ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2026
Drug sellers' use of a drug checking service amid the overdose crisis in British Columbia, Canada.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Drug sellers' use of a drug checking service amid the overdose crisis in British Columbia, Canada.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis study examined the use of a drug checking service by drug sellers in British Columbia, Canada, to assess motivations for service use and substances intended for distribution, focusing on risks associated with an unstable illicit drug market.
designA retrospective analysis was conducted using data from an anonymous intake survey and drug checking results. The survey captured frequency of service use, expected substances and reasons for service access.
settingThe study was set in Victoria, British Columbia, where participants accessed a free confidential drug checking service between January 2021 and December 2024.
participantsA total of 2332 drug sellers were included in the analysis, accounting for 16.2% of all service users. They submitted 5528 samples (21.6% of total samples), averaging 2.4 samples per visit, compared to 1.7 among non-sellers. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes measured included the frequency of drug check use, the expected and actual composition of the samples, pre- or post-consumption analysis and the reasons for engaging with the service. Secondary outcomes focused on the reported potency and the presence of unexpected substances.
findingsA statistically significant portion of sellers continuously used the service, particularly for opioid samples, which comprised 69.2% of seller submissions compared with 35.1% among non-sellers [X
conclusionsIn Victoria, British Columbia, drug sellers appear to be increasingly using drug checking services as a preventive measure, positioning them as potential partners in harm reduction efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.