DA044829, UH3DA044829 (Pho, Jenkins); UG3DA044825, UG3DA044825 (Feinberg, Smith); UG3DA044831, UH3DA044831 (Korthuis); UG3DA044822, UH3DA044822 (Miller, Go); UG3DA044826, UH3DA044826 (Westergaard, Seal); UG3DA044798, UH3DA044798 (Cooper, Young); UG3DA044823, UH3DA044823 (Zule); and U24DA044801 (Crane, Tsui). Research presented in this manuscript is the result of data harmonization and was supported by NIDA grant U24DA048538 (Crane, Tsui). Additional support included R25DA037190 (The Lifespan/Brown Criminal Justice Research Training Program on Substance Use and HIV) (Walters) and UL1TR002369 (National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences) (Korthuis). The authors thank the other ROI investigators and their teams, the ROI Executive Steering Committee chair, Dr. Holly Hagan, the NIDA Science Officer, Dr. Richard Jenkins, and particularly, the participants of the individual ROI studies for their valuable contributions. A full list of participating ROI investigators and institutions can be found on the ROI website at http://ruralopioidinitiative.org/studies.html. No funders were involved in the preparation of this manuscript or the decision to submit for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ALS: Supervision, Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Data Interpretation, Writing (Original Draft), Writing (Review & Editing); EK: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Data Interpretation, Writing (Original Draft), Writing (Reviewing & Editing); HLFC: Conceptualization, Data Interpretation, Writing (Reviewing & Editing); MDL: Formal Analysis, Data Interpretation, Writing (Reviewing & Editing); RB, SMW, REG, SAR: Data Interpretation, Writing (Reviewing & Editing); PDF, WDF, VFG, WCM, RPW: Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Acquisition of Data, Data Interpretation, Writing (Reviewing & Editing); HMC: Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Acquisition of Data, Data Curation, Data Interpretation, Writing (Reviewing & Editing).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adams L. Sibley.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The authors declare that they have obtained ethics approval from the institutional review boards of their respective institutions where the research entailed human participation.

Consent for publication

Consent for publication was obtained from participants at the time of interview.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

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

Sibley, A.L., Klein, E., Cooper, H.L. et al. The relationship between felt stigma and non-fatal overdose among rural people who use drugs. Harm Reduct J 21, 77 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-024-00988-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-024-00988-x

Keywords