Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders

Harm Reduction Journal

Ahmed M. Bayoumi¹  Rebecca Penn²  Gillian Kolla²  Tara Marie Watson²  Carol Strike³ 

[1] Division of General Internal Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto M5B 1W8, ON, Canada;Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto M5T 3M7, ON, Canada;Social and Epidemiological Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell Street, Toronto M5S 2S1, ON, Canada

关键词: Canada;    Telephone survey;    Public opinion;    Supervised injection facilities;   

Others  :  1224568
DOI  :  10.1186/s12954-015-0060-3

 received in 2015-06-17, accepted in 2015-08-13,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Community stakeholders express a range of opinions about supervised injection facilities (SIFs). We sought to identify reasons for ambivalence about SIFs amongst community stakeholders in two Canadian cities.

Findings

We used purposive sampling methods to recruit various stakeholder representatives (n = 141) for key informant interviews or focus group discussions. Data were analyzed using a thematic process. We identified seven reasons for ambivalence about SIFs: lack of personal knowledge of evidence about SIFs; concern that SIF goals are too narrow and the need for a comprehensive response to drug use; uncertainty that the community drug problem is large enough to warrant a SIF(s); the need to know more about the “right” places to locate a SIF(s) to avoid damaging communities or businesses; worry that a SIF(s) will renew problems that existed prior to gentrification; concern that resources for drug use prevention and treatment efforts will be diverted to pay for a SIF(s); and concern that SIF implementation must include evaluation, community consultation, and an explicit commitment to discontinue a SIF(s) in the event of adverse outcomes.

Conclusions

Stakeholders desire evidence about potential SIF impacts relevant to local contexts and that addresses perceived potential harms. Stakeholders would also like to see SIFs situated within a comprehensive response to drug use. Future research should determine the relative importance of these concerns and optimal approaches to address them to help guide decision-making about SIFs.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Strike et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Burstein P. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit Res Q. 2003; 56:29-40.
• [2]Vernick JS, Burris S, Strathdee SA. Public opinion about syringe exchange programmes in the USA: an analysis of national surveys. Int J Drug Policy. 2003; 14:431-435.
• [3]Hyshka E, Bubela T, Wild TC. Prospects for scaling-up supervised injection facilities in Canada: the role of evidence in legal and political decision-making. Addiction. 2013; 108:468-476.
• [4]Ritter A, Lancaster K. Measuring research influence on drug policy: a case example of two epidemiological monitoring systems. Int J Drug Policy. 2013; 24:30-37.
• [5]Dolan K, Kimber J, Fry C, McDonald D, Fitzgerald J, Trautmann F. Drug consumption facilities in Europe and the establishment of supervised injecting centres in Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2000; 19:337-346.
• [6]Hedrich D. European report on drug consumption rooms. Lisbon, European Monitoring; 2004.
• [7]Strike C, Jairam JA, Kolla G, Millson P, Shepherd S, Fischer B, Watson TM, Bayoumi AM. Increasing public support for supervised injection facilities in Ontario. Canada. Addiction. 2014; 109:946-953.
• [8]Drug Policy Alliance. Supervised injection facilities. http://www.drugpolicy.org/supervised-injection-facilities. Accessed 27 May 2015.
• [9]Bayoumi AM, Strike C, Jairam J, Watson T, Enns E, Kolla G et al.. Report of the Toronto and Ottawa Supervised Consumption Assessment Study. St. Michael’s Hospital and the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto; 2012.
• [10]Jozaghi E. Science versus politics: the need for supervised injection facilities in Montreal. Canada. Int J Drug Policy. 2012; 23:420-421.
• [11]Watson TM, Strike C, Kolla G, Penn R, Bayoumi AM. “Drugs don’t have age limits”: the challenge of setting age restrictions for supervised injection facilities. Drugs Educ Prev Policy. 2015;in press. doi:10.3109/09687637.2015.1034239
• [12]Watson TM, Strike C, Kolla G, Penn R, Jairam J, Hopkins S et al.. Design considerations for supervised consumption facilities (SCFs): Preferences for facilities where people can inject and smoke drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2012; 24:156-163.
• [13]Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Los Angeles; 2008.
• [14]Watson TM, Bayoumi A, Kolla G, Penn R, Fischer B, Luce J et al.. Police perceptions of supervised consumption sites (SCSs): a qualitative study. Subst Use Misuse. 2012; 47:364-374.
• [15]Wood E, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users. Addiction. 2007; 102:916-919.
• [16]Emmel N. Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: a realist approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks; 2013.
• [17]Habib S, Adorjany L. Hepatitis C and injecting drug use: the realities of stigmatisation and discrimination. Health Educ J. 2003; 62:256-265.
• [18]Olsen Y, Sharfstein JM. Confronting the stigma of opioid use disorder – and its treatment. JAMA. 2014; 311:1393-1394.
• [19]McCann E, Temenos C. Mobilizing drug consumption rooms: inter-place networks and harm reduction policy. Health Place. 2015; 31:216-223.
• [20]CTV News. Bill adding new safe-injection requirements receives royal assent. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/bill-adding-new-safe-injection-requirements-receives-royal-assent-1.2434656. Accessed 21 July 2015.
• [21]Jozaghi E. Morality versus the scientific evidence: the story behind Bill C-2. Journal of Substance Use. 2016;in press. doi:10.3109/14659891.2014.987837
• [22]Zlotorzynska M, Wood E, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Supervised injection sites: prejudice should not trump evidence of benefit. CMAJ. 2013; 185:1303-1304.