• Sean T Allen, Suzanne M Grieb, Jennifer L Glick, Rebecca Hamilton White, Tyler Puryear, Katherine C Smith, Brian W Weir, and Susan G Sherman.
• Department of Health, Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
• Ann. Med. 2022 Dec 1; 54 (1): 404-412.

IntroductionDespite decades of empirical research in the US and internationally documenting the benefits of implementing syringe services programs (SSPs), their implementation may be controversial in many jurisdictions. Better understanding how research evidence is applied during SSP implementation processes may enable the public health workforce to advocate for program scale up. This study explores applications of research evidence during processes to acquire approvals for SSP implementation in rural counties in Kentucky.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted among eighteen stakeholders (e.g. health department directors, SSP operators) involved in SSP implementation in rural Kentucky counties. Stakeholders were asked to describe the contexts surrounding SSP implementation processes. Interviews were transcribed and analysed for applications of research evidence. Research evidence-related quotes were subsequently categorised based on the typologies for applications of research evidence developed by Weiss et al. (instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic) and a fourth category for instances when research evidence was not used.ResultsInstrumental applications of research evidence occurred at the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels to dispel concerns about SSPs and formed the basis for implementation support. SSP proponents used research evidence in a conceptual manner to address underlying attitudes and beliefs that were not evidence-based. Participants reported symbolic research evidence applications to justify pre-existing attitudes and beliefs about meeting the public health needs of people who inject drugs. Lastly, in some instances, research evidence was met with scepticism and an unwillingness to consider its merits.ConclusionApplications of research evidence during SSP implementation approval processes in rural Kentucky counties were heterogeneous in nature. Better understanding the diversity of ways in which research evidence may be employed during SSP implementation processes may support efforts to improve the public health of people who inject drugs.Key messagesApplications of research evidence during SSP implementation approval processes in rural Kentucky counties were heterogeneous in nature.Instrumental applications of research evidence occurred at the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels to dispel concerns about SSPs and formed the basis for implementation support.SSP proponents used research evidence in a conceptual manner to address underlying attitudes and beliefs that were not evidence-based.

12 keywords...

hide…