Making Drug Checking Data Public: Challenges, Benefits, and Lessons

[Paracelsus]

A report from RMIT University explores how drug checking services worldwide share their findings with the public, providing a framework for Victoria, Australia, as it prepares to implement its own drug checking program. The "Drug Checking Public Communications Report," authored by researchers Isabelle Volpe and Monica Barratt, offers an in-depth look at various public communication strategies, their benefits, and the challenges associated with making drug market data accessible.

Drug checking services, also known as pill testing, allow individuals to have their substances chemically analyzed, providing crucial harm reduction insights. However, beyond informing individual users, the broader dissemination of anonymized findings can significantly enhance public health outcomes. The report identifies five primary methods that global drug checking services use to share their data:

1. Alerts and Notifications: High-risk detections are shared through real-time warnings. These can be issued via social media, websites, posters, apps, or even text messages, as seen in Canada’s Toward the Heart program.
2. Individual Sample Results: Some services publish every tested sample’s findings, offering transparency and detailed market insights, as demonstrated by Get Your Drugs Tested (Canada).
3. Interactive Dashboards: Data visualization tools help users track trends and contaminants, with Toronto’s Drug Checking Service offering one of the most advanced dashboards.
4. Regular Service Reports: Weekly, monthly, or annual summaries of drug market trends, like those produced by WEDINOS (Wales) and CanTEST (Australia).
5. Education and Harm Reduction Resources: Many services provide guides and videos to help users understand substances and reduce risks, such as New Zealand’s Level and Colombia’s Échele Cabeza.

The report emphasizes that public communication strategies must balance accessibility with privacy and safety concerns. While open-access data can empower individuals, it also raises the risk of misuse by law enforcement or stigmatization. Community consultations in Victoria revealed a strong preference for broad data sharing, but with careful consideration of how information is framed and who has access.

One notable case study is Switzerland’s SaferParty, which allows event organizers to create custom warning posters for their communities. Another is UNC Street Drug Analysis Lab (USA), which provides machine-readable datasets for public health research. Meanwhile, New Zealand’s KnowYourStuffNZ stresses the importance of contextualizing alerts with actionable harm reduction advice.

As Victoria gears up to launch its drug checking services, this report serves as a vital resource for policymakers, health professionals, and community organizations. By learning from international best practices, Victoria has the opportunity to implement a transparent, effective, and community-centered approach to drug market monitoring.

The full report is available here: https://research-repository.rmit.ed...cking_public_communications_report/28355702/2

If you're interested in such publications, please react and leave comments

 

[cyrilio]

Kosmicare at BOOM festival in Portugal also does drug checking and shares any anomalies when needed. I can know because I was part of the drug checking team in 2016. That year most cocaine was actually lidocaine.

 

[Paracelsus]

Drug checking has become more vital in reducing risks, especially when substances are being adulterated or sold as something they're not.

Lidocaine in cocaine is a particularly concerning adulterant because while it might mimic some of the numbing or stimulant effects of cocaine, it can be much more dangerous in higher doses. It can lead to severe reactions like heart arrhythmias, especially when mixed with stimulants.

Having been on the drug checking team must've given you a very unique perspective on substance use and its risks. Do you remember any other interesting or unexpected findings from that year, or how the attendees responded to the information you were sharing?