Reducing the adverse impact of injection drug use in Canada

Under the Skin: The Relationship Between Subcutaneous Injection and Skin Infections Among People Who Inject Drugs

OBJECTIVES

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at increased risk for numerous negative health outcomes. Subcutaneous injections (aka skin popping) can result in greater risk of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), but less is known about PWID who choose this route of administration. This study compares subcutaneous injectors to intravenous injectors, characterizes those who inject subcutaneously, and examines whether subcutaneous injection is associated with SSTIs in the past year.

METHODS

A cohort of hospitalized PWID (n = 252) were interviewed regarding injection-related behaviors, history of SSTI, and knowledge of subcutaneous injection risk. We examined differences between those who do and do not inject subcutaneously and used a negative binomial regression model to estimate adjusted odds associating subcutaneous injection and SSTI.

RESULTS

Participants averaged 38 years, with 58.3% male, 59.5% White, 20.6% Black, and 15.9% Latinx. PWID who performed subcutaneous injection were not demographically different from other PWID; however, the mean rate of past year SSTIs was higher for persons injecting subcutaneously than for those who did not (1.98 vs 0.96, P < 0.001). Persons injecting subcutaneously did not differ from those who injected intravenously in terms of their knowledge of subcutaneous injection risk (P = 0.112) and knowledge score was not associated with SSTIs (P = 0.457).

CONCLUSIONS

PWID who perform subcutaneous injections are demographically similar to other PWID but had higher rates of past year SSTIs. Knowledge of subcutaneous injection risk was not associated with SSTI risk.

Equity-oriented frameworks to inform responses to opioid overdoses: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review was to systematically identify and describe literature that uses a health equity-oriented approach for preventing and reducing the harms of stigma or overdose for people who use illicit drugs or misuse prescription opioids.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

To be included, papers had to both: i) use a health equity-oriented approach, defined as a response that addresses health inequities and aims to reduce drug-related harms of stigma or overdose; and ii) include at least one of the following concepts: cultural safety, trauma- and violence-informed care, or harm reduction. We also looked for papers that included an Indigenous-informed perspective in addition to any of the three concepts.

METHODS

An a priori protocol was published and the JBI methodology for conducting scoping reviews was employed. Published and unpublished literature from January 1, 2000, to July 31, 2019, was included. The databases searched included CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Sociological Abstracts and Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest), JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO, Aboriginal Health Abstract Database, First Nations Periodical Index, and the National Indigenous Studies Portal. The search for unpublished studies included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, and targeted web searches. Screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers using templates developed by the authors. Data extraction included specific details about the population, concepts, context, and key findings or recommendations relevant to the review objectives.

RESULTS

A total of a total of 1065 articles were identified and screened, with a total of 148 articles included. The majority were published in the previous five years (73%) and were from North America (78%). Most articles only focused on one of the three health equity-oriented approaches, most often harm reduction (n = 79), with only 16 articles including all three. There were 14 articles identified that also included an Indigenous-informed perspective. Almost one-half of the papers were qualitative (n = 65; 44%) and 26 papers included a framework. Of these, seven papers described a framework that included all three approaches, but none included an Indigenous-informed perspective. Recommendations for health equity-oriented approaches are: i) inclusion of people with lived and living experience; ii) multifaceted approaches to reduce stigma and discrimination; iii) recognize and address inequities; iv) drug policy reform and decriminalization; v) ensure harm-reduction principles are applied within comprehensive responses; and vi) proportionate universalism. Gaps in knowledge and areas for future research are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified few conceptual frameworks that are both health equity-oriented and incorporate multiple concepts that could enrich responses to the opioid poisoning emergency. More research is required to evaluate the impact of these integrated frameworks for action.

Uptake of Community-Based Peer Administered HIV Point-of-Care Testing: Findings from the PROUD Study

Objectives

HIV prevalence among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Ottawa is estimated at about 10%. The successful integration of peers into outreach efforts and wider access to HIV point-of-care testing (POCT) create opportunities to explore the role of peers in providing HIV testing. The PROUD study, in partnership with Ottawa Public Health (OPH), sought to develop a model for community-based peer-administered HIV POCT.

Methods

PROUD draws on community-based participatory research methods to better understand the HIV risk environment of people who use drugs in Ottawa. From March-October 2013, 593 people who reported injecting drugs or smoking crack cocaine were enrolled through street-based recruitment. Trained peer or medical student researchers administered a quantitative survey and offered an HIV POCT (bioLytical INSTI test) to participants who did not self-report as HIV positive.

Results

550 (92.7%) of the 593 participants were offered a POCT, of which 458 (83.3%) consented to testing. Of those participants, 74 (16.2%) had never been tested for HIV. There was no difference in uptake between testing offered by a peer versus a non-peer interviewer (OR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.67–1.66). Despite testing those at high risk for HIV, only one new reactive test was identified.

Conclusion

The findings from PROUD demonstrate high uptake of community-based HIV POCT. Peers were able to successfully provide HIV POCT and reach participants who had not previously been tested for HIV. Community-based and peer testing models provide important insights on ways to scale-up HIV prevention and testing among people who use drugs.

Risk environments facing potential users of a supervised injection site in Ottawa, Canada

Background

Supervised injection sites (SISs) have been effective in reducing health risks among people who inject drugs (PWID), including those who face issues of homelessness, mental health illness, interactions with local policing practices, and HIV infection. We investigate the risk behaviours and risk environments currently faced by potential users of an SIS in Ottawa to establish the need for such a service and to contribute to the design of an SIS that can address current health risks and reduce harm.

Methods

The PROUD cohort is a community-based participatory research (CBPR) project that examines the HIV risk environment among people who use drugs in Ottawa. From March to October 2013, 593 people who reported using injection drugs or smoking crack cocaine were enrolled through street-based recruitment in the ByWard Market neighbourhood, an area of the city with a high concentration of public drug use and homelessness. Participants completed a demographic, behavioural, and risk environment questionnaire and were offered HIV point-of-care testing. We undertook descriptive and univariate analyses to estimate potential use of an SIS by PWID in Ottawa and to explore risk behaviours and features of the risk environment faced by potential users of the service.

Results

Of those participants who reported injecting drugs in the previous 12 months (n = 270), 75.2 % (203) reported a willingness to use an SIS in Ottawa. Among potential SIS users, 24.6 % had recently injected with a used needle, 19.0 % had trouble accessing new needles, 60.6 % were unstably housed, 49.8 % had been redzoned by the police, and 12.8 % were HIV positive. Participants willing to use an SIS more frequently injected in public (OR = 1.98, 95 % CI = 1.06–3.70), required assistance to inject (OR = 1.84, 95 % CI = 1.00–3.38), were hepatitis C positive (OR = 2.13, 95 % CI = 1.16–3.91), had overdosed in the previous year (OR = 2.00, 95 % CI = 1.02–3.92), and identified as LGBTQ (OR = 5.61, 95 % CI = 1.30–24.19).

Conclusion

An SIS in Ottawa would be well-positioned to reach its target group of highly marginalized PWID and reduce drug-related harms. The application of CBPR methods to a large-scale quantitative survey supported the mobilization of communities of PWID to identify and advocate for their own service needs, creating an enabling environment for harm reduction action.