Injecting drug user attitudes towards rules for supervised injecting rooms: implications for uptake

"It's just not the same": Exploring PWUD' perceptions of and experiences with drug policy and SCS services change in a Canadian City

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Shifting political contexts can significantly alter drug policy approaches and available supports for People Who Use Drugs (PWUD). The purpose of this study was to explore how shifts in provincial drug policy approaches, specifically the replacement of a Safe Consumption Site (SCS) with a smaller mobile Overdose Prevention Site (OPS) in Lethbridge, Alberta Canada, impacted PWUD' access to and experiences with harm reduction services.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 50 PWUD in the City of Lethbridge, Canada. Through traditional fieldwork, we recruited participants within, and just outside of, downtown Lethbridge. Using a standardized general prompt guide to begin interviews, participants were asked a variety of questions about their experiences with and perceptions of SCS access and changes to SCS provisions. Interviews were audio recorded, then transcribed, coded, and analyzed.

RESULTS

Participants reported regular and frequent access and overall positive experiences with the SCS, despite also noting certain operational barriers (e.g., long wait times). By contrast, participants reported more limited use of the new OPS compared to the SCS because of three main reasons: (1) concerns about location; (2) smoking room elimination; and (3) lack of social space and activities. Overall, changes to SCS provision produced a range of negative consequences for PWUD in Lethbridge. These relate to perceived increases in drug-related harms (e.g., increased overdoses) as well as negative social impacts (e.g., lack of place to meet other people).

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study provide preliminary indications of the importance of understanding how contextual and locally-specific elements (location, limits on permitted route administration, and social aspects) can work together to facilitate SCS uptake and even overcome traditional SCS barriers. Conversely, the absence of such elements can hinder SCS uptake. Results show that the value of SCS might differ across locations, pointing to the need for further locally-grounded examinations of harm reduction service uptake and experience.

Rules and Eligibility Criteria for Supervised Consumption Services Feasibility Studies - A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Supervised consumption services (SCS) reduce HIV risks and overdose for people who use drugs (PWUD) and are known to have wide-ranging public health benefits. Feasibility studies are often conducted as part of program/implementation development. We conducted a scoping review of SCS feasibility/pre-implementation studies to answer: what is known about stakeholders' opinions of SCS rules and eligibility criteria?

METHODS

Using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases for: (a) empirical research, (b) reported in English, (c) focused on SCS, (d) pre-implementation feasibility studies (research conducted prior to implementation of SCS in a given context), (e) examining SCS operational rules and eligibility criteria. Abstracts were reviewed to verify appropriateness; full articles/reports were retrieved; data were extracted and charted.

RESULTS

Of the 1,268 data sources identified/reviewed, 19 sources, were included. Manuscripts showed the following criteria that might be considered when determining who can and cannot use SCS: age, pregnancy status, and opioid substitution treatment status. To govern behaviours at SCS, manuscripts focused on: acceptable modes of drug consumption, assisted injections, sharing drugs on-site, pill injecting, and mandatory hand washing, etc. Stakeholders generally agreed that; eligibility restrictions and site rules should be minimal to establish low-barrier services. SCS are often forced to contend with the tension between adhering to a medical or public health model and creating low-barrier services. SCS rules are at the center of this intersection because rules and eligibility criteria implemented to mirror other health services may not align with the needs of PWUD.

CONCLUSION

Given the public health significance of SCS, establishing best practices for service delivery is critical for increasing access and addressing implementation issues. Future research should examine other operational elements of SCS, such as design elements, staffing models, and ancillary services. Additional research should also focus on supervised smoking services.

Operational and contextual barriers to accessing supervised consumption services in two Canadian cities

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

While previous scholarship has documented barriers to Supervised Consumption Services (SCS) access, little is known about how Non-SCS-users perceive available, sanctioned SCS, and how such perceptions may hinder their SCS use. The objectives of this study were to examine: 1) barriers to accessing SCS for SCS-users and Non-SCS-users; and 2) the extent to which these barriers are consistent between groups.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 75 PWUD in two cities in Western Canada, Edmonton and Calgary, who may or may not have accessed available SCS. Participants were recruited on the streets near SCS via traditional fieldwork and snowball sampling. We employed a generalized prompt guide and asked a range of questions about how PWUD perceived and/or experienced SCS in the area. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, thematically coded, and analysed.

RESULTS

Despite PWUD's generally positive perceptions of SCS, we identified several operational barriers to SCS access, including wait times and time limits, restrictions on injection assistance, and client bans from clinics. We also identified contextual barriers, including perceptions of the 'unnecessary' use of naloxone and police surveillance. Importantly, these barriers were consistent between SCS-users and Non-SCS-users, though some SCS-users actively worked to counter contextual barriers among peers.

CONCLUSION

Operational and contextual barriers to SCS use contribute to intermittent access for existing clients and preclude SCS access for others. Addressing such barriers may increase SCS uptake, thereby further extending the well-documented and critical reach of these harm reduction initiatives.

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.

A systematic review of stakeholder perceptions of supervised injection facilities

INTRODUCTION

Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) have been developed to address the public health burden associated with substance use. While these facilities have been associated with a number of positive outcomes, stakeholder opinion (the opinions of those potentially affected by these facilities) is likely to influence their future development. This systematic review aims to answer the question, "how do stakeholders perceive SIFs?"

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles were located through nine academic databases, by searching for grey literature, by contacting health departments in countries where SIFs have been implemented, by searching articles that cited included articles, and by searching the reference lists of included articles. Two reviewers screened all articles. Data was double-extracted and quality appraised. All extracted perceptions were analyzed by two coders.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles were synthesized. Key themes included (1) benefits of SIFs, such as the increased safety of people who use drugs (PWUD) and the education that was provided at these facilities; (2) concerns regarding SIFs, such as the location of these facilities and existing rules and regulations; and (3) suggestions for SIFs, such as changing restrictions and regulations. Perceptions often fluctuated between stakeholders with first-hand experience of SIFs (e.g. staff and PWUD) and stakeholders not involved in the operation of SIFs (e.g. the general public).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review illustrate how perceptions vary and align across different types of SIFs. Going forward, it will be important to draw on these insights to facilitate a more informed discussion on the implementation and continuation of these facilities.

Harm reduction: Philosophical drivers of conceptual tensions and ways forward

Of the various debates surrounding harm reduction, a conceptual tension that perhaps has the most relevance for the provision of services is that of harm reduction as a technical solution versus a contextualized social practice. The aim of this paper was to examine this conceptual tension. First, the two perspectives will be presented through the use of examples. Second, philosophical drivers that serve to underpin and justify each perspective will be explicated at the level of the knowledge that we privilege; the ideologies that we subscribe to; and the interests that we stand to serve. In this paper, I argue that the existing tension between technical and social approaches to harm reduction is embedded within discord pertaining to ways of knowing, paradigms of inquiry, prevailing ideologies, and notions of harm and risk. Building on these sources of tension, I suggest a means of philosophical reconciliation between the two approaches and ways forward, namely through acknowledging multiple sources of knowledge, through embracing paradigmatic incommensurability, through considering alternative conceptions of people who use drugs as political subjects, through involving service providers and end-users in shared decision-making, and lastly through reaffirming people who use drugs as the intended beneficiaries of services.

The willingness of people who inject drugs in Boston to use a supervised injection facility

BACKGROUND

In Massachusetts, the number of opioid-related deaths has increased 350% since 2000. In the setting of increasing overdose deaths, one potential intervention is supervised injection facilities (SIFs). This study explores willingness of people who inject drugs in Boston to use a SIF and examines factors associated with willingness.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 237 people who inject drugs and utilize Boston's needle exchange program (NEP). The drop-in NEP provides myriad harm reduction services and referrals to addiction treatment. The survey was mostly self-administered (92%).

RESULTS

Results showed positive willingness to use a SIF was independently associated with use of heroin as main substance (odds ratio [OR]: 5.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-15.4; P = .0004), public injection (OR: 5.09; 95% CI: 1.8-14.3; P = .002), history of seeking substance use disorder (SUD) treatment (OR: 4.99; 95% CI: 1.2-21.1; P = .05), having heard of SIF (OR: 4.80; 95% CI: 1.6-14.8; P = .004), Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 4.22; 95% CI: 0.9-18.8; P = .04), frequent NEP use (OR: 4.18; 95% CI: 1.2-14.7; P = .02), current desire for SUD treatment (OR: 4.15; 95% CI: 1.2-14.7; P = .03), hepatitis C diagnosis (OR: 3.68; 95% CI: 1.2-10.1; P = .02), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis (OR: 3.27; 95% CI: 1.3-8.4; P = .01), report of at least 1 chronic medical diagnosis (hepatitis C, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], hypertension, or diabetes) (OR: 3.27; 95% CI: 1.2-8.9; P = .02), and comorbid medical and mental health diagnoses (OR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.2-7.4; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents (91.4%) reported willingness to use a SIF. Respondents with substance use behavior reflecting high risk for overdose were significantly more likely to be willing to use a SIF. Respondents with behaviors that contribute to public health burden of injection drug use were also significantly more likely to be willing to use a SIF. Results indicate that this intervention would be well utilized by individuals who could most benefit from the model. As part of a broader public health approach, SIFs should be considered to reduce opioid overdose mortality, decrease public health burden of the opioid crisis, and promote access to addiction treatment and medical care.

Willingness to use a supervised injection facility among young adults who use prescription opioids non-medically: a cross-sectional study

Background

Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) are legally sanctioned environments for people to inject drugs under medical supervision. SIFs currently operate in ten countries, but to date, no SIF has been opened in the USA. In light of increasing overdose mortality in the USA, this study evaluated willingness to use a SIF among youth who report non-medical prescription opioid (NMPO) use.

Methods

Between January 2015 and February 2016, youth with recent NMPO use were recruited to participate in the Rhode Island Young Adult Prescription Drug Study (RAPiDS). We explored factors associated with willingness to use a SIF among participants who had injected drugs or were at risk of initiating injection drug use (defined as having a sex partner who injects drugs or having a close friend who injects).

Results

Among 54 eligible participants, the median age was 26 (IQR = 24–28), 70.4% were male, and 74.1% were white. Among all participants, when asked if they would use a SIF, 63.0% answered “Yes”, 31.5% answered “No”, and 5.6% were unsure. Among the 31 participants reporting injection drug use in the last six months, 27 (87.1%) reported willingness to use a SIF; 15 of the 19 (78.9%) who injected less than daily reported willingness, while all 12 (100.0%) of the participants who injected daily reported willingness. Compared to participants who were unwilling or were unsure, participants willing to use a SIF were also more likely to have been homeless in the last six months, have accidentally overdosed, have used heroin, have used fentanyl non-medically, and typically use prescription opioids alone.

Conclusions

Among young adults who use prescription opioids non-medically and inject drugs or are at risk of initiating injection drug use, more than six in ten reported willingness to use a SIF. Established risk factors for overdose, including homelessness, history of overdose, daily injection drug use, heroin use, and fentanyl misuse, were associated with higher SIF acceptability, indicating that young people at the highest risk of overdose might ultimately be the same individuals to use the facility. Supervised injection facilities merit consideration to reduce overdose mortality in the USA.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12954-017-0139-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Responding to an Explosive HIV Epidemic Driven by Frequent Cocaine Injection: Is There a Role for Safe Injecting Facilities?

Although there have been repeated calls for the establishment of safe injection facilities (SIFs) in Vancouver since the early 1990s, questions remain concerning the feasibility of SIFs due to the high prevalence of injection cocaine and the concomitant problems cocaine use presents. Therefore, we determined the prevalence of willingness to attend SIFs among cocaine injectors in Vancouver and explored the factors associated with this willingness, using data from the Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study. After considering the results derived from this analysis, additional qualitative methods were employed to explore further willingness to use SIFs, barriers and facilitators of SIF utilization, and methods of maximizing use among selected subpopulations of cocaine injectors. The results suggest that a high proportion of cocaine injectors, including some of those most at risk, would attend an SIF if one were available. However, in order to better accommodate cocaine injectors, several modifications could be made to conventional SIF service design and delivery. The vast majority of these modifications relate to ensuring effective responses to cocaine toxicity. Given the acceptability of SIFs among cocaine injectors, it appears that an SIF pilot could result in significant and immediate benefits in terms of public health and community safety.

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-care and risk reduction habits in older injection drug users with chronic wounds: a cross-sectional study

Background

We surveyed a population of injection drug users (IDUs) frequenting the mobile Baltimore City Needle Exchange Program (BNEP) to investigate self-care factors associated with chronic wounds, a significant cause of morbidity especially among older IDUs.

Methods

Participants ≥18 years old completed a survey regarding chronic wounds (duration ≥8 weeks), injection and hygiene practices. Study staff visually verified the presence of wounds. Participants were categorized into four groups by age and wound status. Factors associated with the presence of chronic wounds in participants ≥45 years were analyzed using logistic regression.

Results

Of the 152 participants, 19.7% had a chronic wound. Of those with chronic wounds, 18 were ≥45 years old (60.0%). Individuals ≥45 years old with chronic wounds were more likely to be enrolled in a drug treatment program (Odds ratio (OR) 3.4, 95% Confidence interval (CI) 1.0–10.8) and less likely to use cigarette filters when drawing up prepared drug (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.03–0.7) compared to the same age group without chronic wounds. Compared to individuals <45 years old without chronic wounds, individuals ≥45 with a chronic wound were more likely to report cleaning reused needles with bleach (OR 10.7, 95% CI 1.2–93.9) and to use the clinic, rather than an emergency room, as a primary source of medical care (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.1–10.4).

Conclusions

Older IDUs with chronic wounds have different, and perhaps less risky, injection and hygiene behaviors than their peers and younger IDUs without wounds in Baltimore City. Because of these differences, older IDUs with wounds may be more receptive to community-based healthcare and substance abuse treatment messages.

A qualitative study of the perceived effects of blue lights in washrooms on people who use injection drugs

Background

Blue lights are sometimes placed in public washrooms to discourage injection drug use. Their effectiveness has been questioned and concerns raised that they are harmful but formal research on the issue is limited to a single study. We gathered perceptions of people who use injection drugs on the effects of blue lights with the aim of informing harm reduction practice.

Methods

We interviewed 18 people in two Canadian cities who currently or previously used injection drugs to better understand their perceptions of the rationale for and consequences of blue lights in public washrooms.

Results

Participants described a preference for private places to use injection drugs, but explained that the need for an immediate solution would often override other considerations. While public washrooms were in many cases not preferred, their accessibility and relative privacy appear to make them reasonable compromises in situations involving urgent injecting. Participants understood the aim of blue lights to be to deter drug use. The majority had attempted to inject in a blue-lit washroom. While there was general agreement that blue lights do make injecting more difficult, a small number of participants were entirely undeterred by them, and half would use a blue-lit washroom if they needed somewhere to inject urgently. Participants perceived that, by making veins less visible, blue lights make injecting more dangerous. By dispersing public injection drug use to places where it is more visible, they also make it more stigmatizing. Despite recognizing these harms, more than half of the participants were not opposed to the continued use of blue lights.

Conclusions

Blue lights are unlikely to deter injection drugs use in public washrooms, and may increase drug use-related harms. Despite recognizing these negative effects, people who use injection drugs may be reluctant to advocate against their use. We attempt to reconcile this apparent contradiction by interpreting blue lights as a form of symbolic violence and suggest a parallel with other emancipatory movements for inspiration in advocating against this and other oppressive interventions.

The validity of reporting willingness to use a supervised injecting facility on subsequent program use among people who use injection drugs

BACKGROUND

Innovative health programs for injection drug users (IDUs), such as supervised injecting facilities (SIFs), are often preceded by evaluations of IDUs' willingness to use the service. The validity of these surveys has not been fully evaluated. We sought to determine whether measures of willingness collected prior to the opening of a Canadian SIF accurately predicted subsequent use of the program.

METHODS

Data were derived from a prospective cohort of IDUs. The sample size for this study was 640 IDUs. Using multivariate logistic regression, it was assessed if a history of reporting willingness to use the program, were it available, was associated with subsequent use. In sub-analysis restricted to individuals who had a history of reported willingness, we used multivariate longitudinal analysis to identify factors associated with not attending the SIF.

RESULTS

Among 442 IDUs, 72% of those who reported initial willingness to use a SIF later attended the program, and a prior willingness to use a SIF significantly predicted later attendance (adjusted odds ratio = 1.67). In sub-analyses restricted to those who had a history of reporting willingness to use the SIF, not using the program was predicted by not frequenting the neighborhood where the SIF was located.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that reported willingness measures collected from IDUs regarding potential SIF program participation prior to its opening independently predicted later attendance even when variables that were likely determinants of willingness were adjusted for. These data suggest that willingness measures are reasonably valid tools for planning the delivery of health services among IDU populations.

Injection drug users' access to a supervised injection facility in Vancouver, Canada: the influence of operating policies and local drug culture

North America's first supervised injection facility (SIF) was established in Vancouver, Canada, in 2003. Although evaluation research has documented reductions in risk behavior among SIF users, there has been limited examination of the influence of operational features on injection drug users' access to these facilities. We conducted an ethnographic study that included observational research within the SIF, 50 in-depth individual interviews with SIF users, and analysis of the regulatory frameworks governing the SIF. The government-granted exemption allowing the facility to operate legally imposes key operating regulations, as well as a cap on capacity, which results in significant wait times to enter the injecting room. Regulations that prohibit practices that are common in the local drug culture also negatively affect SIF utilization. Restructuring policies that shape the operation of the SIF could enhance access to the facility and permit SIF services to better accommodate local drug use practices.

Public injecting drug use and the social production of harmful practice in high-rise tower blocks (London, UK): a Lefebvrian analysis

This paper presents, qualitative findings relating to specific environments hitherto unrecognised as settings used for the injecting-use of illicit drugs in an urban setting. This concerns the temporary appropriation of communal space within high-rise social-housing by injecting drug users (IDU); specifically those settings used by tower-block residents for garbage disposal ('bin chute rooms'). These environments were found to be used on daily, habitual bases by all IDU interviewed during the study. Such settings were found to contribute to a wide range of injecting-related harm and hazard. These findings further debate concerning the negative effect of place on health risk in the context of 'public' injecting drug use. These results are situated within Lefebvre's theoretical framework concerning the 'production of space'. It is contended that the 'representational spaces' shaped by IDU creates a dialectic between wider 'spatial practice' and 'representations of space'. Accordingly, it is further suggested that particular 'spaces' of harm reduction (such as 'safer injecting facilities') should be considered in UK settings in order to address injecting-related harm.

Accidental Intimacy: Transformative Emotion and the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre

This article widens the debate surrounding supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) by exploring an aspect of SIFs yet to be examined in the scholarly literature: the relationships created between staff and clients within these settings. By analyzing entries made in the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre's (MSIC) client comment books we explore the centrality of emotional connection to clients' experiences of the service. We argue that the everyday contact between staff and clients—including the “accidental intimacy” that develops when clients inject in the presence of staff —counters the sensations of shame identified by many in the comment books, creating new relations, and new performative possibilities for the production of self, belonging and citizenship for clients of the service. In exploring the role of emotions in the operation of the MSIC we also aim to highlight the political, policy, and clinical value of qualitative forms of inquiry for the harm-reduction field.

Generalizing Applied Qualitative Research on Harm Reduction: The Example of a Public Injecting Typology

The small sample sizes and context-bound findings of qualitative research are commonly viewed as significant factors that limit its use (or “transferability”) in settings other than those in which the research was originally conducted. This perceived limitation is of particular importance in a field such as harm reduction where small sample sizes may be the only realistic option for studying the behavior of hard to reach groups. In this article we use Miles and Huberman's (1994) structured method of appraising qualitative research for its transferability to other settings. We consider the extent to which a typology (based on ethnographic field research into public injecting sites) can be used effectively by practitioners in settings other than those in which the original research was conducted. Through appraising the strengths and weaknesses of this research, we demonstrate that contextualized qualitative findings can enable the transferability of qualitative research findings and be of significant applied value for harm reduction services.

IDU perspectives on the design and operation of North America's first medically supervised injection facility

While the public health benefits of supervised injection facilities (SIFs) have been well documented, there is a lack of research examining the views of injection drug users (IDU) regarding the operation of these facilities. This study used 50 semistructured qualitative interviews to explore IDU perspectives on the design and operation of an SIF in Vancouver, Canada. Although the environment and operation of the SIF are well accepted, long wait times and limited operating hours, as well as regulations that prohibit sharing drugs and assisted injections, pose barriers to using the SIF. Modifying operating procedures and expanding the capacity of the current facility could address these barriers.

Harm reduction headway and continuing resistance: insights from safe injection in the city of Vancouver

North America's first official safe injection facility has begun to generate substantial evidence attesting to the harm reduction benefits of supervised injection. Reductions in morbidity, mortality, and crime rates have strengthened the resolve of local advocates and even influenced the views of some original detractors. Many status quo defenders are unwavering, however, in their condemnation of initiatives like InSite. The term 'drug den' has been used in right-wing media and some opponents of the programme say the evidence is biased. In their view, harm reduction advocates are really 'legalisers' in the guise of scientists and public health professionals. Providing services for people with drug problems sends the message that some use of drugs is normal, rather than affirming that drug use is the problem. Abstinence, prevention, and enforcement are the only acceptable and morally legitimate solutions. Harm reduction's muted stance on morals, rights and values prevents proponents from engaging criticisms of this nature in terms other than the evidence or science. The case of InSite in Vancouver, however, the authors argue, demonstrates the value of asserting human rights claims that do not rest on evidence per se. Scientific arguments are insufficient in themselves to move beyond the status quo on drugs. Rights-based moral warrants in support of harm reduction require far more extensive and explicit cultivation if they are to be discursively established and maintained.

Typology of injection profiles of clients of a supervised drug consumption facility in Geneva, Switzerland

The use of a supervised drug consumption room (DCR) in a newly established low threshold facility in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2002 is analyzed. Two sources of routine data were used: data collected at the first visit by any new client (entry questionnaire) which included some personal details, and data collected on the substances injected at each visit to the DCR. A typology of injection profiles was constructed. Overall, the mean number of injections and days of visits per client over the year was low and cocaine was the main substance injected. However, an important heterogeneity in the use of the DCR was found and five types of clients identified: 1-day clients; standard clients; heroin-oriented clients; high cocaine consumption clients, and newcomers. Typology was associated with some characteristics at the first visit and the drug consumption pattern in the month preceding the first visit was in accordance with the subsequent use of the DCR. This heterogeneity in the use of the DCR highlights the diverse roles of the DCRs in harm reduction.

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.

Drug consumption facilities: an update since 2000

The topic of drug consumption facilities or rooms (DCRs) was reviewed by Dolan, Kimber and others in Harm Reduction Digest 10, published in the September 2000 issue of DAR. As one of the first English language papers on the topic this paper has been cited extensively. Now, 3 years on, these authors and have brought together an international team of experts to revisit the topic. In this update they: (i) highlight where DCRs are operating or under consideration, (ii) review briefly new literature and (iii) discuss future directions. This Digest is a 'must read' for policy makers, advocates and practitioners in the drug field.