The need to broaden and strengthen the evidence base for supervised consumption sites

Harm Reduction Works: Evidence and Inclusion in Drug Policy and Advocacy

One of harm reduction's most salient features is its pragmatism. Harm reduction purports to distinguish itself from dominant prohibitionist and abstinence-based policy paradigms by being grounded in what is realistic, in contrast with the moralism or puritanism of prohibition and abstention. This is reflected in the meme "harm reduction works", popular both in institutional and grassroots settings. The idea that harm reduction is realistic and effective has meant different things among the main actors who seek to shape harm reduction policy. Drawing on scholarly literature about harm reduction, as well as examples from recent harm reduction advocacy efforts in relation to drug policy in Canada, this paper argues that harm reduction distinguishes itself through a unique "way of knowing". Grassroots harm reduction advocates, particularly as they argue through human rights frameworks, do more than simply make claims for the provision of particular services-like needle exchange, safe consumption sites, safe supply and the like-on the basis that these are realistic paths toward the health and well-being of people who use drugs. Rather, as they marshal lived experience in support of these policy changes through peer-driven initiatives in contexts of prohibition, they make particular claims about what constitute valid, methodologically rigorous evidence bases for action in contexts where policies to date have been driven by ideology and have developed in ways that have excluded and marginalized those most affected from policymaking. In doing so, they advocate for the centrality of people who use drugs not only in policy-making processes, but in evidence production itself.

Ranking evidence in substance use and addiction

Evidence-based medicine has consistently prized the epistemological value of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) owing to their methodological advantages over alternative designs such as observational studies. However, there are limitations to RCTs that hinder their ability to study chronic and dynamic conditions such as substance use and addiction. For these conditions, observational studies may provide superior evidence based on methodological and practical strengths. Assuming epistemic superiority of RCTs has led to an inappropriate devaluation of other study designs and the findings they support, including support for harm reduction services, especially needle exchange programs and supervised injection facilities. The value offered by observational studies should be reflected in evidence-based medicine by allowing more flexibility in evidence hierarchies that presume methodological superiority of RCTs. Despite the popularity of evidence ranking systems and hierarchies, nothing should replace critical appraisal of study methodology and examining the suitability of applying a given study design to a specific research question.