"Beyond Safer Injecting"-Health and Social Needs and Acceptance of Support among Clients of a Supervised Injecting Facility

Assessing Drug Consumption Rooms and Longer Term (5 Year) Impacts on Community and Clients

BACKGROUND

Drug consumption rooms (DCRs) and supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) provide a safe environment in which people who inject drugs (PWIDs) can inject under hygienic and supervised conditions. Numerous reviews have documented the benefits of these facilities; however, there is a lack of clarity surrounding their long-term effects.

PURPOSE

To conduct, with a systematic approach, a literature review, of published peer-reviewed literature assessing the long-term impacts of DCRs/SIFs.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed and Embase database was performed using the keywords: ("SUPERVISED" OR "SAFE*") AND ("CONSUMPTION" OR "INJECT*" OR "SHOOTING") AND ("FACILITY*" OR "ROOM*" OR "GALLERY*" OR "CENTRE*" OR "CENTER*" OR "SITE*"). Included studies were original articles reporting outcomes for five or more years and addressed at least one of the following client or community outcomes; (i) drug-related harms; (ii) access to substance use treatment and other health services; (iii) impact on local PWID population; (iv) impact on public drug use, drug-related crime and violence; and (v) local community attitudes to DCRs.

RESULTS

Four publications met our inclusion criteria, addressing four of the five outcomes. Long-term data suggested that while the health of PWID naturally declined over time, DCRs/SIFs helped reduce injecting-related harms. The studies showed that DCRs/SIFs facilitate drug treatment, access to health services and cessation of drug injecting. Local residents and business owners reported less public drug use and public syringe disposal following the opening of a DCR/SIF.

CONCLUSION

Long-term evidence on DCRs/SIFs is consistent with established short-term research demonstrating the benefits of these facilities. A relative paucity of studies was identified, with most evidence originating from Sydney and Vancouver. The overall body of evidence would be improved by future studies following outcomes over longer periods and being undertaken in a variety of jurisdictions and models of DCRs/SIFs.

Supervised Injection Facilities as Harm Reduction: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Supervised injection facilities are harm reduction interventions that allow people who inject drugs to use previously obtained substances under the supervision of health professionals. Although currently considered illegal under U.S. federal law, several U.S. cities are considering implementing supervised injection facilities anyway as a response to the escalating overdose crisis. The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities, compared with that of control conditions, for harm reduction and community outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Studies were identified from 2 sources: a high-quality, broader review examining supervised injection facility-induced benefits and harms (from database inception to January 2014) and an updated search using the same search strategy (January 2014‒September 2019). Systematic review methods developed by the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used (screening and analysis, September 2019‒December 2020).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 22 studies were included in this review: 16 focused on 1 supervised injection facility in Vancouver, Canada. Quantitative synthesis was not conducted given inconsistent outcome measurement across the studies. Supervised injection facilities in the included studies (n=number of studies per outcome category) were mostly associated with significant reductions in opioid overdose morbidity and mortality (n=5), significant improvements in injection behaviors and harm reduction (n=7), significant improvements in access to addiction treatment programs (n=7), and no increase or reductions in crime and public nuisance (n=7).

CONCLUSIONS

For people who inject drugs, supervised injection facilities may reduce the risk of overdose morbidity and mortality and improve access to care while not increasing crime or public nuisance to the surrounding community.

Factors associated with drug checking service utilization among people who use drugs in a Canadian setting

BACKGROUND

The United States and Canada are amidst an opioid overdose crisis, with the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) among the hardest hit. In response, drug checking services (DCS) have been introduced in this setting as a novel pilot harm reduction intervention though little is known about usage rates. Therefore, we sought to identify factors associated with drug checking uptake among people who use drugs (PWUD) in Vancouver, BC.

METHODS

Data were derived from three ongoing prospective cohort studies of PWUD in Vancouver between June and November 2018. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with self-reported DCS utilization in the past 6 months among participants at high risk of fentanyl exposure (i.e., those self-reporting illicit opioid use or testing positive for fentanyl via urine drug screen).

RESULTS

Among 828 eligible participants, including 451 (55%) males, 176 (21%) reported recent use of DCS. In multivariable analyses, factors significantly associated with DCS utilization included: homelessness (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 1.47; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.01-2.13) and involvement in drug dealing (AOR 1.59; 95% CI 1.05-2.39).

CONCLUSIONS

In our sample of PWUD, uptake of DCS was low, although those who were homeless, a sub-population known to be at a heightened risk of overdose, were more likely to use the services. Those involved in drug dealing were also more likely to use the services, which may imply potential for improving drug market safety. Further evaluation of drug checking is warranted.