Problem representation of the Risk Mitigation Guidance (RMG) within the context of dual public health emergencies of COVID-19 and toxic drug deaths in British Columbia, Canada.

Publication date: Dec 11, 2025

Risk Mitigation Guidance (RMG) was released in response to the dual public health emergencies of COVID-19 and overdose in British Columbia (BC), Canada. RMG enabled the provision of prescribed alternatives to the unregulated drug supply for people at risk of COVID-19 and overdose. Our objective was to gain insight into how health planners in BC problematized the dual health emergencies and the impacts of such on the design and implementation of RMG. Qualitative interviews (n = 28) were conducted with health planners across BC about their understanding of RMG, the implementation process, and context. Carol Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” framework was used to interrogate the data and guide analysis. From the perspectives of health planners, RMG was a solution to the primary problem of COVID-19 and to reduce spread of the virus. We identified four problem representations related to the problematization of safer supply as a COVID-19 response: 1) COVID-19 opened a window of opportunity; 2) dual public health emergency, but COVID-19 as the priority ‘problem’; 3) the effects of making COVID-19 problem priority; 4) expanding understandings of safer supply beyond COVID-19. Our study builds on the importance of evaluating problem representations in the process of policymaking. The RMG illustrates how crisis-driven policymaking shapes problem representations, enabling rapid intervention through the COVID-19 response while constraining responses to the toxic drug emergency. As a medicalized emergency response, the RMG addressed contagion but failed to confront the structural drivers of toxic drug deaths. Our study highlights the needs for prescribed safer supply models to directly address the unregulated toxic drug supply.

Semantics

Original Article