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

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.

Association between willingness to use an overdose prevention center and probation or parole status among people who use drugs in Rhode Island

BACKGROUND

Overdose prevention centers (OPCs) are being implemented in the United States as a strategy to reduce drug-related mortality and morbidity. Previous studies have suggested that people who use drugs (PWUD) with a history of criminal legal system (CLS) involvement (e.g. current probation/parole) are at greater risk of overdose but may also encounter significant barriers to OPC use. The objective of this study was to explore the association between willingness to use an OPC and probation/parole status in a sample of PWUD in Rhode Island.

METHODS

This study utilized data from the Rhode Island Prescription and Illicit Drug Study, which enrolled adult PWUD from August 2020 to February 2023. We used Pearson's chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to assess bivariate associations between willingness to use an OPC and probation/parole status (current/previous/never), as well as other sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics. In multivariable Poisson analyses, we examined the association between willingness to use an OPC and probation/parole status, adjusting for key sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 482 study participants, 67% were male, 56% identified as white, 20% identified as Hispanic/Latine, and the median age was 43 (IQR 35-53). Nearly a quarter (24%) had never been on probation/parole, 44% were not currently on probation/parole but had a lifetime history of probation and parole, and 32% were currently on probation/parole. Most participants (71%) reported willingness to use an OPC, and in both bivariate and multivariable analyses, willingness to use an OPC did not vary by probation/parole status. Crack cocaine use and lifetime non-fatal overdose were associated with greater willingness to use an OPC (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate high willingness to use OPC among PWUD in Rhode Island regardless of CLS-involvement. As OPCs begin to be implemented in Rhode Island, it will be imperative to engage people with CLS-involvement and to ensure access to the OPC and protection against re-incarceration due to potential barriers, such as police surveillance of OPCs.

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.

Willingness to utilize supervised injection facilities among people who inject drugs in Iran: Findings from 2020 national HIV bio-behavioral surveillance survey

BACKGROUND

Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) have not yet been integrated into Iran's harm reduction programs. This study aimed to report the extent to which people who inject drugs (PWID) in Iran are willing to use SIFs.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from 11 major cities using respondent-driven sampling. Willingness to use SIFs was defined as a three-level categorical variable: low, moderate, or high.

RESULTS

Of 2,490 PWID, 52.8% and 23.8% reported high and moderate willingness to use SIFs, respectively. PWID with a history of homelessness (relative-risk ratio (RRR): 2.22, 95% CI: 1.76-2.80), incarceration (1.86 [1.48-2.35]), hepatitis C infection (1.49 [1.13-1.97]), and non-fatal overdose (2.30 [1.69-3.13]) were more likely to be willing to utilize SIFs. Willingness to use SIFs was also higher among PWID who reported recent public injecting (2.24 [1.70-2.97]), daily injection (1.82 [1.35-2.45]), stimulants injection (2.39 [1.41-4.07]), syringe sharing (3.09 [1.23-7.74]), harm reduction services utilization (2.80 [2.13-3.68]), and food insecurity (8.28 [5.43-12.63]).

CONCLUSION

The majority of PWID in Iran expressed willingness to use SIFs, in particular, those who were involved in higher-risk injection practices, dealing with structural risks, and had experienced drug-related harms. SIFs represent critical opportunities to deliver comprehensive harm reduction services to improve the health and well-being of PWID in Iran.

Long-term benefits of providing transitional services to youth aging-out of the child welfare system: Evidence from a cohort of young people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada

BACKGROUND

Youth aging-out of the child welfare system (CWS) experience numerous vulnerabilities including, elevated rates of substance use and substance use disorders. Calls to improve services to transition youth to independence are common; however, evidence of the long-term impacts associated with transitional service utilization is scarce. Further, existing services frequently lack appropriate supports for substance using youth and it is unknown if youth are able to access such services. In the present study, we assess the relationship between transitional service utilization and health and social outcomes among a cohort of people who use drugs (PWUD) that aged-out of the CWS.

METHODS

Data were obtained from two harmonized cohorts of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada. Those who reported aging-out were asked about service utilization, availability, barriers, and interest across seven categories of transitional services. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between having previously utilized transitional services and current health and social outcomes.

RESULTS

Between December 2014 and November 2017, 217 PWUD reported having previously aged-out of the CWS. Across service categories, reported service utilization prevalence ranged from 16.6-61.8% while unmet demand ranged from 64.8-78.4%. In multivariable analyses, compared to individuals who utilized ≤1 service while aging-out, having utilized 4-7 services was significantly associated with reduced odds of current homelessness (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=0.29) and engaging in daily drug use (AOR=0.35) (both p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that this understudied high-risk population of PWUD and aged-out of the CWS experience long-term benefits associated with transitional service utilization and are interested and willing to engage in these services. However, given high unmet demand, findings also highlight considerable gaps in service delivery and support calls for extending the age of emancipation for all youth in the CWS and in particular, for additional harm reduction and substance use supports embedded into service models.

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.

High willingness to use drug consumption rooms among people who inject drugs in Scotland: findings from a national bio-behavioural survey among people who inject drugs

BACKGROUND

To address rising drug-related harms (including significant transmission of HIV) among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Glasgow, officials have proposed the introduction of the UK's first drug consumption room (DCR) in Glasgow city centre. Using a nationally representative sample, this study aimed to determine willingness to use a DCR among PWID nationally, in Glasgow city centre (the proposed DCR location), other Scottish city centres (excluding Glasgow) and the rest of Scotland (excluding city centres).

METHODS

Bio-behavioural survey, of 1469 current PWID (injected in last 6 months) across Scotland during 2017-18. Willingness to use DCRs was examined by drug-related risk behaviours and harms overall in Scotland, and then stratified by Glasgow city centre (n = 219), other Scottish city centres (n = 226) and the rest of Scotland (n = 1024).

RESULTS

The majority of PWID overall in Scotland (75%) were willing to use a DCR; willingness was higher among those recruited in Glasgow city centre (83%) and other Scottish city centres (83%), compared to the rest of Scotland (72%) (p < 0.001). Willingness was greater among PWID who reported (compared to those who did not report) injecting heroin (76%, p = 0.002), cocaine injecting (79%, p = 0.014), homelessness (86%, p < 0.001), public injecting (87%, p < 0.001) and an overdose (80%, p = 0.026). Willingness was found to be associated with a cumulative multiple risk variable: increased from 66% among those with a score of zero to 85% with a score of at least three (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of PWID at greatest risk of drug-related harm in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland would be willing to use a DCR, supporting proposals for the introduction of DCRs nationally.

Acceptability of safe drug consumption spaces among people who inject drugs in rural West Virginia

Aim

Safe consumption spaces (SCS) are indoor environments in which people can use drugs with trained personnel on site to provide overdose reversal and risk reduction services. SCS have been shown to reduce fatal overdoses, decrease public syringe disposal, and reduce public drug consumption. Existing SCS research in the USA has explored acceptability for the hypothetical use of SCS, but primarily among urban populations of people who inject drugs (PWID). Given the disproportionate impact of the opioid crisis in rural communities, this research examines hypothetical SCS acceptability among a rural sample of PWID in West Virginia.

Methods

Data were drawn from a 2018 cross-sectional survey of PWID (n = 373) who reported injection drug use in the previous 6 months and residence in Cabell County, West Virginia. Participants were asked about their hypothetical use of a SCS with responses dichotomized into two groups, likely and unlikely SCS users. Chi-square and t tests were conducted to identify differences between likely and unlikely SCS users across demographic, substance use, and health measures.

Results

Survey participants were 59.5% male, 83.4% non-Hispanic White, and 79.1% reported likely hypothetical SCS use. Hypothetical SCS users were significantly (p < .05) more likely to have recently (past 6 months) injected cocaine (38.3% vs. 25.7%), speedball (41.0% vs. 24.3%), and to report preferring drugs containing fentanyl (32.5% vs. 20.3%). Additionally, likely SCS users were significantly more likely to have recently experienced an overdose (46.8% vs. 32.4%), witnessed an overdose (78.3% vs. 60.8%), and received naloxone (51.2% vs. 37.8%). Likely SCS users were less likely to have borrowed a syringe from a friend (34.6% vs. 48.7%).

Conclusions

Rural PWID engaging in high-risk behaviors perceive SCS as an acceptable harm reduction strategy. SCS may be a viable option to reduce overdose fatalities in rural communities.

Factors associated with willingness to wear an electronic overdose detection device

Background

North America is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic. Although take-home naloxone and other measures have been an effective strategy to reduce overdoses, many events are unwitnessed and mortality remains high amongst those using drugs alone. While wearable devices that can detect and alert others of an overdose are being developed, willingness of people who use drugs to wear such a device has not been described.

Methods

Drug using persons enrolled in a community-recruited cohort in Vancouver, Canada, were asked whether or not they would be willing to wear a device against their skin that would alert others in the event of an overdose. Logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with willingness to wear such a device.

Results

Among the 1061 participants surveyed between December 2017 and May 2018, 576 (54.3%) were willing to wear an overdose detection device. Factors independently associated with willingness included ever having overdosed (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.83), current methadone treatment (AOR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.45–2.40), female gender AOR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.09–1.84) and a history of chronic pain (AOR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.19–1.96). Whereas homelessness (AOR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.50–0.91) was negatively associated with willingness.

Conclusions

A high level of willingness to wear an overdose detection device was observed in this setting and a range of factors associated with overdose were positively associated with willingness. Since some factors, such as homelessness may be a barrier, further research is needed to investigate explanations for unwillingness and to evaluate real world acceptability of a wearable overdose detection devices as this technology becomes available.

Acceptability of implementing community-based drug checking services for people who use drugs in three United States cities: Baltimore, Boston and Providence

BACKGROUND

North America is experiencing a rising trend of opioid overdose exacerbated primarily in recent years through adulteration of the heroin supply with fentanyl and its analogues. The east coast of the United States has been particularly hard hit by the epidemic. In three east coast states of Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, fentanyl has been detected in over half of all overdoses with available toxicology screens. To determine the acceptability of drug checking involving fentanyl test strips (FTS) or other technologies among those at high risk for overdose, we assessed correlates of intention to utilize such services and logistical preferences among people who use drugs (PWUD).

METHODS

Through FORECAST (the Fentanyl Overdose REduction Checking Analysis STudy), street-based PWUD (N = 334) were recruited in Baltimore, Maryland, Boston, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island. Questionnaires 7were administered from June to October 2017 and ascertained drug use, overdose history, fentanyl knowledge, and drug checking intent and logistical preferences. Pearson's χ² and logistic regression determined factors associated with drug checking intent.

RESULTS

Overall, 84% were concerned about fentanyl, 63% had ever overdosed, and 42% had ever witnessed a fatal overdose. Ninety percent felt drug checking would help them prevent an overdose, the majority of those interested would utilize drug checking at least daily (54%). Factors independently associated with intent to use drug checking included: older age (aOR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.3-1.8); homelessness (aOR: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5-0.7); being non-white (aOR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.0); witnessing ≥1 fatal overdose (aOR: 1.6, 95% CI:1.1-2.3); and suspected recent fentanyl exposure (aOR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of PWUD endorsed drug checking for overdose prevention, with intent amplified by having witnessed a fatal overdose and recent fentanyl exposure. Drug checking should be part of a comprehensive approach to address the risks associated with the proliferation of fentanyl.

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.

Potential use of supervised injection services among people who inject drugs in a remote and mid-size Canadian setting

BACKGROUND

While supervised injection services (SIS) feasibility research has been conducted in large urban centres across North America, it is unknown whether these services are acceptable among people who inject drugs (PWID) in remote, mid-size cities. We assessed willingness to use SIS and expected frequency of SIS use among PWID in Thunder Bay, a community in Northwestern, Ontario, Canada, serving people from suburban, rural and remote areas of the region.

METHODS

Between June and October 2016, peer research associates administered surveys to PWID. Sociodemographic characteristics, drug use and behavioural patterns associated with willingness to use SIS and expected frequency of SIS use were estimated using bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models. Design preferences and amenities identified as important to provide alongside SIS were assessed descriptively.

RESULTS

Among 200 PWID (median age, IQR: 35, 28-43; 43% female), 137 (69%) reported willingness to use SIS. In multivariable analyses, public injecting was positively associated with willingness to use (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 4.15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.08-8.29). Among those willing to use SIS, 87 (64%) said they would always/usually use SIS, while 48 (36%) said they would sometime/occasionally use SIS. In multivariable analyses, being female (AOR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.06-5.65) and reporting injecting alone was positively associated with higher expected frequency of use (AOR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.02-6.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that SIS could play a role in addressing the harms of injection drug use in remote and mid-sized settings particularly for those who inject in public, as well as women and those who inject alone, who report higher expected frequency of SIS use. Design preferences of local PWID, in addition to differences according to gender should be taken into consideration to maximize the uptake of SIS, alongside existing health and social service provisions available to PWID.

The projected costs and benefits of a supervised injection facility in Seattle, WA, USA

BACKGROUND

As one strategy to improve the health and survival of people who inject drugs, the King County Heroin & Opioid Addiction Task Force recommended the establishment of supervised injection facilities (SIF) where people can inject drugs in a safe and hygienic environment with clinical supervision. Analyses for other sites have found them to be cost-effective, but it is not clear whether these findings are transferable to other settings.

METHODS

We utilized local estimates and other data sources deemed appropriate for our setting to implement a mathematical model that assesses the impact of a hypothetical SIF on overdose deaths, non-fatal overdose health service utilization, skin and soft tissue infections, bacterial infections, viral infections, and enrollment in medication assisted treatment (MAT). We estimated the costs and savings that would occur on an annual basis for a small-scale pilot site given current overdose rates, as well as three other scenarios of varying scale and underlying overdose rates.

RESULTS

Assuming current overdose rates, a hypothetical Seattle SIF in a pilot phase is projected to annually reverse 167 overdoses and prevent 6 overdose deaths, 45 hospitalizations, 90 emergency department visits, and 92 emergency medical service deployments. Additionally, the site would facilitate the enrollment of 41 SIF clients in medication assisted treatment programs. These health benefits correspond to a monetary value of $5,156,019. The annual estimated cost of running the SIF is $1,222,332. The corresponding cost-benefit ratio suggests that the pilot SIF would generate $4.22 for every dollar spent on SIF operational costs. The pilot SIF is projected to save the healthcare system $534,453. If Seattle experienced elevated overdose rates and Seattle SIF program were scaled up, the health benefits and financial value would be considerably greater.

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that a SIF program in Seattle would save lives and result in considerable health benefits and cost savings.

High willingness to use rapid fentanyl test strips among young adults who use drugs

BACKGROUND

Synthetic opioid overdose mortality among young adults has risen more than 300% in the USA since 2013, primarily due to the contamination of heroin and other drugs with illicitly manufactured fentanyl. Rapid test strips, which can be used to detect the presence of fentanyl in drug samples (before use) or urine (after use), may help inform people about their exposure risk. The purpose of this study was to determine whether young adults who use drugs were willing to use rapid test strips as a harm reduction intervention to prevent overdose. We hypothesized that those who had ever overdosed would be more willing to use the test strips.

METHODS

We recruited a convenience sample of young adults who use drugs in Rhode Island from May to September 2017. Eligible participants (aged 18 to 35 with past 30-day drug use) completed an interviewer-administered survey. The survey assessed participant's socio-demographic and behavioral characteristics, overdose risk, as well as suspected fentanyl exposure, and willingness to use take-home rapid test strips to detect fentanyl contamination in drugs or urine. Participants were then trained to use the test strips and were given ten to take home.

RESULTS

Among 93 eligible participants, the mean age was 27 years (SD = 4.8), 56% (n = 52) of participants were male, and 56% (n = 52) were white. Over one third (n = 34, 37%) had a prior overdose. The vast majority (n = 86, 92%) of participants wanted to know if there was fentanyl in their drug supply prior to their use. Sixty-five (70%) participants reported concern that their drugs were contaminated with fentanyl. After the brief training, nearly all participants (n = 88, 95%) reported that they planned to use the test strips.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 90% of participants reported willingness to use rapid test strips regardless of having ever overdosed, suggesting that rapid fentanyl testing is an acceptable harm reduction intervention among young people who use drugs in Rhode Island. Study follow-up is ongoing to determine whether, how, and under what circumstances participants used the rapid test strips and if a positive result contributed to changes in overdose risk behavior.

Acceptability and design preferences of supervised injection services among people who inject drugs in a mid-sized Canadian City

BACKGROUND

Supervised injection services (SIS) have been shown to reduce the public- and individual-level harms associated with injection drug use. While SIS feasibility research has been conducted in large urban centres, little is known about the acceptability of these services among people who inject drugs (PWID) in mid-sized cities. We assessed the prevalence and correlates of willingness to use SIS as well as design and operational preferences among PWID in London, Canada.

METHODS

Between March and April 2016, peer research associates administered a cross-sectional survey to PWID in London. Socio-demographic characteristics, drug-use patterns, and behaviours associated with willingness to use SIS were estimated using bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models. Chi-square tests were used to compare characteristics with expected frequency of SIS use among those willing to use SIS. Design and operational preferences are also described.

RESULTS

Of 197 PWID included in this analysis (median age, 39; interquartile range (IQR), 33-50; 38% female), 170 (86%) reported willingness to use SIS. In multivariable analyses, being female (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.75) was negatively associated with willingness to use, while public injecting in the last 6 months (AOR 2.76; 95% CI 1.00-7.62) was positively associated with willingness to use. Participants living in unstable housing, those injecting in public, and those injecting opioids and crystal methamphetamine daily reported higher expected frequency of SIS use (p < 0.05). A majority preferred private cubicles for injecting spaces and daytime operational hours, while just under half preferred PWID involved in service operations.

CONCLUSIONS

High levels of willingness to use SIS were found among PWID in this setting, suggesting that these services may play a role in addressing the harms associated with injection drug use. To maximize the uptake of SIS, programme planners and policy makers should consider the effects of gender and views of PWID regarding SIS design and operational preferences.

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.

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.

Factors associated with willingness to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment clinical trial among people who use drugs

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although new medications are needed to address the harms of drug addiction, rates of willingness to participate in addiction treatment trials among people who use drugs (PWUD), have not been well characterized.

METHODS

One thousand twenty PWUD enrolled in two community-recruited cohorts in Vancouver, Canada, were asked whether they would be willing to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment trial. Logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with a willingness to participate.

RESULTS

Among the 1,020 PWUD surveyed between June 1, 2013 and November 30, 2013, 58.3% indicated a willingness to participate. In multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with a willingness to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment trial included: daily heroin injection (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 1.75; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.13 - 2.72); daily crack smoking (AOR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.23 - 2.66); sex work involvement (AOR = 2.22; 95% CI: 1.21 - 4.06); HIV seropositivity (AOR = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.15 - 1.94); and methadone maintenance therapy participation (AOR = 1.77; 95% CI: 1.37-2.30).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

High rates of willingness to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment trial were observed in this setting. Importantly, high-risk drug and sexual activities were positively associated with a willingness to participate, which may suggest a desire for new treatment interventions among PWUD engaged in high-risk behavior.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

These results highlight the viability of studies seeking to enroll representative samples of PWUD engaged in high-risk drug use.

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.

Use of a medically supervised injection facility among street youth

PURPOSE

Supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) provide a sanctioned space for injection drug users and are associated with decreased overdose mortality and HIV risk behaviors among adults. Little is known about SIF use among youth. We identified factors associated with use of the Vancouver SIF, the only such facility in North America, among street youth.

METHODS

From September 2005 to May 2012, we collected data from the At-Risk Youth Study, a prospective cohort of street youth in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Eligible youth were aged 14-26 years. Participants reporting injection completed questionnaires at baseline and semiannually. We used generalized estimating equation logistic regression to identify factors associated with SIF use.

RESULTS

During the study period, 42.3% of 414 injecting youth reported use of the SIF at least once. Of all SIF-using youth, 51.4% went to the facility at least weekly, and 44.5% used it for at least one-quarter of all injections. SIF-using youth were more likely to live or spend time in the neighborhood surrounding the SIF (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.38-4.54), to inject in public (AOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.53-2.84), or to engage in daily injection of heroin (AOR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.72-3.24), cocaine (AOR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.34-4.45), or crystal methamphetamine (AOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.13-2.31).

CONCLUSIONS

This study, the first to examine SIF use among street youth in North America, demonstrated that the facility attracted high-frequency young drug users most at risk of blood-borne infection and overdose and those who otherwise inject in public spaces.

Design considerations for supervised consumption facilities (SCFs): preferences for facilities where people can inject and smoke drugs

BACKGROUND

Supervised consumption facilities (SCFs) aim to improve the health and well-being of people who use drugs by offering safer and more hygienic alternatives to the risk environments where people typically use drugs in the community. People who smoke crack cocaine may be willing to use supervised smoking facilities (SSFs), but their facility design preferences and the views of other stakeholders have not been previously investigated in detail.

METHODS

We consulted with people who use drugs and other stakeholders including police, fire and ambulance service personnel, other city employees and city officials, healthcare providers, residents, and business owners (N = 236) in two Canadian cities without SCFs and asked how facilities ought to be designed. All consultations were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analyses were used to describe the knowledge and opinions of stakeholders.

RESULTS

People who use drugs see SSFs as offering public health and safety benefits, while other stakeholders were more sceptical about the need for SSFs. People who use drugs provided insights into how a facility might be designed to accommodate supervised injection and supervised smoking. Their strongest preference would allow both methods of drug use within the same facility with some form of physical separation between the two based on different highs, comfort regarding exposure to different methods of drug administration, and concerns about behaviours often associated with smoking crack cocaine. Other stakeholders raised a number of SSF implementation challenges worthy of consideration.

CONCLUSION

Decision-makers in cities considering SCF or SSF implementation should consider the opinions and preferences of potential clients to ensure that facilities will attract, retain, and engage people who use drugs.