Perspectives of U.S. harm reduction advocates on persuasive message strategies.
Harm reduction
Message strategies
Qualitative research
Journal
Harm reduction journal
ISSN: 1477-7517
Titre abrégé: Harm Reduct J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153624
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 08 2023
18 08 2023
Historique:
received:
17
04
2023
accepted:
05
08
2023
medline:
21
8
2023
pubmed:
19
8
2023
entrez:
18
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The messages used to communicate about harm reduction are critical in garnering public support for adoption of harm reduction interventions. Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of harm reduction interventions at reducing overdose deaths and disease transmission, the USA has been slow to adopt harm reduction to scale. Implementation of evidence-based interventions has been hindered by a historical framing of drug use as a moral failure and related stigmatizing attitudes among the public toward people who use drugs. Understanding how professional harm reduction advocates communicate to audiences about the benefits of harm reduction is a critical step to designing persuasive messaging strategies. We conducted qualitative interviews with a purposively recruited sample of U.S. professional harm reduction advocates (N = 15) to examine their perspectives on which types of messages are effective in persuading U.S. audiences on the value of harm reduction. Participants were professionals working in harm reduction advocacy at national- or state-level organizations promoting and/or implementing harm reduction. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Interviewees agreed that messages about the scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of harm reduction approaches are important but insufficient, on their own, to persuade audiences. Interviewees identified two overarching messaging strategies they perceived as persuasive: using messages about harm reduction that align with audience-specific values, for example centering the value of life or individual redemption; and positioning harm reduction as part of the comprehensive solution to current issues audiences are facing related to drug use and overdose in their community. Interviewees discussed tailoring messages strategies to four key audiences: policymakers; law enforcement; religious groups; and the family and friends of people who use, or have used, drugs. For example, advocates discussed framing messages to law enforcement from the perspective of public safety. Interviewees viewed messages as most persuasive when they align with audience values and audience-specific concerns related to drug use and overdose death. Future research should test effectiveness of tailored messaging strategies to audiences using experimental approaches.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The messages used to communicate about harm reduction are critical in garnering public support for adoption of harm reduction interventions. Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of harm reduction interventions at reducing overdose deaths and disease transmission, the USA has been slow to adopt harm reduction to scale. Implementation of evidence-based interventions has been hindered by a historical framing of drug use as a moral failure and related stigmatizing attitudes among the public toward people who use drugs. Understanding how professional harm reduction advocates communicate to audiences about the benefits of harm reduction is a critical step to designing persuasive messaging strategies.
METHODS
We conducted qualitative interviews with a purposively recruited sample of U.S. professional harm reduction advocates (N = 15) to examine their perspectives on which types of messages are effective in persuading U.S. audiences on the value of harm reduction. Participants were professionals working in harm reduction advocacy at national- or state-level organizations promoting and/or implementing harm reduction. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach.
RESULTS
Interviewees agreed that messages about the scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of harm reduction approaches are important but insufficient, on their own, to persuade audiences. Interviewees identified two overarching messaging strategies they perceived as persuasive: using messages about harm reduction that align with audience-specific values, for example centering the value of life or individual redemption; and positioning harm reduction as part of the comprehensive solution to current issues audiences are facing related to drug use and overdose in their community. Interviewees discussed tailoring messages strategies to four key audiences: policymakers; law enforcement; religious groups; and the family and friends of people who use, or have used, drugs. For example, advocates discussed framing messages to law enforcement from the perspective of public safety.
CONCLUSIONS
Interviewees viewed messages as most persuasive when they align with audience values and audience-specific concerns related to drug use and overdose death. Future research should test effectiveness of tailored messaging strategies to audiences using experimental approaches.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37596595
doi: 10.1186/s12954-023-00849-z
pii: 10.1186/s12954-023-00849-z
pmc: PMC10436451
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
112Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
BMC Public Health. 2017 Apr 11;17(1):309
pubmed: 28399843
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Apr;83(4):523-5
pubmed: 18349874
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 01;10(7):e0130050
pubmed: 26132859
Harm Reduct J. 2022 Jul 19;19(1):79
pubmed: 35854351
Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2017 Oct;14(5):161-183
pubmed: 28875422
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022 Apr 1;233:109380
pubmed: 35247724
Int J Drug Policy. 2019 Jan;63:18-22
pubmed: 30468971
Int J Drug Policy. 2010 May;21(3):202-7
pubmed: 20005692
Int J Drug Policy. 2020 Sep;83:102855
pubmed: 32693322
Am J Psychiatry. 2010 Nov;167(11):1321-30
pubmed: 20843872
Am J Public Health. 2018 Sep;108(9):1157-1159
pubmed: 30088990
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2016 Oct;41(5):873-916
pubmed: 27256811
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Feb;126:73-85
pubmed: 25528557
Addiction. 2016 Jul;111(7):1177-87
pubmed: 27028542
J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021 Dec;131:108397
pubmed: 34098293
Int J Drug Policy. 2018 Mar;53:37-44
pubmed: 29278831
Int J Drug Policy. 2008 Feb;19(1):4-10
pubmed: 18226520
Prev Med. 2018 Jun;111:73-77
pubmed: 29481827