Philanthropic donor perspectives about providing harm reduction services for people living with HIV/AIDS in a hospital setting

Abstract

Background: Hospital-based harm reduction services are needed to reduce drug-related harms, facilitate retention in care, and increase medical treatment adherence for people who use drugs. Philanthropic donor support plays a key role in delivering such innovative services which might fall outside current funding streams. However, little is known about how the principles, implementation, and practice of harm reduction services, which are often highly stigmatized, may impact donor behaviours. We explored this issue within Casey House, a speciality hospital in Toronto, Canada. Methods: Our mixed methods study utilized an explanatory sequential design. A convenience sample of n = 106 philanthropic individual donors, recruited via email, completed an anonymous web-based survey, between July and October 2020, which assessed their knowledge of harm reduction services and the potential impact of implementing new hospital-based harm reduction services on donors’ future support. Following this, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with n = 12 of the donors who completed a survey and volunteered to be interviewed. Interviews examined donors’ perspectives about harm reduction and their hopes/concerns for such programming at Casey House. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and participatory-based thematic analysis. Results: Survey data show a high level of support for hospital-based harm reduction services, with participants reporting that they “strongly agree/agree” with providing harm reduction equipment (85%), supervised consumption services (82%), and prescription opioid treatment (76%) at Casey House. A majority of participants (66%) claimed that implementing new harm reduction services at the hospital would not impact their future donation, while 6% said they would be less inclined to donate. Interview participants were supportive of harm reduction services at Casey House, recognizing the benefits of providing such services for hospital clients and the wider community. However, some spoke of the potential impact that implementing hospital-based harm reduction services may have on “other” donors who might be opposed. Although some believed harm reduction services should be fully funded by the government, most saw a role for donors in supporting such services. Conclusions: Our findings show support of hospital-based harm reduction services among philanthropic donors and provide insight into how donor support may be affected when such services are introduced.