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

Overdose prevention centres as spaces of safety, trust and inclusion: A causal pathway based on a realist review

ISSUES

Overdose prevention centres (OPC) are non-residential spaces where people can use illicit drugs (that they have obtained elsewhere) in the presence of staff who can intervene to prevent and manage any overdoses that occur. Many reviews of OPCs exist but they do not explain how OPCs work.

APPROACH

We carried out a realist review, using the RAMESES reporting standards. We systematically searched for and then thematically analysed 391 documents that provide information on the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of OPCs.

KEY FINDINGS

Our retroductive analysis identified a causal pathway that highlights the feeling of safety - and the immediate outcome of not dying - as conditions of possibility for the people who use OPCs to build trust and experience social inclusion. The combination of safety, trust and social inclusion that is triggered by OPCs can - depending on the contexts in which they operate - generate other positive outcomes, which may include less risky drug use practices, reductions in blood borne viruses and injection-related infections and wounds, and access to housing. These outcomes are contingent on relevant contexts, including political and legal environments, which differ for women and people from racialised minorities.

CONCLUSIONS

OPCs can enable people who live with structural violence and vulnerability to develop feelings of safety and trust that help them stay alive and to build longer term trajectories of social inclusion, with potential to improve other aspects of their health and living conditions.

Cocaine use in trauma: the vices-paradox revisited

BACKGROUND

The "vices-paradox" describes the paradoxical association between illicit substance use and decreased mortality risk in trauma patients. Cocaine's vasoconstrictive effects may decrease hemorrhage but also increase the risk of thromboembolic complications. To clarify the effects of cocaine use on trauma patients, we compared the risk of mortality and thromboembolic complications in patients screening positive for cocaine with those screening negative.

METHODS

We searched the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database to identify patients 18 years and over who had presented with a drug and alcohol screen on admission between 2017 and 2019. After excluding all patients who had tested positive for alcohol and substances other than cocaine, we then compared the clinical outcomes of patients who were positive and negative for cocaine use.

RESULTS

Of the 312,553 patients identified, 11,942 (3.82%) had tested positive for cocaine. Cocaine users were significantly more likely to present with stab (8.0% vs 3.1%) or gunshot wounds (8.0% vs 3.0%) but had lower rates of mortality (3.6% vs 4.7%), myocardial infarction (0.1% vs 0.2%,) and cerebrovascular accident (0.3% vs 0.4%,). After controlling for covariates, the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident did not significantly differ between cocaine and non-cocaine users.

CONCLUSION

Trauma patients positive for cocaine have similar risks of death and thromboembolic complications and so have a similar prognosis to patients negative for all drugs or alcohol, indicating that the "vices-paradox" does not apply to cocaine use. However, these patients more commonly present after penetrating trauma, suggesting cocaine use in hazardous environments.

Barriers and facilitators of naloxone and safe injection facility interventions to reduce opioid drug-related deaths: A qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioid drug-related deaths continue to be a significant public health concern in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI). While both regions have implemented naloxone to reduce drug related deaths, there remains a gap in the implementation of a supervised injection facility (SIF). This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing naloxone and a SIF to reduce opioid drug-related deaths in ROI and NI.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews (n=23) were conducted in ROI and NI with experts by experience (n=8), staff from low threshold services (n=9), and individuals involved in policy making (n= 6). Data were analyzed using coding reliability Thematic Analysis and were informed by the Risk Environmental Framework.

RESULTS

The findings illustrated that stigma within the media, health centers, and the community was a significant barrier to naloxone distribution and SIF implementation. Policing and community intimidation were reported to hinder naloxone carriage in both the ROI and NI, while threats of paramilitary violence towards people who use drugs were unique to NI. Municipal government delays and policy maker apathy were reported to hinder SIF implementation in the ROI. Participants suggested peer-to-peer naloxone delivery and amending legislation to facilitate non-prescription naloxone would increase naloxone uptake. Participants recommended using webinars, Town Halls, and a Citizens' Assembly as tools to advocate for SIF implementation.

CONCLUSION

Local and regional stigma reduction campaigns are needed in conjunction with policy changes to advance naloxone and a SIF. Tailoring stigma campaigns to incorporate the lived experience of people who use drugs, their family members, and the general community can aid in educating the public and change negative perceptions. This study highlights the need for ongoing efforts to reduce stigma and increase accessibility to evidence-based interventions to address opioid drug-related deaths in the ROI, NI, and internationally.

Monitoring for fentanyl within Australian supervised injecting facilities: Findings from feasibility testing of novel methods and collaborative workshops

BACKGROUND

Australia is yet to see widespread fentanyl-contaminated heroin, despite the established presence of fentanyl in other countries. International mortality trends alongside a local cluster of fentanyl-related deaths prompted interest in developing methods to monitor for fentanyl and other potentially harmful novel psychoactive substances (NPS) in Australia.

METHODS

We tested novel methods to monitor for fentanyl and other NPS. From 2017-2021, clients from supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, contributed urine screens (UDS) with BTNX Rapid Response™ fentanyl test strips (FTS) paired with surveys, and injecting equipment associated with opioid overdoses for laboratory analysis. A single site piloted drug checking using FTS with laboratory confirmation. Two workshops were conducted with SIF staff, content experts and people with lived experience to determine how results can inform practices within SIFs.

RESULTS

Of the 911 UDS with FTS conducted, less than 1% (n=8) yielded positive results that were not explained by self-reported pharmaceutical fentanyl use, with two laboratory confirmed fentanyl positive results. Injecting equipment from 59 overdoses was tested and neither fentanyl nor other NPS were identified. Drug checking with FTS (n=34) indicated the presence of fentanyl on three tests. Two specimens were subsequently sent for laboratory testing and classified as false positives as the presence of fentanyl was not confirmed. Workshop participants (n=21) felt routine monitoring with FTS currently had limited value. A process for using pre-defined signals to trigger surveillance was developed.

CONCLUSION

The high false positive rates with FTS, relative to the small number of positive results and potential for them to undermine confidence in FTS emphasised the need for confirmatory testing. The role of routine surveillance was unclear within the current low-fentanyl context, however, a process was developed to upscale testing should signals of increased fentanyl prevalence in the Australian heroin market emerge.

Public injecting and its association with mental health and other drug-related outcomes among people who inject drugs in Iran

BACKGROUND

Injecting in public places may increase the risk of drug and health-related harms among people who inject drugs (PWID). We examined the prevalence of public injecting and associations with non-fatal overdose, needle/syringe sharing, sexual health, and mental health among PWID in Iran.

METHODS

Using respondent-driven sampling, we recruited 2684 PWID from 11 major cities between July 2019 and March 2020. We defined public injecting as injecting primarily in public places, such as streets, parks, or abandoned buildings. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed public injecting and its associated factors, as well as the association of public injecting with certain health outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 2388 respondents, 69.6 % reported public injecting in the previous year. Self-identifying as men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.21; 95 % confidence intervals [95 % CI]: 2.31, 7.65), homelessness (aOR = 6.81; 95 % CI: 5.10, 9.10), high injection frequency (aOR = 1.58; 95 % CI: 1.03, 2.44), and free needle/syringe uptake (aOR = 1.47; 95 % CI: 1.04, 2.07) were significantly associated with public injecting. Compared to PWID who primarily inject in non-public places, PWID who mostly used public places had significantly greater odds of reporting non-fatal overdose (aOR = 2.02; 95 % CI: 1.01, 4.02), needle/syringe sharing (aOR = 1.77; 95 % CI: 1.08, 2.90), unsafe sexual practices with casual sexual partners (aOR = 2.16; 95 % CI: 1.03, 4.55), suicidal ideation (aOR = 1.50; 95 % CI: 1.02, 2.21), and self-harm (aOR = 1.78; 95 % CI: 1.24, 2.54) in the last three months.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest the potential utility of a safer injecting environment to mitigate the multiple harms associated with public injecting in Iran. Optimizing health and well-being of PWID necessitates integrating supervised injection facilities into the current harm reduction programs and services in Iran. Future studies should also consider the experiences of additional mental health harms associated with public injecting when exploring adverse health outcomes among PWID.

Acceptability of supervised injection facilities among persons who inject drugs in upstate New York

BACKGROUND

Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) provide spaces where persons who inject drugs (PWID) can inject under medical supervision and access harm reduction services. Though SIFs are not currently sanctioned in most of the US, such facilities are being considered for approval in several Upstate New York communities. No data exist from PWID in Upstate New York, and little from outside major US urban centers, on willingness to use SIFs and associated factors.

METHODS

This analysis included 285 PWID (mean age = 38.7; 57.7% male; 72.3% non-Hispanic white) recruited for a study on hepatitis C prevalence among PWID in Upstate New York, where participants were recruited from syringe exchange programs (n = 80) and able to refer other PWID from their injection networks (n = 223). Participants completed an electronic questionnaire that included a brief description of SIFs and assessed willingness to use SIFs. We compared sociodemographic characteristics, drug use/harm reduction history, healthcare experience, and stigma between participants who were willing vs. unwilling to use such programs.

RESULTS

Overall, 67.4% were willing to use SIFs, 18.3% unwilling, and 14.4% unsure. Among those reporting being willing or unwilling, we found higher willingness among those who were currently homeless (91.8% vs. 74.6%; p = 0.004), who had interacted with police in the past 12 months (85.7% vs. 74.5%; p = 0.04), and who were refused service within a healthcare setting (100% vs. 77.1%; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Our results support SIF acceptability in several Upstate New York PWID communities, particularly among those reporting feelings of marginalization. A large proportion reported being unsure about usage of SIFs, suggesting room for educating PWID on the potential benefits of this service. Our results support SIF acceptability in Upstate New York and may inform programming for underserved PWID, should SIFs become available.

Health programmes and services addressing the prevention and management of infectious diseases in people who inject drugs in Canada: a systematic integrative review

OBJECTIVES

People who inject drugs (PWID) experience a high burden of injection drug use-related infectious disease and challenges in accessing adequate care. This study sought to identify programmes and services in Canada addressing the prevention and management of infectious disease in PWID.

DESIGN

This study employed a systematic integrative review methodology. Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection) and relevant websites were searched for literature published between 2008 and 2019 (last search date was 6 June 2019). Eligible articles and documents were required to address injection or intravenous drug use and health programmes or services relating to the prevention or management of infectious diseases in Canada.

RESULTS

This study identified 1607 unique articles and 97 were included in this study. The health programmes and services identified included testing and management of HIV and hepatitis C virus (n=27), supervised injection facilities (n=19), medication treatment for opioid use disorder (n=12), integrated infectious disease and addiction programmes (n=10), needle exchange programmes (n=9), harm reduction strategies broadly (n=6), mobile care initiatives (n=5), peer-delivered services (n=3), management of IDU-related bacterial infections (n=2) and others (n=4). Key implications for policy, practice and future research were identified based on the results of the included studies, which include addressing individual and systemic factors that impede care, furthering evaluation of programmes and the need to provide comprehensive care to PWID, involving medical care, social support and harm reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate the need for expanded services across a variety of settings and populations. Our study emphasises the importance of addressing social and structural factors that impede infectious disease care for PWID. Further research is needed to improve evaluation of health programmes and services and contextual factors surrounding accessing services or returning to care.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020142947.

Feasibility, acceptability, concerns, and challenges of implementing supervised injection services at a specialty HIV hospital in Toronto, Canada: perspectives of people living with HIV

BACKGROUND

Substance use significantly impacts health and healthcare of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV), especially their ability to remain in hospital following admission. Supervised injection services (SIS) reduce overdoses and drug-related harms, but are not often provided within hospitals/outpatient programs. Leading us to question, what are PLHIV's perceptions of hospital-based SIS?

METHODS

This mixed-methods study explored feasibility and acceptability of implementing SIS at Casey House, a Toronto-based specialty HIV hospital, from the perspective of its in/outpatient clients. We conducted a survey, examining clients' (n = 92) demand for, and acceptability of, hospital-based SIS. Following this, we hosted two focus groups (n = 14) and one-on-one interviews (n = 8) with clients which explored benefits/drawbacks of in-hospital SIS, wherein participants experienced guided tours of a demonstration SIS space and/or presentations of evidence about impacts of SIS. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Among survey participants, 76.1% (n = 70) identified as cis-male and over half (n = 49;54.4%) had been a hospital client for 2 years or less. Nearly half (48.8%) knew about clients injecting in/near Casey House, while 23.6% witnessed it. Survey participants were more supportive of SIS for inpatients (76.1%) than for outpatients (68.5%); most (74.7%) reported SIS implementation would not impact their level of service use at Casey House, while some predicted coming more often (16.1%) and others less often (9.2%). Most focus group/interview participants, believed SIS would enhance safety by reducing health harms (e.g. overdose), increasing transparency between clients and clinicians about substance use, and helping retain clients in care. Debate arose about who (e.g., in/outpatients vs. non-clients) should have access to hospital-based SIS and how implementation may shift organizational priorities/resources away from services not specific to drug use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed widespread support of, and need for, hospital-based SIS among client stakeholders; however, attempts to reduce negative impacts on non-drug using clients need to be considered in the balance of implementation plans. Given the increased risks of morbidity and mortality for PLHIV who inject drugs as well as the problems in retaining them in care in a hospital setting, SIS is a key component of improving care for this marginalized group.

"You don't have to squirrel away in a staircase": Patient motivations for attending a novel supervised drug consumption service in acute care

BACKGROUND

Acute care hospitals have been described as a high risk environment for people who use drugs (PWUD). Formal and informal bans on drug use can lead patients to conceal their use and consume under unsafe circumstances. Provision of hospital-based supervised consumption services (SCS) could help reduce drug-related harms and improve patient care. However, no peer-reviewed research documents patient experiences with attending SCS in this setting. To address this gap, the present study examines key factors that shape patients' decisions to attend or not attend a novel SCS embedded within a large, urban acute care hospital in Western Canada.

METHODS

We adopted a focused ethnographic design and conducted 28 semi-structured interviews with SCS-eligible patients. We examined participant accounts thematically, and Rhodes' "Risk Environment" framework helped guide our analysis.

RESULTS

Most participants perceived the SCS as a safer environment that made it possible to reduce drug-related risks and avoid using in unsafe areas of the hospital where they could be caught by staff, security, or police. However, some participants did not trust that the SCS would provide adequate protection from criminalization, which motivated them to avoid the site. Several participants also worried about the potential for unwanted changes to their patient care following SCS use. Physical site and policy limitations, such as eligibility requirements and a lack of infrastructure to support supervised inhalation, were additional reasons for not attending the SCS.

CONCLUSION

PWUD in this study attended the hospital-based SCS in an attempt to reduce risks associated with their hospital stay. However, we note a number of access barriers that should be addressed to ensure optimal uptake. Wider provision of SCS in acute care requires both changes to the hospital environment and broader drug policy reform.

Between Emergency Department Visits: The Role of Harm Reduction Programs in Mitigating the Harms Associated With Injection Drug Use

Injection drug use is a major public health problem in the United States. Cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are the most commonly injected illicit drugs, whereas opioids are responsible for the majority of overdose fatalities. Although recent emergency department (ED) efforts have focused on expanding capacity for buprenorphine induction for opioid use disorder treatment, the injection of illicit drugs carries specific health risks that require acknowledgment and management, particularly for patients who decline substance use treatment. Harm reduction is a public health approach that aims to reduce the harms associated with a health risk behavior, short of eliminating the behavior itself. Harm-reduction strategies fundamental to emergency medicine include naloxone distribution for opioid overdose. This clinical Review Article examines the specific health complications of injection drug use and reviews the evidence base for 2 interventions effective in reducing morbidity and mortality related to drug injection, irrespective of the specific drug used, that are less well known and infrequently leveraged by emergency medicine clinicians: syringe service programs and supervised injection facilities. In accordance with the recommendations of health authorities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, emergency clinicians can promote the use of harm-reduction programs in the community to reduce viral transmission and other risks of injection drug use by providing patients with information about and referrals to these programs after injection drug use-related ED visits.

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.

Engagement in primary health care among marginalized people who use drugs in Ottawa, Canada

BACKGROUND

There may be less primary health care engagement among people who use drugs (PWUD) than among the general population, even though the former have greater comorbidity and more frequent use of emergency department care. We investigated factors associated with primary care engagement among PWUD.

METHODS

The Participatory Research in Ottawa: Understanding Drugs (PROUD) cohort study meaningfully engaged and trained people with lived experience to recruit and survey marginalized PWUD between March-December 2013. We linked this survey data to provincial-level administrative databases held at ICES. We categorized engagement in primary care over the 2 years prior to survey completion as: not engaged (< 3 outpatient visits to the same family physician) versus engaged in care (3+ visits to the same family physician). We used multivariable logistic regression to determine factors associated with engagement in primary care.

RESULTS

Characteristics of 663 participants included a median age of 43 years, 76% men, and 67% living in the two lowest income quintile neighborhoods. Despite high comorbidity and a median of 4 (interquartile range 0-10) primary care visits in the year prior to survey completion, only 372 (56.1%) were engaged in primary care. Engagement was most strongly associated with the following factors: receiving provincial benefits, including disability payments (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 4.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.30 to 7.43)) or income assistance (AOR 3.69 (95% CI 2.00 to 6.81)), having ever taken methadone (AOR 3.82 (95% CI 2.28 to 6.41)), mental health comorbidity (AOR 3.43 (95% CI 2.19 to 5.38)), and having stable housing (AOR 2.09 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.38)).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high comorbidity, engagement in primary care among PWUD was low. Our findings suggest that social care (housing, disability, and income support) and mental health care are associated with improved primary care continuity; integration of these care systems with primary care and opioid substitution therapy may lessen the significant morbidity and acute care use among PWUD.

[Managing pleasures and harms: An ethnographic study of drug consumption in public spaces, homes and drug consumption rooms]

Drug consumption rooms (DCR) aim to facilitate consumption in hygienic and safe conditions. However, users also consume drugs in public spaces and homes generating incremental risk for health. To strengthen our understanding of consumption practices, we conducted an ethnographic study in different consumption locations in Barcelona, including DCRs, public spaces, and homes. Focusing on consumption practices and narratives, we conducted participant observation and interviewed 16 DCR users. Our findings show that different consumption spaces allow users to experiment different types of pleasures. In addition, consumption in each type of location is associated with various types of harms, which are managed by users by self-regulating their practices. These aspects, therefore, must be taken into account to design harm reduction action aligned with users' practices.

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.

Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidality and self-harm among people who inject drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A range of negative experiences and circumstances that are common among people who inject drugs (PWID) are risk factors for developing mental disorders. Despite this, there has been no systematic review of the prevalence of mental health indicators among PWID. Thus, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), suicidality and self-harm among PWID.

METHODS

We searched the peer-reviewed and grey literature for data on depression, PTSD, suicidality and non-suicidal self-harm among PWID from sources published from 2008-2018. We pooled estimates of depression and suicidality using random-effects meta-analysis and provided a narrative summary of estimates of PTSD and self-harm.

FINDINGS

We found 23 studies that reported on these mental health indicators among PWID. The pooled estimate for current severe depressive symptomology was 42.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 21.3, 62.8 %), and for a depression diagnosis was 28.7 % (95 % CI = 20.8, 36.6 %). With much variation, the pooled lifetime prevalence of a suicide attempt was 22.1 % (95 % CI = 19.3, 24.9 %). There were only two studies each that reported on PTSD and non-suicidal self-harm among PWID.

INTERPRETATION

Recent data investigating these mental health indicators among PWID was limited, particularly from low- and middle-income countries. Even so, estimates were high and call for further research into the epidemiology of such mental health disorders and self-harming behaviours, as well as the promotion of integrated mental health and substance dependence treatment. Finally, incorporating suicide prevention strategies into services accessed by PWID must be considered as a harm reduction priority.

Policing Practices and Risk of HIV Infection Among People Who Inject Drugs

Drug-law enforcement constitutes a structural determinant of health among people who inject drugs (PWID). Street encounters between police and PWID (e.g., syringe confiscation, physical assault) have been associated with health harms, but these relationships have not been systematically assessed. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the contribution of policing to risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among PWID. We screened MEDLINE, sociological databases, and gray literature for studies published from 1981 to November 2018 that included estimates of HIV infection/risk behaviors and street policing encounters. We extracted and summarized quantitative findings from all eligible studies. We screened 8,201 abstracts, reviewed 175 full-text articles, and included 27 eligible analyses from 9 countries (Canada, China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and the United States). Heterogeneity in variable and endpoint selection precluded meta-analyses. In 5 (19%) studies, HIV infection among PWID was significantly associated with syringe confiscation, reluctance to buy/carry syringes for fear of police, rushed injection due to a police presence, fear of arrest, being arrested for planted drugs, and physical abuse. Twenty-one (78%) studies identified policing practices to be associated with HIV risk behaviors related to injection drug use (e.g., syringe-sharing, using a "shooting gallery"). In 9 (33%) studies, policing was associated with PWID avoidance of harm reduction services, including syringe exchange, methadone maintenance, and safe consumption facilities. Evidence suggests that policing shapes HIV risk among PWID, but lower-income settings are underrepresented. Curbing injection-related HIV risk necessitates additional structural interventions. Methodological harmonization could facilitate knowledge generation on the role of police as a determinant of population health.

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.

Syringe sharing among people who inject drugs in London, Canada

OBJECTIVES

London, Ontario, is facing an outbreak of HIV among people who inject drugs (PWID), as well as persistently high levels of hepatitis C virus (HCV). Syringe sharing is the primary driver of HIV and HCV transmission risks among PWID, however, little is known about factors contributing to syringe sharing in this setting. Therefore, we sought to characterize syringe sharing and its correlates among London PWID.

METHODS

Between March and April, 2016, PWID participated in a survey administered by peer research associates as part of the Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Feasibility Study. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models examined associations with syringe sharing (borrowing or lending previously used syringes) over the previous 6 months. A sub-analysis described patterns of borrowing and lending by self-reported HIV and HCV statuses.

RESULTS

Of 198 PWID, 44 (22%) reported syringe sharing in the past 6 months. In the multivariable analysis, selling drugs (adjusted odds ratio; AOR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.20-3.08), daily crystal methamphetamine injection (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.07-2.59), and identifying as HIV-positive (AOR = 3.11, 95% CI = 1.61-6.01) were independently associated with increased syringe sharing. While not independently associated with syringe sharing, problems accessing syringes were common (13-50%). Self-reported HIV-positive respondents were more likely to report syringe borrowing (p < 0.001), but not lending (p = 0.26).

CONCLUSION

We observed a high rate of syringe sharing among London PWID, with sharing being associated with high-intensity injection of crystal methamphetamine, as well as with involvement in drug sales. Considering the current HIV outbreak in London, multi-level prevention efforts are urgently needed.

Safe and unsafe spaces: Non-fatal overdose, arrest, and receptive syringe sharing among people who inject drugs in public and semi-public spaces in Baltimore City

The spaces in which drug use occurs constitutes a key aspect of the "risk environment" of people who inject drugs (PWID). We aimed to add nuance to the characterization of "safe" and "unsafe" spaces in PWID's environments to further understand how these spaces amplify the risk of morbidities associated with injection drug use. PWID were recruited through the Baltimore City syringe service program and through peer referral. Participants completed a socio-behavioral survey. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify associations between utilization of public, semi-public and private spaces with arrest, non-fatal overdose, and receptive syringe sharing. The sample of PWID (N = 283) was mostly 45 years and older (54%), male (69%), Black (55%), and heroin users (96%). Compared to PWID who primarily used private settings, the adjusted odds of recent overdose were greater among PWID who mostly used semi-public and public locations to inject drugs. We also found independent associations between arrest and semi-public spaces, and between receptive syringe sharing and public spaces (all p < 0.05). This study highlights the need for safe spaces where PWID can reduce their risk of overdose, likelihood of arrest and blood-borne diseases, and the dual potential of the environment in promoting health and risk.

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.