Public opinion towards supervised injecting centres and the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre

Changes in Australians' attitudes towards supervised injecting facilities

INTRODUCTION

Supervised injecting facilities (SIF) have been shown to reduce negative outcomes experienced by people who inject drugs. They are often subject to intense public and media scrutiny. This article aimed to explore population attitudes to SIFs and how these changed over time in Australia.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, a national sample collecting data on illicit drug use and attitudes towards drug policy among Australians (2001-2019). Ordinal logistic regression assessed sociodemographic characteristics associated with different attitudes to SIFs and binary logistic regression assessed trends over time and by jurisdiction.

RESULTS

In 2019, 54% of respondents (95% CI 52.9, 55.1) supported SIFs, 27.5% (95% CI 26.6, 28.4) opposed and 18.4% (95% CI 17.7, 19.2) were ambivalent. Support for SIFs correlated with having a university degree (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.58, 1.94), non-heterosexual identity (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.51, 2.17) and recent illicit drug use (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.55, 1.94). Male respondents or those living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower odds of supporting SIFs (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85, 1.00; OR 0.64-0.80, respectively). Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased modestly by 3.3%, those who 'don't know' by 7.4%, whereas opposition decreased by 11.7%. Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased in NSW and Queensland, whereas opposition decreased in all jurisdictions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Opposition to SIFs declined over the past 20 years, but a substantial proportion of respondents are ambivalent or 'don't know enough to say'. Plain language information about SIFs and their potential benefits, targeted to those who are ambivalent/'don't know' may further increase public support.

Voices represented and voices silenced: Represented voices in the media coverage of the implementation of a supervised injecting facility

BACKGROUND

Victoria's first medically supervised injecting room (MSIR) has remained controversial despite mounting evidence in support of the facility. The opposition to a policy idea is subject to a myriad of factors including the media. Favouring the opinions of various actors, the media are a fundamental element of the narrative formation process. In this article, we examine the voices represented and voice silenced in print news media and the possible effects of such reporting.

METHODS

A quantitative content and qualitative thematic analysis of Victorian print media (n=645) focusing on the implementation and continued operation of North Richmond Community Health's medically supervised injecting room was conducted.

RESULTS

The representations of the MSIR were debated by three predominant actors - politicians, public, and residents. Politicians largely relied on the 'saving lives' rhetoric when supporting the facility. In addition, competing representations of 'public amenity' were presented by both advocates and proponents of the MSIR. We found the voices of people who inject drugs were inadequately represented within the data. Instead, overdose statistics were featured as were discursive descriptions of people who inject drugs such as 'addicts', 'junkies', and 'druggies'.

CONCLUSION

Despite people who inject drugs being the population the MSIR is designed to benefit, their experiences and voices were lacking, highlighting social power structures, denying the silenced power, and obstructing social change. Overdose rates were consistently presented as numbers, negating personal experiences and lacking meaningful debate. Further, negative discourse referring to people who inject drugs may have implications regarding internalised and externalised stigma and drug policy.

Assessing Drug Consumption Rooms and Longer Term (5 Year) Impacts on Community and Clients

BACKGROUND

Drug consumption rooms (DCRs) and supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) provide a safe environment in which people who inject drugs (PWIDs) can inject under hygienic and supervised conditions. Numerous reviews have documented the benefits of these facilities; however, there is a lack of clarity surrounding their long-term effects.

PURPOSE

To conduct, with a systematic approach, a literature review, of published peer-reviewed literature assessing the long-term impacts of DCRs/SIFs.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed and Embase database was performed using the keywords: ("SUPERVISED" OR "SAFE*") AND ("CONSUMPTION" OR "INJECT*" OR "SHOOTING") AND ("FACILITY*" OR "ROOM*" OR "GALLERY*" OR "CENTRE*" OR "CENTER*" OR "SITE*"). Included studies were original articles reporting outcomes for five or more years and addressed at least one of the following client or community outcomes; (i) drug-related harms; (ii) access to substance use treatment and other health services; (iii) impact on local PWID population; (iv) impact on public drug use, drug-related crime and violence; and (v) local community attitudes to DCRs.

RESULTS

Four publications met our inclusion criteria, addressing four of the five outcomes. Long-term data suggested that while the health of PWID naturally declined over time, DCRs/SIFs helped reduce injecting-related harms. The studies showed that DCRs/SIFs facilitate drug treatment, access to health services and cessation of drug injecting. Local residents and business owners reported less public drug use and public syringe disposal following the opening of a DCR/SIF.

CONCLUSION

Long-term evidence on DCRs/SIFs is consistent with established short-term research demonstrating the benefits of these facilities. A relative paucity of studies was identified, with most evidence originating from Sydney and Vancouver. The overall body of evidence would be improved by future studies following outcomes over longer periods and being undertaken in a variety of jurisdictions and models of DCRs/SIFs.

Supervised Injection Facilities as Harm Reduction: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Supervised injection facilities are harm reduction interventions that allow people who inject drugs to use previously obtained substances under the supervision of health professionals. Although currently considered illegal under U.S. federal law, several U.S. cities are considering implementing supervised injection facilities anyway as a response to the escalating overdose crisis. The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities, compared with that of control conditions, for harm reduction and community outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Studies were identified from 2 sources: a high-quality, broader review examining supervised injection facility-induced benefits and harms (from database inception to January 2014) and an updated search using the same search strategy (January 2014‒September 2019). Systematic review methods developed by the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used (screening and analysis, September 2019‒December 2020).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 22 studies were included in this review: 16 focused on 1 supervised injection facility in Vancouver, Canada. Quantitative synthesis was not conducted given inconsistent outcome measurement across the studies. Supervised injection facilities in the included studies (n=number of studies per outcome category) were mostly associated with significant reductions in opioid overdose morbidity and mortality (n=5), significant improvements in injection behaviors and harm reduction (n=7), significant improvements in access to addiction treatment programs (n=7), and no increase or reductions in crime and public nuisance (n=7).

CONCLUSIONS

For people who inject drugs, supervised injection facilities may reduce the risk of overdose morbidity and mortality and improve access to care while not increasing crime or public nuisance to the surrounding community.

Effectiveness of Narrative Messaging Styles about the Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequities in Ontario, Canada

Health inequities are systemic, avoidable, and unjust differences in health between populations. These differences are often determined by social and structural factors, such as income and social status, employment and working conditions, or race/racism, which are referred to as the social determinants of health (SDOH). According to public opinion, health is considered to be largely determined by the choices and behaviours of individuals. However, evidence suggests that social and structural factors are the key determinants of health. There is likely a lack of public understanding of the role that social and structural factors play in determining health and producing health inequities. Public opinion and priorities can drive governmental action, so the aim of this work was to determine the most impactful way to increase knowledge and awareness about the social determinants of health (SDOH) and health inequities in the province of Ontario, Canada. A study to test the effectiveness of four different messaging styles about health inequities and the SDOH was conducted with a sample of 805 adult residents of Ontario. Findings show that messages highlighting the challenges faced by those experiencing the negative effects of the SDOH, while still acknowledging individual responsibility for health, were the most effective for eliciting an empathetic response from Ontarians. These findings can be used to inform public awareness campaigns focused on changing the current public narrative about the SDOH toward a more empathetic response, with the goal of increasing political will to enact policies to address health inequities in Ontario.

Public support for harm reduction: A population survey of Canadian adults

We described public views toward harm reduction among Canadian adults and tested a social exposure model predicting support for these contentious services, drawing on theories in the morality policy, intergroup relations, addiction, and media communication literatures. A quota sample of 4645 adults (18+ years), randomly drawn from an online research panel and stratified to match age and sex distributions of adults within and across Canadian provinces, was recruited in June 2018. Participants completed survey items assessing support for harm reduction for people who use drugs (PWUD) and for seven harm reduction interventions. Additional items assessed exposure to media coverage on harm reduction, and scales assessing stigma toward PWUD (α = .72), personal familiarity with PWUD (α = .84), and disease model beliefs about addiction (α = .79). Most (64%) Canadians supported harm reduction (provincial estimates = 60% - 73%). Five of seven interventions received majority support, including: outreach (79%), naloxone (72%), drug checking (70%), needle distribution (60%) and supervised drug consumption (55%). Low-threshold opioid agonist treatment and safe inhalation interventions received less support (49% and 44%). Our social exposure model, adjusted for respondent sex, household income, political views, and education, exhibited good fit and accounted for 17% of variance in public support for harm reduction. Personal familiarity with PWUD and disease model beliefs about addiction were directly associated with support (βs = .07 and -0.10, respectively), and indirectly influenced public support via stigmatized attitudes toward PWUD (βs = 0.01 and -0.01, respectively). Strategies to increase support for harm reduction could problematize certain disease model beliefs (e.g., "There are only two possibilities for an alcoholic or drug addict-permanent abstinence or death") and creating opportunities to reduce social distance between PWUD, the public, and policy makers.

Community perspectives on supervised consumption sites: Insights from four U.S. counties deeply affected by opioids

BACKGROUND

To address the overdose crisis in the United States, expert groups have been nearly unanimous in calls for increasing access to evidence-based treatment and overdose reversal drugs. In some places there have also been calls for implementing supervised consumption sites (SCSs). Some cities-primarily in coastal urban areas-have explored the feasibility and acceptability of introducing them. However, the perspectives of community stakeholders from more inland and rural areas that have also been hard hit by opioids are largely missing from the literature.

METHODS

To examine community attitudes about implementing SCSs for people who use opioids (PWUO) in areas with acute opioid problems, the research team conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups in four counties: Ashtabula and Cuyahoga Counties in Ohio, and Carroll and Hillsborough Counties in New Hampshire, two states with high rates of opioid overdose. Participants were policy, treatment, and criminal justice professionals, frontline harm reduction and service providers, and PWUO.

RESULTS

Key informants noted benefits to SCSs, but also perceived potential drawbacks such as that they may enable opioid use, and potential practical barriers, including lack of desire among PWUO to travel to an SCS after purchasing opioids and fear of arrest. Key informants generally believed their communities likely would not currently accept SCSs due to cultural, resource, and practical barriers. They viewed publication of evidence on SCSs and community education as essential for fostering acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite cultural and other barriers, implementation of SCSs may be more feasible in urban communities with existing (and perhaps more long-standing) harm reduction programs, greater treatment resources, and adequate transportation, particularly if there is strong evidence to support them.

The effect of public opinion and politics on attitudes towards pill testing: Results from the 2019 Australian Election Study

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Following several deaths due to drug overdoses at music festivals in Australia, pill testing (or drug checking) has been proposed as a means of reducing the risk to young people. However, pill testing is a politically controversial policy in Australia. This paper examines the political dimension to the debate, its relationship with other social issues and how it divides party supporters.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The data come from the 2019 Australian Election Study survey-a large (n = 2179), nationally weighted representative probability survey conducted immediately after the federal election. Bivariate and multivariate analyses are used to identify the social groups, attitudes and vote preferences most associated with public views about pill testing.

RESULTS

Almost two-thirds of the public support pill testing at music festivals. The young and those who do not attend church are most likely to express support. Supporters of other liberal social opinions, such as the legalisation of marijuana, are also strongly supportive of pill testing. Those who vote for one of the two main conservative parties are less likely to support pill testing.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

While a majority of the public support pill testing, beyond the Australian Capital Territory this has not translated into policy in other jurisdictions. The results show that there is a high level of political polarisation surrounding opinions among both voters and political elites. This issue must be addressed if the policy is to be advanced as part of an overall harm reduction approach to drug use.

French People's positions on supervised injection facilities for drug users

BACKGROUND

Supervised injection facilities have been set-up in many countries to curb the health risks associated with unsafe injection practices. These facilities have, however, been met with vocal opposition, notably in France. As harm reduction policies can only succeed to the extent that people agree with them, this study mapped French people's opinions regarding the setting-up of these facilities.

METHOD

A sample of 318 adults--among them health professionals--were presented with 48 vignettes depicting plans to create a supervised injection facility in their town. Each vignette contained three pieces of information: (a) the type of substance that would be injected in the facility (amphetamines only, amphetamines and cocaine only, or amphetamines, cocaine and heroin), (b) the type of staff who would be working in the facility (physicians and nurses, specially trained former drug users, specially trained current drug users, or trained volunteers recruited by the municipality), and (c) the staff members' mission (to be present and observe only, technical counselling about safe injection, counselling about safe injection and hygiene, or counselling and encouragement to follow a detoxification program).

RESULTS

Through cluster analysis, three qualitatively different positions were found: Not very acceptable (20%), Depends on staff and mission (49%), and Always acceptable (31%). These positions were associated with demographic characteristics--namely gender, age and political orientation.

CONCLUSION

French people's positions regarding supervised injection facilities were extremely diverse. One type of facility would, however, be accepted by a large majority of people: supervised injection facilities run by health professionals whose mission would be, in addition to technical and hygienic counselling, to encourage patrons to enter detoxification or rehabilitation programs.

Effects of messaging on public support for drug consumption rooms in scotland, UK

BACKGROUND

There is evidence to suggest that medically supervised drug consumption rooms (DCRs) may form part of responses to reduce drug-related harm. Although DCRs have been established globally, they are perceived by some to be a controversial approach in the UK, and Government has repeatedly rejected proposals to establish one in Glasgow, Scotland. As public support is an important component of policy development and enactment, we sought to investigate the effects of different types of message framing on public support for DCR.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional online study with a randomised design, conducted with a nationally representative sample. Participants were randomised to one of six message conditions comprising combinations of four components. All conditions included i) a basic description of a DCR, and conditions included combinations of ii) factual information; iii) pre-emptive refutation of common public concerns about DCR; and/or iv) a sympathetic narrative describing a mother whose son died from a heroin overdose. After reading each message, participants completed a bespoke measure assessing support for DCR. Data were analysed using ANCOVA.

RESULTS

Complete data were obtained from 1591 participants (50.3% Female; mean age 44.9 ± 16.1 years). Compared to reading a basic description of DCR alone, there was greater support for DCR in participants receiving the refutation (p < .001); sympathetic + factual (p < .05); and sympathetic + factual + refutation (p < .001) message conditions. Presenting factual or sympathetic messages alone were not associated with increased support.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that public support for DCRs is not improved through communication of factual statements outlining potential benefits of the intervention alone. Advocates seeking to foster public support, and thus influence policy making, should also consider communication campaigns that address common concerns that the public might have about DCRs, and present the intervention in relation to potential benefits that they hold for people indirectly affected by drug-related harm.

Anticipated use of a supervised drug consumption site among syringe services program clients in King County, Washington: Assessing the role of opioid overdose and injection behavior

BACKGROUND

US jurisdictions are considering implementing supervised drug consumption sites (SCSs) to combat the overdose epidemic. No sanctioned SCS exists in the US, but King County, Washington has proposed Community Health Engagement Locations (CHELs), which would include supervised drug consumption. We assessed characteristics of people engaged in syringe services programs (SSPs) who anticipated SCS use.

METHODS

We estimated prevalence of anticipated SCS use in a 2017 cross-sectional sample of King County SSP participants (N = 377). We used Poisson regression with robust standard errors to estimate likelihood of anticipated SCS use by overdose history (experienced, witnessed only, neither), public injection frequency (always, some/most times, never), drug use behaviors, and sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The sample was primarily male (66.8 %), white (69.5 %), and averaged 37 years old. Almost two-thirds of participants witnessed or experienced an overdose in the past year (43.2 % witnessed only; 19.6 % experienced overdose). Four in five SSP participants (83.0 %) anticipated any SCS use. Anticipated SCS use was higher among participants who experienced an overdose (risk ratio [RR] = 1.14, 95 % CI = 1.04, 1.24) than those with no overdose experience. In multivariable analyses, anticipated SCS use was higher among people reporting injecting publicly (e.g., always vs. never: aRR = 1.26, 95 % CI = 1.11, 1.43), and lower among people primarily using methamphetamine (aRR = 0.80, 95 % CI = 0.67, 0.96) compared to people primarily using opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

In King County, SCS services would be used by people at high risk of overdose, including SSP participants reporting injecting in public. SCSs could be an important step to promote health and safety across communities.

Overdose Prevention Site Acceptability among Residents and Businesses Surrounding a Proposed Site in Philadelphia, USA

Overdose prevention sites (OPS) are places where people use previously obtained drugs under the supervision of a health professional. They have been proposed in six United States (US) cities, including Philadelphia, to help reduce opioid-related overdose deaths and public injection. Philadelphia has the highest overdose rate among large cities in the US, which has led a local community-based organization to plan the implementation of OPS. Kensington, a neighborhood with the highest drug mortality overdose rates in the city, is a likely site for the proposed OPS. Given the dearth of research systematically assessing public opinion towards OPS prior to implementation, we enrolled 360 residents and 79 business owners/staff in the Kensington neighborhood in a cross-sectional acceptability study. Face-to-face surveys assessed participant characteristics, experiences with drug-related social problems, and OPS acceptability. Using descriptive statistics, we estimated factors associated with favorability towards opening an OPS in the Kensington neighborhood. Ninety percent of residents were in favor of an OPS opening in Kensington. Support was significantly higher among unstably housed individuals and persons who currently use opioids. In the business sample, 63% of owners/staff were in favor of opening an OPS in Kensington. A greater proportion of Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanic/Latinx respondents, and non-Hispanic/Latinx Black respondents were in favor of an OPS opening in Kensington compared with white respondents (p < 0.04). While details about implementation are still being considered, results indicate general acceptability among Kensington residents and businesses for an OPS, especially if it can deliver benefits that curb drug-related social problems. Should an OPS be implemented in Philadelphia, it would be important to monitor changes in drug-related social problems and acceptability post implementation.

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

ISSUES

Drug consumptions rooms (DCR) and supervised injecting facilities (SIF) are expanding internationally. Previous reviews have not systematically addressed evaluation methodologies.

APPROACH

Results from systematic searches of scientific databases in English until June 2017 were coded for paper type, country and year of publication. For evaluation papers, study outcome, methodology/study design and main indicators of DCR/SIF 'exposure' were recorded.

KEY FINDINGS

Two hundred and nineteen eligible peer-reviewed papers were published since 1999: the majority from Canada (n = 117 papers), Europe (n = 36) and Australia (n = 32). Fifty-six papers reported evaluation outcomes. Ecological study designs (n = 10) were used to assess the impact on overdose, public nuisance and crime; modelling techniques (n = 6) estimated impact on blood-borne diseases, overdose deaths and costs. Papers using individual-level data included four prospective cohorts (n = 28), cross-sectional surveys (n = 7) and service records (n = 5). Individual-level data were used to assess safer injecting practice, uptake into health and social services and all the other above outcomes except for impact on crime and costs. Four different indicators of DCR/SIF attendance were used to measure service 'exposure'.

IMPLICATIONS

Research around DCRs/SIFs has used ecological, modelling, cross-sectional and cohort study designs. Further research could involve systematic inclusion of a control group of people who are eligible but do not access SIFs, validation of self-reported proportion of injections at SIFs or a stepped-wedge or a cluster trial comparing localities.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodologies appropriate for DCR/SIF evaluation have been established and can be readily replicated from the existing literature. Research on operational aspects, implementation and transferability is also warranted.

Harm reduction in Italy: the experience of an unsanctioned supervised injection facility run by drug users

Purpose

Efforts to establish harm reduction interventions in Italy have persisted since the mid-1990s. Despite this, no sanctioned SIF has ever been implemented. The purpose of this paper is to provide information about a 10 year unsanctioned drug user-run SIF experience in Italy called Stanzetta.

Design/methodology/approach

The aim of the paper is to assess how Stanzetta met its objectives. Analysis was conducted compiling narrative accounts from the staff working in the NSP, which is adjacent to the Stanzetta, and conducting a simple frequency analysis of the available statistical data.

Findings

The Stanzetta unsanctioned SIF has been running for ten years and continues to be vulnerable due to its legal status. Being open 24 h/days has maximised its accessibility, but at the same time, it has encouraged a misuse of the Stanzetta. Although not trained, drug users became self-empowered to run the Stanzetta and to keep it clean, but the hygiene-health aspect is seen as one of the greatest challenges by the NSP professional staff. Over 10 years, not a single overdose death has been recorded. Drug use in the park has shifted from more visible places to the Stanzetta. As a result, the abandoned syringes have diminished in number and those disposed of correctly have increased. Moreover, no complaints from citizens or law enforcement were ever made. The neighbourhood acceptance seems to be the main goal of the peer-run unsanctioned SIF.

Research limitations/implications

The paper is based on a narrative account from the point of view of the professional staff involved, and results are specific to the context in which the study was conducted. Because of the chosen approach, the research results lack scientific generalisability. A relevant limitation is that no peer was involved in this study. Despite this, the research contributes to the information based on peer-run SIFs and makes a case for the de-medicalisation of SIFs in Europe.

Practical implications

This paper gives visibility to a long-lasting drug user-run SIF experience that was not made public mostly for an unclear legislative background about SIF in Italy.

Social implications

Efforts to establish harm reduction interventions in Italy have persisted since the mid-1990s and were undertaken primarily in response to epidemics of HIV infection and overdose (DPA, 2017). Despite this, no sanctioned SIF has ever been implemented. Primarily, this study wants to underline the urgency for an SIF pilot in Italy, and secondly the need to consider de-medicalising these services through direct support for peer-based models.

Originality/value

The Stanzetta unsanctioned SIF in Italy that has been running for ten years. Despite this, the venue continues to be vulnerable due to its legal status. For this reason, these results were never made public before. The experience showed a good working synergy between NSP professionals and the SIF peers. This model can be considered as a “light” de-medicalisation form to be explored and eventually to be implemented as a pilot SIF in Italy.

Relationships, Training, and Formal Agreements Between Needle and Syringe Programs and Police

Needle and syringe programs (NSPs) are key public health and HIV prevention programs. We sought to compare over time the quality of relationships between NSPs and police, and implementation of best practices. We conducted cross-sectional surveys in 2008 ( n = 32) and 2015 ( n = 28) with NSP managers in Ontario, Canada. Participants were recruited via e-mail to complete an online survey. Over the period studied, self-reported quality of NSP-police relationships did not change-roughly two thirds of NSP managers reported a positive/mostly positive relationship. In 2015, higher proportions of programs offered training to police about the following: the purpose and goals of NSPs (48% vs. 41% in 2008), NSP effectiveness (55% vs. 34%), the health and social concerns of people who use drugs (52% vs. 40%), and needlestick injury prevention (44% vs. 31%). Few managers reported formal conflict resolution procedures with the police (22% in 2015, 9% in 2008). Our findings show that NSP-police relationships did not deteriorate during a time when such programs fell into disfavor with the federal government. More research is needed to understand if and when formal versus informal agreements with police serve the needs of NSPs.

Public support for safe consumption sites and syringe services programs to combat the opioid epidemic

We examine Americans' support for two evidence-based harm reduction strategies - safe consumption sites and syringe exchange programs - and their attitudes about individuals who use opioids. We conducted a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults in July-August 2017 (N = 1004). We measured respondents' support for legalizing safe consumption sites and syringe services programs in their communities and their attitudes toward people who use opioids. We used ordered logistic regression to assess how stigmatizing attitudes toward people who use opioids, political party identification, and demographic characteristics correlated with support for the two harm reduction strategies. Twenty-nine percent of Americans supported legalizing safe consumption sites and 39% supported legalizing syringe services programs. Respondents reported high levels of stigmatizing attitudes toward people who use opioids: 16% of respondents were willing to have a person using opioids marry into their family and 28% were willing to have a person using opioids start working closely with them on a job, and 27% and 10% of respondents rated persons who use opioids as deserving (versus worthless) and strong (versus weak). Stigmatizing attitudes were associated with lower support for legalizing safe consumption sites and syringe services programs. Democrats and Independents were more likely than Republicans to support both strategies. Stigmatizing attitudes toward people who use opioids are a key modifiable barrier to garnering the public support needed to fully implement evidence-based harm reduction strategies to combat the opioid epidemic. Dissemination and evaluation of stigma reduction campaigns are a public health priority.

Drug consumption rooms: Comparing times, spaces and actors in issues of social acceptability in French public debate

BACKGROUND

In October 2016, the first French drug consumption room (DCR) opened in Paris. We propose to examine the process through which this issue has been framed as a matter of public concern, after being ignored for almost 20 years. Our analysis of the controversy on DCRs investigates how public conversations on harm reduction evolve according to the time period (from the 1990s to the present), scale of discourse (local vs. national), and involved actors (politicians, professionals, local residents, and drug users).

METHODOLOGY

Our methodology includes analyses of media content: we reviewed 1735 articles published between 1990 and 2017. Our theoretical approach is in line with the sociology "des épreuves" derived from pragmatic sociology and controversy analysis. This approach goes beyond interactionism by attempting to place situations back into broader sociological realities. We also pay special attention to governance, a political lens that focuses on local aspects of negotiations and on the implication of a variety of actors.

RESULTS

While the current debate on DCRs in France draws on constraints and resources already present in the harm reduction debate of the 1980s, it also repositions itself by avoiding moral argumentation and featuring less confrontation in the professional sphere. Today, we can see that the center of this tense debate has shifted from the professional sphere to the political and residential spheres. Most often, residents advance concerns that are not directly related to drug users themselves, but that derive from their apprehension of living in a displaced and stranded neighborhood. The public conversation leaves little room for drug users, even though they are the primary stakeholders of harm reduction and play a crucial role in DCR advocacy.

CONCLUSION

Our work reveals that the controversy about DCR is the product of complex interactions between different kinds of actors harm reduction professionals, political actors at the local and national levels, local residents, and drug users. Comparing different instances of public debate reveals the specific limitations and potentials for change in French drug policy.

Changes in public order after the opening of an overdose monitoring facility for people who inject drugs

BACKGROUND

In the face of an increasingly fatal opioid crisis, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP) opened the Supportive Place for Observation and Treatment (SPOT), a unique low-threshold harm reduction program for monitoring people who have injected drugs and are at imminent risk of overdose. This study examines the impact of the opening of the SPOT program on measures of injection drug-related public order in the neighborhood surrounding the facility.

METHODS

Data was collected at 10 weeks prior and 12 weeks post SPOT implementation on: number of over-sedated individuals in public, publicly discarded syringes, publicly discarded injection-related litter, and instances of active injection drug use or exchange of drugs. Changes were evaluated using Poisson log-linear regression models. Potential confounders such as weather and police presence were measured and controlled for.

RESULTS

The average number of over-sedated individuals observed in public significantly decreased by 28% (4.3 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.7-6.9] v 3.1 [CI 1.4-6.8]) after SPOT opened. The opening of SPOT did not have a significant effect on the other measures of public order. The daily average number of publicly discarded syringes (28.5 [CI 24.5-33.1] v 28.4 [CI 22.0-36.5]), pieces of publicly discarded injection-related litter (376.3 [CI 358.6-394.8] v 375.0 [CI 345.8-406.6]), and observed instances of active use or exchange of drugs (0.2 [CI 0.1-0.9] v 0.1 [CI 0.0-0.1]) were not statistically significantly different after the opening of SPOT.

CONCLUSIONS

The opening of SPOT was associated with a significant decrease in observed over-sedated individuals. Other measures of injection-drug related public order did not improve or worsen with the opening of SPOT, however, they have been shown to improve with the implementation of a supervised injection facility.

Correlates of public support toward federal funding for harm reduction strategies

Background

Historically, US federal policy has not supported harm reduction interventions, such as safe injection facilities (SIFs) and needle and syringe programs (NSPs), which can reduce the burden associated with injection drug use. Given recent increases in abuse of both legal and illegal opioids, there has been a renewed debate about effective ways to address this problem. The current study (1) assessed participants’ support for SIFs and NSPs, and (2) evaluated several demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, race, education, political ideology, and religiosity) and individual differences in stigmatizing beliefs about people who inject drugs (PWID) that might relate to support for these interventions.

Methods

U.S. adults (N = 899) completed a web-based study that assessed self-reported support for NSPs and SIFs, and stigma about PWID.

Results

The majority of participants were at least somewhat supportive of both NSPs and SIFs. Regression analyses indicated greater support for NSPs and SIFs was predicted by more liberal political ideology, more agreement that PWID deserve help rather than punishment, older age, and male gender. Also, participants who endorsed lower stigma about PWID were more supportive of NSPs and SIFs. Race, religiosity, and education did not predict support for NSPs and SIFs.

Conclusions

Most participants tended to report support for harm reduction strategies. Age, political ideology, and individual differences in stigmatizing beliefs about PWID were significantly associated with support. Given the potential malleability of stigmatizing beliefs, efforts that seek to shift stigma about PWID could have important implications for public policy towards harm reduction strategies for PWID.

Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Supervised injection services (SISs) have been developed to promote safer drug injection practices, enhance health-related behaviors among people who inject drugs (PWID), and connect PWID with external health and social services. Nevertheless, SISs have also been accused of fostering drug use and drug trafficking.

AIMS

To systematically collect and synthesize the currently available evidence regarding SIS-induced benefits and harm.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed via the PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases using the keyword algorithm [("supervised" or "safer") and ("injection" or "injecting" or "shooting" or "consumption") and ("facility" or "facilities" or "room" or "gallery" or "centre" or "site")].

RESULTS

Seventy-five relevant articles were found. All studies converged to find that SISs were efficacious in attracting the most marginalized PWID, promoting safer injection conditions, enhancing access to primary health care, and reducing the overdose frequency. SISs were not found to increase drug injecting, drug trafficking or crime in the surrounding environments. SISs were found to be associated with reduced levels of public drug injections and dropped syringes. Of the articles, 85% originated from Vancouver or Sydney.

CONCLUSION

SISs have largely fulfilled their initial objectives without enhancing drug use or drug trafficking. Almost all of the studies found in this review were performed in Canada or Australia, whereas the majority of SISs are located in Europe. The implementation of new SISs in places with high rates of injection drug use and associated harms appears to be supported by evidence.

Self-reported changes in drug use behaviors and syringe disposal methods following the opening of a supervised injecting facility in Copenhagen, Denmark

BACKGROUND

In Denmark, the first standalone supervised injecting facility (SIF) opened in Copenhagen's Vesterbro neighborhood on October 1, 2012. The purpose of this study was to assess whether use of services provided by the recently opened SIF was associated with changes in injecting behavior and syringe disposal practices among people who inject drugs (PWID). We hypothesized that risk behaviors (e.g., syringe sharing), and unsafe syringe disposal (e.g., dropping used equipment on the ground) had decreased among PWID utilizing the SIF.

METHODS

Between February and August of 2013, we conducted interviews using a survey (in English and Danish) with forty-one people who reported injecting drugs at the SIF. We used descriptive statistics and McNemar's test to examine sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, current drugs used, sites of syringe disposal before and after opening of the SIF, and perceived behavior change since using the SIF.

RESULTS

Of the interviewed participants, 90.2% were male and the majority were younger than 40 years old (60.9%). Three-quarters (75.6%) of participants reported reductions in injection risk behaviors since the opening of the SIF, such as injecting in a less rushed manner (63.4%), fewer outdoor injections (56.1%), no longer syringe sharing (53.7%), and cleaning injecting site(s) more often (43.9%). Approximately two-thirds (65.9%) of participants did not feel that their frequency of injecting had changed; five participants (12.2%) reported a decrease in injecting frequency, and only two participants (4.9%) reported an increase in injecting frequency. Twenty-four (58.5%) individuals reported changing their syringe disposal practices since the opening of the SIF; of those, twenty-three (95.8%) reported changing from not always disposing safely to always disposing safely (McNemar's test p-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that use of the Copenhagen SIF is associated with adoption of safer behaviors that reduce harm and promote health among PWID, as well as practices that benefit the Vesterbro neighborhood (i.e., safer syringe disposal). As a public health intervention, Copenhagen's SIF has successfully reached PWID engaging in risk behavior. To fully characterize the impacts of this and other Danish SIFs, further research should replicate this study with a larger sample size and prospective follow-up.

Increasing public support for supervised injection facilities in Ontario, Canada

AIM

To determine the level and changes in public opinion between 2003 and 2009 among adult Canadians about implementation of supervised injection facilities (SIFs) in Canada.

DESIGN

Population-based, telephone survey data collected in 2003 and 2009 were analysed to identify strong, weak, and intermediate support for SIFs.

SETTING

Ontario, Canada

PARTICIPANTS

Representative samples of adults aged 18 years and over.

MEASUREMENTS

Analyses of the agreement with implementation of SIFs in relation to four individual SIF goals and a composite measure.

FINDINGS

The final sample sizes for 2003 and 2009 were 1212 and 968, respectively. Between 2003 and 2009, there were increases in the proportion of participants who strongly agreed with implementing SIFs to: reduce neighbourhood problems (0.309 versus 0.556, respectively); increase contact of people who use drugs with health and social workers (0.257 versus 0.479, respectively); reduce overdose deaths or infectious disease among people who use drugs (0.269 versus 0.482, respectively); and encourage safer drug injection (0.213 versus 0.310, respectively). Analyses using a composite measure of agreement across goals showed that 0.776 of participants had mixed opinions about SIFs in 2003, compared with only 0.616 in 2009. There was little change among those who strongly disagreed with all SIF goals (0.091 versus 0.113 in 2003 and 2009, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Support for implementation of supervised injection facilities in Ontario, Canada increased between 2003 and 2009, but at both time-points a majority still held mixed opinions.

A cross-sectional study of public attitudes towards safer drug use practices in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Harm reduction programs are often vulnerable to political and vocal opposition despite documented evidence of their effectiveness and economic benefit. It is not well understood if opponents to harm reduction represent the general public's attitudes.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the attitudes of the people of British Columbia (BC) towards various harm reduction strategies and services, and factors associated with support for harm reduction.

METHODS

A random-digit dialing telephone survey assessing attitudes towards various harm reduction strategies was administered to British Columbians in August 2011 (n = 2000). We compared the level of support for general harm reduction by sex, age, education level, and area of residence (Health Authority region) (χ2). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess odds of support for harm reduction.

RESULTS

Overall support for general harm reduction among participants was 76%; needle distribution 72%; needle distribution in one's local community 65%; and safer inhalation equipment distribution 52%. In the multivariate analysis, those with significantly lower odds of supporting harm reduction were male, older, had equal or less than high school education or completed a certificate/diploma program, and resided in the Fraser Health Authority region. The Health Authority region with a municipality that has introduced a bylaw prohibiting the implementation of harm reduction services was found to have 69% support for harm reduction. Another Health Authority region with a municipality that closed a long-standing needle distribution site was found to have over 78% support.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to some local policies, our results show the British Columbians surveyed in our study support harm reduction. It is unclear whether policy makers are swayed by a vocal minority or block harm reduction activities for other reasons. Tailoring messages towards segments of the public less likely to support harm reduction, as well civic policy-makers and the media, may help to reduce stigma and gain support for harm reduction services designed to protect and improve the health of the individual and the public.

Identifying provider beliefs related to contingency management adoption using the contingency management beliefs questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Contingency management (CM) is a widely recognized empirically-supported addiction treatment; however, dissemination and adoption of CM into routine clinical practice has been slow. Assessment of beliefs about CM may highlight key barriers and facilitators of adoption and inform dissemination efforts. In the present study, we developed a 35-item questionnaire (contingency management beliefs questionnaire; CMBQ) assessing CM beliefs and examined the relation of these beliefs to clinician characteristics and clinical practices.

METHODS

The web-based study was completed by 617 substance abuse treatment providers. We examined the factor structure using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in a randomly selected half-sample (n=318) and evaluated the generalizability of the solution using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in the second half-sample (n=299).

RESULTS

EFA results suggested a 3-factor solution with 32 items retained; factors represented general barriers, training-related barriers, and pro-CM items. CFA results supported the solution, and reliability was good within each half-sample (α=0.88 and 0.90). Therapeutic approach, years experience in addictions field, perception of CM's research support, prior CM training, and CM adoption interest were significantly associated with the factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, participants viewed CM favorably yet endorsed barriers, indicating a need for more extensive and targeted response to the most common misperceptions in dissemination efforts.

The impact of a supervised injecting facility on ambulance call-outs in Sydney, Australia

AIMS

Supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) are effective in reducing the harms associated with injecting drug use among their clientele, but do SIFs ease the burden on ambulance services of attending to overdoses in the community? This study addresses this question, which is yet to be answered, in the growing body of international evidence supporting SIFs efficacy.

DESIGN

Ecological study of patterns in ambulance attendances at opioid-related overdoses, before and after the opening of a SIF in Sydney, Australia.

SETTING

A SIF opened as a pilot in Sydney's 'red light' district with the aim of accommodating a high throughput of injecting drug users (IDUs) for supervised injecting episodes, recovery and the management of overdoses.

MEASUREMENTS

A total of 20,409 ambulance attendances at opioid-related overdoses before and after the opening of the Sydney SIF. Average monthly ambulance attendances at suspected opioid-related overdoses, before (36 months) and after (60 months) the opening of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC), in the vicinity of the centre and in the rest of New South Wales (NSW).

RESULTS

The burden on ambulance services of attending to opioid-related overdoses declined significantly in the vicinity of the Sydney SIF after it opened, compared to the rest of NSW. This effect was greatest during operating hours and in the immediate MSIC area, suggesting that SIFs may be most effective in reducing the impact of opioid-related overdose in their immediate vicinity.

CONCLUSIONS

By providing environments in which IDUs receive supervised injection and overdose management and education SIF can reduce the demand for ambulance services, thereby freeing them to attend other medical emergencies within the community.

Public opinion on needle and syringe programmes: avoiding assumptions for policy and practice

Despite evidence for their effectiveness, harm reduction services such as needle and syringe programmes (NSPs) are highly vulnerable to perceptions of community disapproval. This paper reviews Australian research on community attitudes to harm reduction services and its impact on research, policy and practice. The literature on community attitudes to NSPs in Australia comprises a small number of representative national samples and surveys of local communities affected by specific services. Despite these extremely limited data, negative community attitudes are often cited by policy-makers and health professionals as a primary constraint on policy-making. The main finding of this literature review is that community perceptions of NSPs are largely positive. Also, support for NSPs was not synonymous with condoning drug use. The failure of policy-makers and politicians to recognise positive community attitudes to NSPs has led in some instances to hasty political responses to adverse media reports, including the closure of services. This literature review showing positive community attitudes to harm reduction services should embolden researchers, practitioners and policy-makers to challenge such reactionary responses. Further, this evidence should be used in countering negative publicity surrounding these services.

Public perceptions of public drug use in four UK urban sites

At the local level, proposals for regeneration are often put forwards as solutions to social and health problems associated with poverty, drug use and crime. Debates about establishing drug consumption rooms (DCRs) are also concerned with providing services to drug use-related environmental problems. However, conflicts may exist between interventions aiming to reduce drug-related harm to discriminated communities and wider regeneration aims to support corporate development. This commentary draws on data from a rapid assessment study which examined the experience of 100 people living and working in four British neighbourhoods where public drug use is common. Primary data were gathered in semi-structured interviews and during local walk-about tours. These were triangulated with secondary sources of information on local policies and indicators of public drug use. Public awareness of the impacts of environmental regeneration projects including loss of amenity, 'fortress mentality' and displacement effects were found at all study sites. However, comparative area analyses suggest that whether communities welcome these changes depends on how close-to-home they perceive the competitions for urban space. Cohesive communities may direct environmental regeneration in pursuit of general social improvement rather than the narrower aims of either DCRs or corporate developers.

Public injecting and the need for 'safer environment interventions' in the reduction of drug-related harm

BACKGROUND

One key structural dimension in the distribution of drug-related harm associated with injecting drug use is the injecting environment. Epidemiological evidence associates elevated blood-borne viral risk with injecting in 'public' and 'semipublic' environments. Yet the quality of evidence on public injecting and related viral risk is variable, and is lacking in many countries such as the United Kingdom.

AIM

This commentary considers the micro-injecting environment as a critical dimension of risk, exploring the need for 'safer injecting environment interventions'.

METHODS

We draw upon published research evidence and qualitative case examples.

RESULTS

We note the limits in epidemiological evidence on public injecting and emphasize the need for ethnographic research to determine the 'social relations' of how drug users and risk practices interact with injecting environments. We identify three main forms of 'safer environment intervention': purpose-built drug consumption rooms; interventions within existing spatial relations; and spatial programming and urban design. While drug consumption rooms find evidence-based support, they are not a panacea. We emphasize the potential of interventions embedded within existing spatial and social relations. These include low-cost pragmatic interventions enhancing facilities and safety at public and semipublic injecting sites and, primarily, peer-based interventions, including peer-supervised injecting sites. We caution against spatial programming and urban design interventions which can cause the displacement of socially marginalized populations and the redistribution of harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health interventions in the addictions field have in the past focused upon individual behavioural change at the cost of social interventions and environmental change. We wish to focus greater attention on reducing risks related to public injecting and encourage greater debate on 'safer environment interventions' in harm reduction.