LOCAL PASS

Harm Reduction 2.0 (Mainline)Peersupport

Alex van Dongen

Rob Voermans

Machteld Busz

New drug realities

• Online communities• Very diverse (new) user groups• Wide variety of new substances

Harm Reduction 2.0

• Harm reduction principles still apply, but need a new focus. Traditional theory can guide the development of a harm reduction 2.0 approach

• Zinberg: drugs, set and setting• Combine traditional knowledge with

big data and other new technologies

Drug

• “Drug” or substance is a fluid, fast changing variable

• Focus on mode of administration is always relevant

• Focus on dosage of new/unfamiliar substances

• Big data: offers opportunities for early alert on dangerous or strong substances, facilitates trend analysis and can warn for scams

Set

• Set: we can use info exchange within online communities and link with bottom-up initiatives

• An NGO like Mainline can contribute by:– Offering psycho-social support (online outreach)– Validate info from user communities– Increase reliability of information– Act as a buffer between communities, policy makers,

researchers– Big data: offers the chance to bundle user experiences

on a large scale; fast tracking the learning curve on new substances

Setting

• Setting: link between online communities and physical ‘real-life’ realities

• Big data can be useful by: – Increasing our knowledge on diverse user communities– Compare and predict trends in different (EU) countries– Provide input for policy advice on public health and drug

legislation and for new forms of research

Peer support versus peer education

Peer education information

Peer support information & support

WS 3 Interventions; some resultsPUDH’s can be difficult to reach, since they often suffer from social dislocation and social exclusion (Hartnoll et al., 2010). However, outreach work with peer workers has shown to be effective in reaching the hard to reach (Needle et al., 2004).

Outreach provided by peers is more effective, can reach more people and more diverse groups, and has a bigger behavioural impact than regular outreach (Canadian Nurses Association, 2011; peerinvolvement.eu). This is because peer workers more easily acquire credibility and access to those who might otherwise not receive information from outsiders (www.peerinvolvement.eu). They know the community, know where to find them and how to engage them (Needle et al., 2004).

Peers are also important in reaching target groups who are more difficult to reach, and our results revealed a need for more peers and more education for them.

WS 3 Profile peer supporter‘’Professionals could not help me in the past, why should they now?’’

Who is able to support? 1. Credibility:They believe the peer supporter2. Status:They want to identify with the peer supporter3. PeerThey can identify with the peer supporter

People who use drug heavily or habitually (PUHDs)

Youth on the street GHB-users

1. The peer supporter should be a member of the group (user) versus the peersupporter used to be a member of the group (ex-user)

WS 3 Discussion

2. Where is peer support most suitable for? - reach the hard to reach groups - harm reduction- behavioural change - practical help, like help with finance, looking for a job and housing etc. - other ideas?

WS 3 Discussion

3. Is peer support necessary for identifying NPS-trends?

WS 3 Discussion

4. Peer support is most effective if they work closely together with a professional

WS 3 Discussion

End

More information:Alex.van.dongen@novadic-kentron.nlRob.voermans@novadic-Kentron.nl

Mainline:Machteld Busz:m.busz@mainline.nl