Transcript Workshop Peer support - What is the LOCAL

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 results
PUDH’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 supporter
2. Status:
They want to identify with the peer supporter
3. Peer
They can identify with the peer supporter
WS 3 Discussion
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
End
More information:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mainline:
Machteld Busz:
[email protected]