Substance use and destigmatization: SDG 3 and Me interview with Paige Lemen, PhD candidate

Paige M. Lemen is a PhD candidate at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, studying the neurobiology and genetics of drug use and substance use disorder (SUD).
Published in Public Health
Substance use and destigmatization: SDG 3 and Me interview with Paige Lemen, PhD candidate
Like

Share this post

Choose a social network to share with, or copy the URL to share elsewhere

This is a representation of how your post may appear on social media. The actual post will vary between social networks

Explore the Research

BioMed Central
BioMed Central BioMed Central

High-dose naloxone formulations are not as essential as we thought - Harm Reduction Journal

Naloxone is an effective FDA-approved opioid antagonist for reversing opioid overdoses. Naloxone is available to the public and can be administered through intramuscular (IM), intravenous (IV), and intranasal spray (IN) routes. Our literature review investigates the adequacy of two doses of standard IM or IN naloxone in reversing fentanyl overdoses compared to newer high-dose naloxone formulations. Moreover, our initiative incorporates the experiences of people who use drugs, enabling a more practical and contextually-grounded analysis. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of fentanyl overdoses can be successfully reversed using two standard IM or IN dosages. Exceptions include cases of carfentanil overdose, which necessitates ≥ 3 doses for reversal. Multiple studies documented the risk of precipitated withdrawal using ≥ 2 doses of naloxone, notably including the possibility of recurring overdose symptoms after resuscitation, contingent upon the half-life of the specific opioid involved. We recommend distributing multiple doses of standard IM or IN naloxone to bystanders and educating individuals on the adequacy of two doses in reversing fentanyl overdoses. Individuals should continue administration until the recipient is revived, ensuring appropriate intervals between each dose along with rescue breaths, and calling emergency medical services if the individual is unresponsive after two doses. We do not recommend high-dose naloxone formulations as a substitute for four doses of IM or IN naloxone due to the higher cost, risk of precipitated withdrawal, and limited evidence compared to standard doses. Future research must take into consideration lived and living experience, scientific evidence, conflicts of interest, and the bodily autonomy of people who use drugs.

  • What SDG3 target(s) is your work and the work of the organization most closely aligned with?

Among the targets listed, we are most aligned with the mission to “Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse,” however, we also focus on reducing the stigma of drug use as well. Not all of those who use drugs, including opioids, have a substance use disorder. Not all who use opioids outside of doctor’s orders are “abusing” the drug. Who determines what is considered abuse anyways?

Substance use disorder is a spectrum. It can range from healthy and responsible drug use to uncontrolled and chaotic drug use to a full disorder. Oftentimes, this depends on the individual’s quality of life. For example, someone who has all their needs met and can pay all of their bills is more likely to be able to control their drug use compared to someone who is experiencing homelessness, abuse and trauma, exploitation or some other issue that many of our most vulnerable people in our society experience.

Instead of policing drug use and taking a “punish and control” approach, we need to be focusing on the underlying causes that lead to people using drugs in a risky way in the first place.

  • Do you feel there is something missing from the specific SDG 3 targets of the areas you are most interested in?

We want to show the importance of including the experiences and voices of those who use drugs. As our paper mentions, “Those with lived and living experience have unique insight into the complexities of overdose and the effectiveness of naloxone. They can provide valuable information on how a higher dose formulation may impact their ability to respond to an overdose. Additionally, they can offer insight into other factors that may contribute to overdose, such as polysubstance use or lack of access to harm reduction services. By listening to those with lived and living experience, we can gain a better understanding of the challenges and barriers faced by PWUD [people who use drugs] and make more informed decisions about how to address overdose in a way that is effective, equitable, and inclusive.”

Another important target for us is to bridge the gap between researchers and those working “on the ground,” as in directly with drug users and those with substance use disorder (SUD), or drug users themselves. From personal experience, I have worked with scientists who struggle to design studies that provide results that could be translated to treatment and prevention in humans, especially within our current society and policy landscape. This is because they lack the knowledge of how drug use and SUD occur in real life.

I’ve also worked with harm reductionists and drug users who could benefit, either in their work or personally, from understanding the science of drugs and SUD, or even how the scientific process itself, research, and funding works.

  • Who (or what groups) would you like to work with, or would like to be in contact with, to push forward your ideas/projects?

As a PhD candidate, I’ll soon be Dr. Lemen and want to use my training in biomedical sciences to improve the lives of those who use drugs and those with SUD. However, I’m not sure in which way I’d like to go about that; scientific advisor, post-doc (continue doing the research I do now in academia), industry, or maybe even scientific journalism.

Academia needs SUD researchers with real world experience and have undergone the unlearning process of all the drug war propaganda that many scientists don’t even recognize they’ve fallen for as well. In that case, I’d love to work with like-minded researchers that have funding for post-docs.

I’m also interested in getting more involved with policy work or journalism in this same field. In that case, I’d love to connect with the Drug Policy Alliance and the Harm Reduction Coalition. However, it is possible to do both and one does compliment the other!

 

Please sign in or register for FREE

If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in

Follow the Topic

Public Health
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Public Health
  • Harm Reduction Journal Harm Reduction Journal

    This journal publishes research and commentary on approaches diminishing the harm of stigmatization, marginalization and criminalization of public health, human rights and social justice issues, as well as rebuking the de facto criminalization of marginalized and stigmatized communities.

Related Collections

With collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.

Community-Engaged Harm-Reduction Research for Social Justice

Harm Reduction Journal is currently accepting submissions for our collection on Community-Engaged Harm-Reduction Research for Social Justice. The persistent, significant gap between research and practice has prompted calls from advocates, policy makers, patients, and research agencies for greater involvement of individuals with lived experience in the conceptualization and realization of public health research. Today, researchers are increasingly including patient and community consultants as well as advisory boards in their research designs. Engaging partners with lived experience (e.g., previous drug use) or living experience (e.g., current drug use) is crucial for addressing our most urgent, global public health needs. However, these approaches are particularly useful for promoting health equity and justice by incorporating the voices and perspectives of those traditionally disenfranchised from access to health. Thus, advancing our understanding of community-engaged harm-reduction research for social justice can help mitigate issues of stigmatization, marginalization, and criminalization in public health and human rights.

The purpose of this special collection is to disseminate research, commentary, and novel methodologies that describe community-engaged harm reduction approaches to promote social justice across the globe. We acknowledge the various forms of community engagement, and therefore, welcome submissions from those who involve affected community members in diverse ways, ranging from advisors to equitable research partners engaged in systematic approaches such as participatory action research and community-based participatory research. We also encourage submissions on community-driven or community-led projects that may receive support or guidance from researchers. The vision of social justice in this context refers to a state where all people, regardless of demographic characteristics, have the resources, respect, and supports they need to flourish.

Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

• Impact of harm reduction interventions on health equity outcomes

• Novel community engaged research strategies with marginalized communities

• Experiences of community members engaging in harm reduction research

• Applications of research and research findings to social justice advocacy

• Equitable allocation of harm reduction tools and services

• Ethical conduct and respect for marginalized communities.

This Collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG 3, Good Health and Well-Being, SDG 10, Reduced Inequalities, SDG 16, Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, and SDG 17, Partnerships for the Goals.

All submissions in this collection undergo the journal’s standard peer review process. Similarly, all manuscripts authored by a Guest Editor(s) will be handled by the Editor-in-Chief. As an open access publication, this journal levies an article processing fee (details here). We recognize that many key stakeholders may not have access to such resources and are committed to supporting participation in this issue wherever resources are a barrier. For more information about what support may be available, please visit OA funding and support, or email OAfundingpolicy@springernature.com or the Editor-in-Chief.

Publishing Model: Open Access

Deadline: Jun 15, 2025

Comprehensive Sexuality Education

Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) is defined by the WHO as giving ‘young people accurate, age-appropriate information about sexuality and their sexual and reproductive health, which is critical for their health and survival’. CSE is a crucial component of public health programs and aims to equip individuals with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions on their sexual health. Numerous studies have demonstrated that CSE programs reduce the rates of sexual activity, sexual risk behaviours such as number of partners and unprotected intercourse, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and adolescent pregnancy. Current programs across the world vary in their content, effectiveness, and emphasis and despite significant progress in recent years, challenges remain, including high rates of STIs and adolescent pregnancy. Collection objectives: - Assess the current landscape of CSE programs, including effectiveness and impact. - Examine patterns of risky sexual behaviours amongst populations and identify contributing factors. - Explore potential interventions and strategies to enhance the delivery and effectiveness of sexuality education programs to mitigate negative outcomes. Topics of interest include: - The effectiveness of CSE programs. - Harm reduction approaches to sex and sexuality education, and risky sexual behaviours, including chemsex. - The role of healthcare providers, schools, parents, community organisations, social media and influencers in promoting good sexual health. - Innovative interventions, such as telemedicine, mobile health apps, and community-based programs, to promote sexual health. - How economic disparities impact individuals' access to quality sexual health information and resources, leading to inequities in health outcomes. - Disparities in education based on location, gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. - The consequences of cultural differences within countries and globally on the approach to CSE and the associated health outcomes. - The impact on CSE delivery of biological changes, such as the shift in age of puberty, and technical evolutions, such as chemical prevention (PreP) in relation to HIV and sex behaviour. - Explore the level and appropriateness of research into CSE, and the barriers to ensuring that policy and practice in this area is driven by the research.

Publishing Model: Open Access

Deadline: Ongoing