Attitudes towards harm reduction amongst social work professionals in three geographical areas in Sweden

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

	Total % (n=208)	Malmö % (n=79)	Gothenburg % (n=82)	Gävleborg % (n=47)
Age – mean (std. dev)***	43 (11.5)	39 (10.7)	43 (12)	46 (10.7)*
Gender – Woman	76.2	81	72.3	75
Education – bachelor’s in Social Work	66.3	70.1	75.9	43.8*
Work with clients – yes	90.8	93.6	90.2	87.2
Decision making power – yes	45.9	26.6	56.1**	60.4**
Managerial role – yes	14.9	14.1	12	21.3
People with heavy substance use as target group for work	86.2	86.1	84.3	89.5

*significant at the 0.05 level.

**significant at the 0.001 level.

***utilized ANOVA test for this variable.

Table 2. HRAS scores by location.

	N	Mean	Std. Dev	Min	Max
Malmö	79	2.046	0.594	1	4
Gothenburg	82	2.159	0.536	1	3.46
Gävleborg	47	2.572	0.79	1.31	4.54
Total	208	2.209	0.654	1	4.54

Table 3. Post-hoc comparisons of HRAS score stratifying by location.

		Mean difference	Std. error	Sig
Malmö	Gothenburg	−0.112	0.098	0.759
	Gävleborg	−0.525	0.115	<0.001
Gothenburg	Gävleborg	−0.412	0.114	0.001

Figure 1. Opinions on implementation of HAT, SCS, and decriminalization.

Table 4. Comparing perceived access to services by geographic location.

	Total (mean, std. dev)	Malmö (reference)	Gothenburg	Gävleborg
Structured outpatient care	2 (SD 0.68)	1.97 (SD 0.6)	1.71 (SD 0.62)*	2.54 (0.58)*
Coercive care	1.95 (SD 0.68)	1.81 (SD. 0.6)	1.92 (SD 0.7)	2.23 (SD 0.69)*
Abstinenced based care/detox	1.50 (SD 0.68)	1.38 (SD 0.57)	1.38 (SD 0.6)	1.91 (SD 0.8)*
OST	1.98 (SD 0.74)	2.32 (SD 0.68)	1.65 (SD 0.64)*	1.94 (SD 0.73)*
NSP	1.94 (SD 0.8)	2.39 (SD 0.59)	2.05 (SD 0.78)*	1.04 (SD 0.2)*
Overdose prevention	1.56 (SD 0.64)	1.84 (SD 0.69)	1.53 (SD 0.63)*	1.15 (SD 0.42)*

*significant at the 0.05 level.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.