Intersectional structural vulnerability to abusive policing among people who inject drugs: A mixed methods assessment in California's central valley.
Intersectionality
Mixed Methods
People who inject drugs
Police violence
Policing
Structural vulnerability
Journal
The International journal on drug policy
ISSN: 1873-4758
Titre abrégé: Int J Drug Policy
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9014759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
25
08
2020
revised:
07
10
2020
accepted:
08
10
2020
pubmed:
1
11
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
31
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Abusive and violent policing is an important determinant of health for people who inject drugs (PWID), which has been linked to structural vulnerability. However, further exploration of the intersectional nature of this vulnerability is warranted. California's Central Valley is a largely rural/suburban and politically conservative area, with high rates of injection drug use and overdose mortality, where rates of abusive policing of PWID have not been characterized. We assessed self-reported experiences of abusive policing using a sequential mixed-methods approach, consisting of n = 54 in-depth qualitative interviews followed by a respondent driven survey of n = 494 PWID. Qualitative conclusions were used to guide the development a novel quantitative framework to explore intersectional structural vulnerability, drawing on UpSet visualization and multivariable logistic regression. Qualitative analysis suggests that abusive policing is not random or isolated; instead it can be understood in the context of routinized police harassment of PWID, which can escalate into physical or other forms of violence. These cycles are mediated by various forms of social disadvantage-often articulated through the frame of "looking like a drug user"-with deep connections to markers of race, class, gender, occupation and other elements of personal identity. Quantitative results confirm high frequency of abusive encounters with police, including physical violence (42%), verbal abuse (62%), sexual violence (9%), and the confiscation of new/unused syringes (39%). Females report higher rates of sexual violence and exploitation (aOR= 4.2; 95% CI: 2.1-9.0) and males report higher rates of physical violence (aOR=3.6; 95% CI: 2.4-5.6) and all other outcomes. Experiencing homelessness, having traded sex, and living in a rural zip code, are independently associated with numerous forms of police abuse. Intersectional analysis reveals clusters of individuals with highly elevated vulnerability, and in general, having a greater number of vulnerability factors was associated with increased odds of police abuse. We find that structural vulnerability is linked-in a highly intersectional manner-with experiencing abusive police encounters among PWID in California's Central Valley. Monitoring, prevention, and response to deleterious law enforcement practices must be integrated into structural interventions to protect vulnerable groups. Reform is especially urgent in rural/suburban areas that are increasingly important focal points to reduce social and health harms associated with injection drug use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Abusive and violent policing is an important determinant of health for people who inject drugs (PWID), which has been linked to structural vulnerability. However, further exploration of the intersectional nature of this vulnerability is warranted. California's Central Valley is a largely rural/suburban and politically conservative area, with high rates of injection drug use and overdose mortality, where rates of abusive policing of PWID have not been characterized.
METHODS
We assessed self-reported experiences of abusive policing using a sequential mixed-methods approach, consisting of n = 54 in-depth qualitative interviews followed by a respondent driven survey of n = 494 PWID. Qualitative conclusions were used to guide the development a novel quantitative framework to explore intersectional structural vulnerability, drawing on UpSet visualization and multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS
Qualitative analysis suggests that abusive policing is not random or isolated; instead it can be understood in the context of routinized police harassment of PWID, which can escalate into physical or other forms of violence. These cycles are mediated by various forms of social disadvantage-often articulated through the frame of "looking like a drug user"-with deep connections to markers of race, class, gender, occupation and other elements of personal identity. Quantitative results confirm high frequency of abusive encounters with police, including physical violence (42%), verbal abuse (62%), sexual violence (9%), and the confiscation of new/unused syringes (39%). Females report higher rates of sexual violence and exploitation (aOR= 4.2; 95% CI: 2.1-9.0) and males report higher rates of physical violence (aOR=3.6; 95% CI: 2.4-5.6) and all other outcomes. Experiencing homelessness, having traded sex, and living in a rural zip code, are independently associated with numerous forms of police abuse. Intersectional analysis reveals clusters of individuals with highly elevated vulnerability, and in general, having a greater number of vulnerability factors was associated with increased odds of police abuse.
CONCLUSIONS
We find that structural vulnerability is linked-in a highly intersectional manner-with experiencing abusive police encounters among PWID in California's Central Valley. Monitoring, prevention, and response to deleterious law enforcement practices must be integrated into structural interventions to protect vulnerable groups. Reform is especially urgent in rural/suburban areas that are increasingly important focal points to reduce social and health harms associated with injection drug use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33129133
pii: S0955-3959(20)30319-4
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102981
pmc: PMC7940555
mid: NIHMS1644232
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102981Subventions
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : R01 DA035098
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM008042
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
Int J Drug Policy. 2020 Nov;85:102606
pubmed: 31791630
Subst Use Misuse. 2017 Jul 3;52(8):1003-1010
pubmed: 28318343
Health Policy Plan. 2014 May;29(3):323-7
pubmed: 23564372
Int J Drug Policy. 2017 Jun;44:41-49
pubmed: 28458170
Am J Public Health. 2020 Jan;110(S1):S152-S159
pubmed: 31967867
Harm Reduct J. 2012 May 16;9:17
pubmed: 22591836
JAMA Psychiatry. 2014 Jul 1;71(7):821-6
pubmed: 24871348
BMC Public Health. 2013 Aug 07;13:733
pubmed: 23924324
J Urban Health. 2013 Apr;90(2):284-98
pubmed: 22806453
Am J Public Health. 2020 Jan;110(S1):S160-S166
pubmed: 31967888
Int J Drug Policy. 2020 Jan;75:102601
pubmed: 31775080
Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2016 Jan 16;11:4
pubmed: 26772817
Am J Public Health. 2004 Jul;94(7):1109-18
pubmed: 15226128
Acad Med. 2017 Mar;92(3):299-307
pubmed: 27415443
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 24;15(1):e0227809
pubmed: 31978164
Int J Drug Policy. 2014 Mar;25(2):257-66
pubmed: 24238956
PLoS Med. 2017 Oct 10;14(10):e1002399
pubmed: 29016598
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 21;14(11):e0225376
pubmed: 31751394
Subst Use Misuse. 2015;50(8-9):1188-94
pubmed: 25775311
J Urban Health. 2015 Apr;92(2):338-51
pubmed: 25300503
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Oct 29;19(1):202
pubmed: 31664912
Biosocieties. 2017 Jun;12(2):217-238
pubmed: 28690668
AIDS Care. 2015;27(4):473-80
pubmed: 25360822
Int J Drug Policy. 2014 Jan;25(1):96-104
pubmed: 23916802
J Int AIDS Soc. 2016 Jul 18;19(4 Suppl 3):20897
pubmed: 27435717
Int J Drug Policy. 2018 Jul;57:119-129
pubmed: 29754032
IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2014 Dec;20(12):1983-92
pubmed: 26356912
Am J Public Health. 2015 Sep;105(9):1872-9
pubmed: 26180948
AIDS. 2006 Jan 2;20(1):93-9
pubmed: 16327324
Int J Drug Policy. 2020 Nov;85:102607
pubmed: 31864787
J Urban Health. 2008 May;85(3):323-51
pubmed: 18344002
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2020 Feb 05;44:e9
pubmed: 32038725
J Int AIDS Soc. 2016 Jul 18;19(4 Suppl 3):20729
pubmed: 27435707
Subst Use Misuse. 2010 May;45(6):813-64
pubmed: 20397872
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1;179(4):469-476
pubmed: 30742196
Int J Drug Policy. 2008 Aug;19(4):324-31
pubmed: 17997089
Milbank Q. 2004;82(1):125-56
pubmed: 15016246
Int J Drug Policy. 2018 Jun;56:197-207
pubmed: 29699837
Int J Drug Policy. 2017 Aug;46:41-46
pubmed: 28601020
Subst Use Misuse. 1998 Sep;33(11):2323-51
pubmed: 9758016
Int J Drug Policy. 2020 Jan;75:102594
pubmed: 31775079