Background

Black individuals in the U.S. face increasing racial disparities in drug overdose related to social determinants of health, including place-based features. Mobile outreach efforts work to mitigate social determinants by servicing geographic areas with low drug treatment and overdose prevention access but are often limited by convenience-based targets. Geographic information systems (GIS) are often used to characterize and visualize the overdose crisis and could be translated to community to guide mobile outreach services. The current study examines the initial acceptability and appropriateness of GIS to facilitate data-driven outreach for reducing overdose inequities facing Black individuals.

Methods

We convened a focus group of stakeholders (N = 8) in leadership roles at organizations conducting mobile outreach in predominantly Black neighborhoods of St. Louis, MO. Organizations represented provided adult mental health and substance use treatment or harm reduction services. Participants were prompted to discuss current outreach strategies and provided feedback on preliminary GIS-derived maps displaying regional overdose epidemiology. A reflexive approach to thematic analysis was used to extract themes.

Results

Four themes were identified that contextualize the acceptability and utility of an overdose visualization tool to mobile service providers in Black communities. They were: 1) importance of considering broader community context; 2) potential for awareness, engagement, and community collaboration; 3) ensuring data relevance to the affected community; and 4) data manipulation and validity concerns.

Conclusions

There are several perceived benefits of using GIS to map overdose among mobile providers serving Black communities that are overburdened by the overdose crisis but under resourced. Perceived potential benefits included informing location-based targets for services as well as improving awareness of the overdose crisis and facilitating collaboration, advocacy, and resource allocation. However, as GIS-enabled visualization of drug overdose grows in science, public health, and community settings, stakeholders must consider concerns undermining community trust and benefits, particularly for Black communities facing historical inequities and ongoing disparities.

The overdose crisis poses an unrelenting public health threat in the U.S. with fatal drug overdoses reaching a record high of over 100,000 in 2021 [1]. Record highs are especially prominent for Black individuals, who outpaced other racial/ethnic groups in rates of fatal drug overdose during the first two decades of the 2000s [2, 3] experiencing the highest increase in rate of overdose death from 2015–2020 [4]. Relative to White individuals, these disparities have continued to widen since the COVID-19 pandemic. American Indian/Alaska Native and Black populations have faced the highest rates of fatal drug overdose of all U.S. racial/ethnic groups since 2021 [5]. Disproportionate increases in fatal drug overdose rates among Black individuals coincide with the introduction of illicitly manufactured fentanyl and its analogues to the drug supply [2, 3] though fatal overdoses involving heroin and cocaine have also disproportionately increased among this group [6, 7]. Although racial disparities in fatal overdose are driven by the increasingly adulterated drug supply, they are exacerbated by social determinants of health (SDOH), including drug criminalization and inequitable enforcement by law enforcement [8, 9], racial residential segregation that contributes to Black neighborhood disinvestment [10], racialized service access that limits treatment options for Black individuals [11, 12], and inequitable availability of overdose prevention (e.g., naloxone) [13]. Indeed, fentanyl-related overdose deaths tend to cluster in low treatment-density, high-deprivation neighborhoods where residents are predominantly Black [14,15,16], emphasizing the impact of place-based SDOH on increasing racial inequities in the overdose crisis.

Racial inequities in overdose are generally attributed to SDOH, including features of one’s geographic location or built environment that impact well-being, such as aspects of neighborhood deprivation [17]. Black people in the United States are more likely than their White counterparts to live in neighborhoods that face high deprivation, including socioeconomic (e.g., high rates of poverty and unemployment) and physical deprivation (e.g., the deterioration of building structures and vacancies) due to policies that contribute to residential segregation and neighborhood disinvestment [18]. Both socioeconomic and physical deprivation are associated with fentanyl availability, drug overdose [11, 14, 19], and lower access to treatment and overdose prevention [13, 20, 21]. Predominantly Black neighborhoods are particularly vulnerable to overdose in the face of deprivation [11] with higher racial residential segregation (i.e., higher Black-to-White resident ratios) also predicting fatal overdose [15]. These racialized neighborhood-level inequities are not only associated with overdose, but also substance use treatment access. As the proportion of Black residents in an area increases, the proportion of substance use treatment facilities decreases [22], especially those providing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) [23,24,25].

To mitigate the impacts of racialized SDOH on drug overdose in Black neighborhoods, community-based efforts have used mobile outreach to service areas with low treatment access. Often these efforts dispatch peers, community health workers, and/or other lay advocates to provide harm reduction tools, overdose education, and service linkage [26,27,28,29]. Outreach services provided by peers and lay health workers with similar lived experiences (i.e., racial and/or drug use) not only address geographic barriers to treatment access, but also mitigate justifiable mistrust of systems that Black individuals in disinvested communities develop as a function of their experience with persistent systemic disinvestment [30,31,32]. Accordingly, drug-related outreach efforts have shown promising rates of engagement and follow-up with Black individuals in particular [26, 28, 29]. For example, one study found that a mobile unit providing MOUD enrolled a greater proportion of Black individuals relative to fixed-site clinics [33].

Overdose prevention outreach is typically limited by convenience- or funding-based location targets, rather than data-driven targets [26, 29]. This is despite extensive research using maps produced with geographic information systems (GIS) to characterize and visualize the epidemiology of drug overdose–with over 181 articles published on this topic since 2017 [34]. Indeed, GIS has been used to identify target populations and neighborhoods for health and social services [35,36,37], identify naloxone-distributing pharmacies that require improved pharmacist education [38], and inform location targets for overdose prevention services [39, 40]. However, few of these studies discuss implications for outreach or address how spatial data visualization (i.e., via maps) translates to organizations and individuals conducting outreach.

The present study takes the first step toward addressing the gap between research and community praxis by examining the acceptability and appropriateness of GIS to facilitate data-driven outreach for reducing overdose inequities facing Black individuals. We convened a focus group of community stakeholders leading overdose prevention outreach programs in Black communities in St. Louis, MO to assess how GIS tools can best characterize and visualize overdose to reflect practitioner needs. This formative study leveraged existing community partnerships to inform both the aims and recruitment with the goal of conducting a focus group that would guide the development of future community-engaged research adopting GIS in outreach settings. The aims were to 1) examine systemic and cultural barriers to implementing a GIS-facilitated overdose visualization tool among outreaching health workers and 2) understand the extent to which outreaching health workers would find such a tool acceptable and appropriate for overdose prevention.

Setting

Participants were stakeholders invited to participate due to their leadership role in organizations that conducted outreach in the neighborhoods of St. Louis, MO, locally referred to as “North City.” North City refers to the area of St. Louis City bordered by St. Louis County to the West, the Mississippi river to the East and North, and the east–west Delmar Blvd to the south. The latter is infamously called the “Delmar Divide” as it divides St. Louis City not only racially and socioeconomically but also in terms of health, with those neighborhoods north of the Divide having a higher concentration of Black residents and poverty, but a significantly lower life expectancy than those south of it [41]. St. Louis’s current racial and socioeconomic segregation is an enduring product of redlining and other segregationist policies of the mid-twentieth century [42], that contribute not only to economic and health inequities but also specifically to overdose inequities [43]. For example, from 2015 to 2021, drug-involved deaths among Black residents of St. Louis City and County increased at a rate eight times that of White residents, with overdoses among both races increasingly clustering in North City Black neighborhoods [43, 44]. Like others across the country, social service nonprofits and grassroots community organizations in and around North City St. Louis responded by launching or expanding existing services to include overdose prevention outreach.

Participants and procedures

Participants were recruited from partner agencies known to the research team funded by the Missouri Department of Mental Health’s State Opioid Response (Missouri SOR) to provide substance use services via outreach in North St. Louis neighborhoods. In 2021–2022, several agencies and funders inquired about the potential to visualize substance use/harm reduction service access (e.g., via Google Maps) and overdose risk (e.g., zip code-based heat maps) via mapping. However, some community partners and research staff were concerned that making these data public may attract bad actors and disproportionately negatively impact Black communities. These conversations led to the current research questions.

Using purposive convenience sampling, 17 potential participants from 11 organizations were emailed to provide a description of the study and invited to participate. Six of these organizations were current collaborators on other academic-community initiatives emerging in response to increasing overdose in North St. Louis, and thus also engaged with the research team on various other activities, including providing harm reduction resources and education, sharing data, conducting program evaluation, and co-engaging in legislative, funding, and media advocacy. The five other agencies were known entities in the community funded to provide substance-related services in predominantly Black neighborhoods, but not currently engaged with the research team. All potential participants were contacted over email with standardized information about the study; those who did not respond were followed up with by phone.

Enrolled participants (N = 8) were predominantly Black (88%); 50% were women and 50% were men (n = 4 each). Participants represented 7 organizations ranging from grassroots neighborhood nonprofits to large, regional social service and treatment agencies; 4 agencies were connected with the research team in other capacities and 3 agencies were new connections. All participants had an operational or supervisory role in their organization’s adult substance use treatment or harm reduction programming. People with these roles were sampled to speak to the acceptability and appropriateness of a GIS tool in the context of current organizational and program barriers and decision-making processes; however, all were experienced conducting street outreach.

Before the focus group, two staff met individually with each participant to obtain informed consent. The focus group was conducted in-person at a local university by MP, who was assisted by a notetaker and observer. It lasted approximately 120 min and was audio recorded. The focus group protocol was developed for the current study based on questions that emerged internally among the research team during initial work creating preliminary maps and a review of the available literature. The protocol included a semi-structured discussion of current outreach efforts to address overdose and attitudes toward mapping efforts in St. Louis [See Supplemental Materials: Appendix A]. Participants also provided feedback to preliminary maps created in Esri’s ArcGIS Online, including an overdose heat map by census tract, a substance use treatment and service map, and a map demonstrating individual overdose locations that could be filtered by race and other overdose characteristics (see Fig. 1). Participants responded to prompts focused on accessibility of the spatial information and usability to their work. Participants were provided $50 in compensation. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

The focus group was transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. Three members of the research team (DEB, MP, and RG) read the transcript and notes taken by an observer and met several times to generate organizing codes that represented recurring concepts arising from different participants. Using an inductive reflexive approach to thematic analysis [45] informed by contextualism (a relativist perspective) [46], two coders independently coded the transcript semantically (MP, RG) in ATLAS.ti and met with the first author (DEB) to address any discrepancies, reaching consensus on 13 codes. Finally, MP organized codes into 4 preliminary themes by creating a visual table; themes were based on keyness (the ability of the theme to answer the research question) and meaningfulness (themes that identify underlying conceptualizations, not simply topical descriptions). The coding team met to review themes for internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity and check coherence with data before drafting the following results.

We identified four themes that contextualize the acceptability and utility of an overdose visualization tool among community stakeholders providing services in Black communities. They were 1) importance of considering broader community context; 2) data manipulation and validity concerns; 3) potential for awareness, engagement, and community collaboration; and 4) ensuring data relevance to the affected community. Each is described below with illustrative quotes from respondents (expanded in Table 1).

Importance of broader community context

Although the researchers’ intent was to discuss a mapping tool, participant conversations frequently emphasized the context underlying racism-related SDOH in St. Louis’s Black neighborhoods. Specifically, participants discussed how current and historic policies have detrimentally impacted Black communities in the region, leading to striking disparities between White and Black communities in St. Louis with the latter seen as “depletion zones.” Participants highlighted the difference between White-majority communities that have “access to everything within five minutes” (Participant #1) including education, healthcare, and opportunities for physical activities and Black-majority communities, in which “weeds is high, vacant buildings” (Participant #2) and “you got to drive five miles to pick up lunch” (Participant #3). As one participant stated about the condition of Black neighborhoods: “That’s enough to make a person not see a future” (#2).

Participants reinforced an increasing need for substance use intervention in Black-majority communities due to the high community-level access to drugs paired with the unpredictable drug supply following the rise of synthetic opioids. They noted that open air-drug markets are disproportionately located in Black neighborhoods in St. Louis due to persistent neighborhood deprivation. Thus, illicit fentanyl can freely flow into North St. Louis while other resources such as nutritious food are unavailable. However, participants felt that overdose is just one manifestation of the impact of systemic racism on health:

In our community, it’s not just drugs, it’s not just bullets. From the day you’re born, you are faced with reasons and that manifests in so many things. It’s a struggle, honestly is a struggle to be Black in America. (Participant #4)

Ultimately, participants felt that until the disparities in SDOH related to systemic racism are more directly addressed, advocates such as themselves could never “get to the core or root of the problem [of overdose in] low-income minority communities” (#1).

This theme derived in part from participants’ previous experiences with initiatives that used mapping to visualize other health disparities (e.g., sexually transmitted infections [STIs]) that ended up stalling or having limited impact on the community due to SDOH-related barriers that made it difficult to implement change or access services. Thus, participants emphasized that a mapping tool must not only show overdose, but also the SDOH that must be mitigated to effectively redress overdose, such as “the lack of quality services” (#4) ranging from addiction treatment to public transportation. Emphasizing specific SDOH that would put overdoses in Black neighborhoods in context, one participant stated, “Are there banks nearby? Are there businesses nearby? Are there grocery stores? Are there restaurants? Are there schools?” (#3).

Data manipulation and validity concerns

Decades of disinvestment and gentrification in St. Louis’s Black communities, led to concerns that organizations from outside of these communities may perpetuate similar harms. This included some skepticism about an overdose visualization tool created by an academic institution. Participants were concerned that a map highlighting a majority-Black area as a “high crime, high overdose neighborhood” may lead to further disinvestment and increased law enforcement presence. They described how a map could be used to justify and encourage gentrification and the displacement of Black residents rather than improving their circumstances, citing previous instances of entities using spatial data to do just that:

I lived for 30 years in the central corridor in the 17th ward…once [a local university] wanted our neighborhood, it was over with. We had really high rates of everything you can think of. And the population was 70:30, 70 African American, 30 White. Now it’s flipped. And what happened was [the university] wrote a bunch of grants showing that the demographics needed this money[, then] used that money to wipe that demographic out. (Participant #5)

Participants were also apprehensive about the validity of the overdose data that the visualization tool would display. They doubted whether the data would accurately represent the Black people who use drugs they work with, many of whom are unhoused and face other structural barriers that may leave them “invisible to the system.” One participant stated, “Usually with overdoses, people go to the hospital. African American brothers do not go to the hospital” (Participant #6), emphasizing the perception that many Black people die alone and are thus, not accurately represented in overdose surveillance. Thus, it was important for participants to understand who compiled overdose data and how it was gathered as they tended to trust first-hand experiences and local anecdotal information over overdose data. One participant shared, “I see 200 people a week and that number isn’t going down. If anything, it’s going up. So even if you brought me all kinds of statistics that said [drug overdose] was decreasing … I’m still seeing the same or more.” Despite this, they still saw an overdose visualization tool as something they could use to supplement first-hand experience:

It’s helpful in the sense that I can go now, myself, and see if [the data are] true. So, I don’t just take it at its face value, I go now to experience it for myself…The numbers showed us that these were the places that we needed to be for a lot of reasons. But I don’t just take a map at face value like, “Okay, that’s the way it is, let’s go see parts of it,” but let me check that, check that skepticism, take that and go learn from there. (#3)

Awareness, engagement, and community collaboration

Despite concerns about displaying overdose data using GIS, participants endorsed potential compatibility of an overdose visualization tool with current service and community needs, describing its appropriateness for supplementing their own service provision as well as for advocacy toward greater resources and systems change. Participants noted ways in which an overdose visualization tool could be appropriate for guiding their overall service provision, targeting specific overdose prevention resources, and collaborating with agencies that provided complementary resources (e.g., social services). A map would help them choose places to conduct outreach based on “where the most overdoses were taking place in these communities (#3). Mapping could help target specific resources, for example, to people who use stimulants, who several participants noted were “getting pushed to the side” (#6) in the context of a worsening opioid crisis.

However, participants most strongly viewed an overdose visualization tool as an advocacy tool at individual, organizational, and policy levels. At the individual level, they imagined using the tool to increase general awareness of overdose within the neighborhoods they work. They did not imagine the mapping tool as one they would use in the office, but instead in the community doing street outreach and engaging with community members (e.g., on a mobile phone or tablet). They cited drug stigma and a lack of knowledge within North St. Louis as a barrier to providing needed resources. Specifically, participants described how many community members they interacted with seemed to ignore or deny drug-related deaths in their own neighborhoods. Some attributed this to “old school…generations” who “don’t talk about stuff” (#6) like drug use and the overdose crisis, and thus, were unwilling to support the needed harm reduction services participants’ organizations provided. One participant was particularly frustrated with community members’ rejection of their harm reduction outreach services, stating, “You might choose to put your nose up to it, or blind yourself to it, but it’s real” (#3). Thus, this participant valued the potential of a map displaying fatal overdose to help increase understanding about the impact of the overdose crisis on the Black community and to generate collective action toward mitigating it:

There’s situations where we pull up in a place and they’re like, “we don’t want you here.” Well okay, but let me show you why I’m here. I can use that map to show there’s a reason why. “I came because look at these numbers right here”… Now I can get the whole community involved, in a way that I couldn’t before … because the communities we go to right now don’t acknowledge that there’s an [overdose] issue in their community. (#3)

In their positions as not only service providers, but also advocates for a severely under-resourced community, participants hoped an overdose visualization tool could increase community awareness of available services since they found residents and providers often unaware of them. Participants felt strongly that outreach efforts must connect residents affected by drug use to resources beyond treatment services to address the full range of health and social consequences of neighborhood deprivation. Thus, they saw potential for improved collaboration and referral across organizations and discussed how an overdose visualization tool could be used for community advocacy, problem solving, and planning across organizations:

With the mapping… [local government could] utilize the community organizations within those zip codes to be at the table to resolve problems in that zip code versus making their own plan of what they think is going to work … bring those people to the table, because those are the people that see and know that community. (#1)

At the policy level, an overdose mapping tool was also seen as a strategy to advocate for increased funding within their communities and for their organizations specifically. For example, they described how GIS data visualizations could be incorporated into grant applications to demonstrate the need for the services their organizations provide. They also hoped a mapping tool could help facilitate overall increased investment in North St. Louis, including for additional outpatient and inpatient treatment options, affordable housing development, and HIV/STI clinics.

Ensuring data relevance to the community

Participants stressed the importance of including people with lived experience in the development of any overdose mapping tool. People who use drugs and providers who serve them in communities targeted by the tool should be consulted during its development. Although participants valued spatial data, they believed that it should be paired with narrative data and storytelling. Focus group participants generated ideas such as including stories of how the overdose crisis has affected community members or testimonials of people who achieved recovery within the tool, emphasizing that “maps without a story are meaningless to the community” (#3). They also saw this mixed methods strategy as vital for framing the maps so that they do not perpetuate stigma toward people who use drugs or serve as a rationale for bad actors to further disinvest in Black-majority areas with high overdose rates.

Participants also reinforced that each neighborhood they work within is unique with different community assets, challenges, and histories. Regional, county, and city-level maps had much less perceived utility to this group than a tool that could examine neighborhood-level geography:

Each community has its own different thing that’s going to work. Baden, what works in Baden ain’t going to work in Hyde Park. Two totally different communities, even though they may be structured similar, … same thing is not going to work in those communities. (#1)

The current qualitative study examined the acceptability and potential utility of using GIS to facilitate data-driven mobile outreach services for overdose prevention. Participants from organizations providing outreach services in predominantly Black neighborhoods pointed to the potential for a GIS tool displaying locations of drug overdose to inform their service provision and referrals, improve awareness of the Black overdose crisis among both community members and funder-stakeholders, and facilitate collaboration among service providers. Participants’ ability to resist a conversation focused solely on the GIS tool resulted in one that highlighted the importance of understanding the context of opioid use in St. Louis’s Black neighborhoods and the need to elevate community voice, both in features of and in the use of the tool.

Citing manifestations of systemic racism that have led to neighborhood-level inequities in SDOH–and in turn, drug overdose–findings also highlight that such a tool could be limited by data validity and misrepresentation. Participant recommendations for mitigating these concerns included making a mapping tool more relevant to Black communities by including qualitative data, such as storytelling, and involving stakeholders from those communities to incorporate hyper-local knowledge. Participants also noted ways that the GIS tool could be used to communicate with government officials and across community organizations, increase advocacy, and gain resource investments that mitigate SDOH contributing to overdose rates.

Our findings are aligned with previous research demonstrating that community organizations conducting overdose prevention via outreach see the benefit of mapping to inform linkages to treatment and related resources [39, 40]. Although previous research has pointed to the utility of GIS data for agencies conducting outreach to “underserved communities with high overdose burdens” (40 p. 1761), this study included voices from grassroots organizations with lived experience working in those communities. A unique contribution of including voices was discussion of how GIS could be used not only for targeted tertiary prevention, but also for more advocacy to address what participants saw as the “root cause” of the Black overdose crisis: racism related SDOH. As such, participants suggested GIS tools include historical and current characteristics associated with systemic racism and racialized neighborhood segregation (e.g., food deserts, vacancies, and limited access to health services). GIS is already used to identify environmental manifestations of racism impacting social, mental, and physical health disparities. Research has demonstrated how racialized health disparities derive from economic SDOH like poverty and unemployment, environmental SDOH like noise pollution and poor walkability, and historical SDOH like redlining [47, 48]. Using GIS to visualize manifestations of racism may be a promising strategy for educating the public about the source of health disparities and advocating for equity-focused funding and intervention [49].

Participants also suggested that GIS can be used to directly mitigate overdose by improving community awareness of the opioid crisis, helping to reduce stigma and empower residents in areas with high overdose burdens to recognize and respond to overdose. This may be particularly useful in racially minoritized communities who have been impacted by the false racialization of substance use or “double stigma” at the intersection of racial and drug-related discrimination [50, 51]. For example, in New Mexico, ethnically and culturally matched community health workers are dispatched to Latinx communities to provide overdose education, but also to reduce mental health and substance use related stigma, incorporating culturally-relevant concepts such as whole person health [52]. Such interventions provided by culturally congruent lay health workers and peers could be supplemented by local data visualization using GIS in Black communities overburdened by overdose.

Despite identified benefits of GIS, findings suggest community ambivalence about mapping. Previous research among research and clinician stakeholders have pointed to the potential for big data related to overdose to be framed or used to perpetuate inequities, including socioeconomic disinvestment [53, 54]. Like previous research, the result of this ambivalence tended to skew towards potential benefits rather than concerns [54]. Specifically, the devastation of the overdose crisis was perceived to be so severe that it was better to use the data in the hopes of attracting more awareness and resources:

We’ve got to recognize that [bad actors are] an inherent risk and roll with it, but there’s also so many benefits. We’ve all talked about all the different ways we can use this [mapping tool] and we’ve got to think about those more than we think about the harmful. (#3)

However, given the stigmatization of those affected by overdose, future spatial epidemiology and surveillance of the problem must consider integrating qualitative data and citizen science. Community-engaged approaches that incorporate the perspectives of people with lived experience with drug use and/or racism can highlight cultural strengths of underserved communities, mitigate racialized stigma, and provide practical recommendations to avoid data being used to perpetuate the deficit narrative. In the context of technology like GIS, one promising approach is digital storytelling, a researcher-facilitated process of capturing lived experience in multimedia formats often used for health promotion in marginalized groups [55, 56]. Digital storytelling has been integrated with GIS, exemplified by ArcGIS’s own “Story Maps” tool, but has been little used in geospatial science and drug surveillance. Integrating big data via GIS and qualitative lived experience via digital storytelling may help scientists, public health officials, and community members better understand and solution social and economic inequities driving the drug overdose crisis in Black communities [57].

Although not mentioned by those participating in the focus group, the inclusion of community voice might also enhance community trust of researchers and research institutions through the experience of authentic inclusion and elevation of community voice [54]. Community-engaged and GIS methods have been combined to identify areas for public health intervention for problems including chronic disease and nutrition [53, 58]. These participatory mapping approaches incorporate local knowledge into geospatial indices that may predict health outcomes and identify SDOH beyond those traditionally discussed [59, 60]. Thus, in addition to building trust toward and engagement with opioid big data, community-engaged approaches to opioid surveillance in Black communities may also improve scientific and applied outcomes, contributing to increased health equity.

Given increasing use of GIS in drug overdose epidemiology and research by local public health agencies, community organizations, and researchers alike, future GIS research should increase its public health application. The current study raises several implementation questions for future research. For example, participants suggested that a mobile tool could help supplement overdose education during outreach whereas a tool displaying drug trends (e.g., stimulant versus opioid-involved death) could help them target specific harm reduction resources. Thus, research involving the adoption of a GIS tool into outreach and other community-based interventions could examine the feasibility of mobile tools and the fidelity of community-based organizations to providing resources aligned with the drug trends observed. Consistent with participant recommendations from this project, adoption of GIS tools should include the ability to examine data at smaller levels of analysis (i.e., at the address level) to identify neighborhood-level gaps in overdose prevention and related services [61]. Future research should extend findings on acceptability of overdose mapping tools by evaluating the effectiveness of such maps for outreach. Although several studies have used GIS as a tool to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of outreach services, very few studies have evaluated how GIS tools can be used to improve such services. One recent study evaluated the implementation of GIS tools to target outreach services for opportunity youth (i.e., youth not engaged in school or work) in the Phoenix, AZ area [36]. The authors describe how three GIS-derived maps increased agency referrals and led to the opening of satellite centers to increase access in high need areas. Next steps include examining whether GIS can similarly facilitate the needed increase in resources, collaboration, and awareness to address the opioid crisis in Black communities.

This report must be considered given its limitations. The most significant limitation is that results are based on one focus group as the study was practically limited by the limited number of organizations conducting outreach in North St. Louis and recruitment challenges. These challenges included generating interest in research participation among potential participants and coordinating schedules for focus groups due to lack of capacity for staff coverage within many of the organizations. Although the group was homogenous given participants’ similar roles, conducting only one group certainly limited variability in perspectives as well as in thematic analysis. As participants were recruited from known partners, many were familiar with the focus group facilitator (MP). This may have enriched the conversation due to increased trust and rapport with the facilitator, but also could have biased the conversation toward participants who were more familiar with her. We also must acknowledge that the research team are culturally distinct from participants and hold relatively privileged social locations, despite some investigators sharing characteristics like racial and regional origin. Although our analysis approach was inductive, the current interpretation is limited as we are not members of the affected community of Black people who use drugs. Results also have limited transferability to other communities given the focus on the needs of North St. Louis. However, racialized neighborhood disinvestment is common in many cities and concerns about using big overdose data to perpetuate racist policies has been documented in previous research [54, 62]. Thus, the current study may inform future GIS-related research and practice focused on racial disparities in drug overdose.

The current study highlighted the potential utility of GIS to facilitate data-driven outreach for drug overdose prevention in underserved Black neighborhoods. As data visualization of overdose explodes in science, public health, and community settings, stakeholders must consider validity concerns that may undermine benefits and limit community trust. Those using GIS to illuminate service inequities and gaps in overdose among marginalized groups must consider the historical community context, minimize opportunities for data manipulation and misinterpretation, and seek to garner the knowledge and trust of affected communities.

The data generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available as they reasonably be shared without compromising the privacy and confidentiality of participants. However, certain sections of the data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.