# A Qualitative Exploration of Providers’ Approaches to Relational Harm Reduction in HIV Primary Care Settings

## TL;DR

This study explores how healthcare providers in HIV clinics approach relational harm reduction, finding mixed attitudes and knowledge about the concept.

## Contribution

The study introduces a qualitative framework for understanding relational harm reduction in HIV care settings.

## Key findings

- Most providers demonstrated behaviors consistent with relational harm reduction.
- Over half of providers used stigmatizing language toward patients who use drugs.
- Few providers had formal harm reduction training.

## Abstract

Structural harm reduction is an approach to care for people who use drugs (PWUD) that incorporates services and resources (e.g., naloxone, sterile syringes). As conceptualized in our previous research, harm reduction is also “relational,” encompassing a patient-provider relationship that is non-judgmental and respectful of patients’ autonomy. Little is known about providers’ knowledge or attitudes towards harm reduction beyond structural strategies, whose availability and legality vary across geographical settings. To operationalize how relational harm reduction is both characterized and employed in HIV care settings, where nearly half of patients have a diagnosed substance use disorder, we qualitatively explored providers’ knowledge of and use of harm reduction via individual in-depth interviews.

Our study sample included three HIV clinics, one in Birmingham, Alabama (AL) and two in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (PA). We conducted individual interviews with n = 23 providers via Zoom, using a semi-structured interview guide to probe for questions around providers’ attitudes towards and experiences with providing care to PWH who use drugs and their knowledge of and attitudes towards relational and structural harm reduction. Data was analyzed in Dedoose using thematic analysis.

Qualitative analyses revealed three primary themes, including Relational Harm Reduction in Practice, Not Harm Reduction, No Knowledge of Harm Reduction, and Harm Reduction Training. Nearly all providers (n = 19, 83%) described a patient interaction or expressed a sentiment that corresponded with the principles of relational harm reduction. Yet, over half of participants (n = 14, 61%) used language to describe PWH who use drugs that was stigmatizing or described an interaction that was antithetical to the principles of relational harm reduction. Five providers, all from Birmingham, were unaware of the term ‘harm reduction.’ Few providers had any harm reduction training.

Our findings suggest that relational harm reduction in HIV care settings is practiced along a continuum, and that a range of behaviors exist even within individual providers (e.g., used stigmatizing terms such as “addict” but also described patient interactions that reflected patients’ autonomy). Given that harm reduction is typically described as a structural approach, a broader definition of harm reduction that is not dependent on policy-dependent resources is needed.