Correlates of public support toward federal funding for harm reduction strategies

Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy

Kristen P. Lindgren²  Melissa L. Gasser²  Alexandra J. Werntz¹  Bethany A. Teachman¹  Magdalena Kulesza³ 

[1] University of Virginia, Department of Psychology, 102 Gilmer Hall, Charlottesville 22904, VA, USA;Department of Psychiatry, University of Washington, 1100 NE 45th Street, Seattle 98105, WA, USA;RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica 90407, CA, USA

关键词: Needle and syringe programs;    Safe injection facilities;    Harm reduction;    Intravenous drug use;    Public stigma;   

Others  :  1223066
DOI  :  10.1186/s13011-015-0022-5

 received in 2015-03-10, accepted in 2015-06-26,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Historically, US federal policy has not supported harm reduction interventions, such as safe injection facilities (SIFs) and needle and syringe programs (NSPs), which can reduce the burden associated with injection drug use. Given recent increases in abuse of both legal and illegal opioids, there has been a renewed debate about effective ways to address this problem. The current study (1) assessed participants’ support for SIFs and NSPs, and (2) evaluated several demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, race, education, political ideology, and religiosity) and individual differences in stigmatizing beliefs about people who inject drugs (PWID) that might relate to support for these interventions.

Methods

U.S. adults (N = 899) completed a web-based study that assessed self-reported support for NSPs and SIFs, and stigma about PWID.

Results

The majority of participants were at least somewhat supportive of both NSPs and SIFs. Regression analyses indicated greater support for NSPs and SIFs was predicted by more liberal political ideology, more agreement that PWID deserve help rather than punishment, older age, and male gender. Also, participants who endorsed lower stigma about PWID were more supportive of NSPs and SIFs. Race, religiosity, and education did not predict support for NSPs and SIFs.

Conclusions

Most participants tended to report support for harm reduction strategies. Age, political ideology, and individual differences in stigmatizing beliefs about PWID were significantly associated with support. Given the potential malleability of stigmatizing beliefs, efforts that seek to shift stigma about PWID could have important implications for public policy towards harm reduction strategies for PWID.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Kulesza et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Beyrer C, Malinkwska-Sempruch K, Kamarulzman A, Kazatchkine M, Sidibe M, Stradhdee SA. Time to act: a call for comprehensive response to HIV in people who use drugs. Lancet. 2010; 376:551-563.
• [2]Broadhead RS, Kerr T, Grund JP, Altice FL. Safer injection facilities in North America: their place in public policy and health initiatives. J Drug Iss. 2002; 32:329-355.
• [3]Brown SA. Standardized measures for substance use stigma. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011; 116(1-3):137-141.
• [4]Burstein P. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Pol Res Quart. 2003; 56:29-40.
• [5]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital Signs: Overdoses of Prescription Opioid Pain Relievers—United States, 1999-2008. MMWR. 2011;60:1–6.
• [6]Corrigan PW, Kerr A, Knutsen L. The stigma of mental illness: explanatory models and methods for change. Appl Prev Psychol. 2005; 11(3):179-190.
• [7]Corrigan PW, Kuwabara SA, O’Shaughnessy J. The public stigma of menta illness and drug addiction. J Soc Work. 2009; 9(2):139-147.
• [8]Corrigan PW, River LP, Lundin RK, Penn DL, Wasowski KU, Campion J et al.. Three strategies for changing attributions about severe mental illness. Schizophr Bull. 2001; 27(2):187-196.
• [9]Corrigan PW, Rowan D, Green A, Laudin R, River P, Uphoff-Wasowski K et al.. Challenging two mental illness stigmas: personal responsibility and dangerousness. Schizophr Bull. 2002; 28(2):293-309.
• [10]Corrigan PW, Watson AC. The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clin Psychol: Sciencce Pract. 2002; 9:35-53.
• [11]Corrigan PW, Watson AC, Miller FE. Blame, shame and contamination: the impact of mental illness and drug dependence stigma on family members. J Fam Psychol. 2006; 20(2):239-246.
• [12]Crisp AH, Gelder MG, Rix S, Meltzer HI, Rowlands OJ. Stigmatization of people with mental illness. Br J Psychiatry. 2000; 177:4-7.
• [13]Cruz MF, Patra J, Fischer B, Rehm J, Kalousek K. Public opinion towards supervised injection facilities and heroin-assisted treatment in Ontario, Canada. Int J Drug Pol. 2007; 18(1):54-61.
• [14]DeBeck K, Kerr T, Bird L, Zhang R, Marsh D, Tyndall M et al.. Injection drug use cessation and use of North America's first medically supervised safer injection facility. Drug Alcohol Dep. 2011; 113:172-176.
• [15]Des Jarlais D, McKnight C, Goldblatt C, Purchase D. Doing harm reduction better: syringe exchange in the United States. Addiction. 2009; 104(9):1441-1446.
• [16]Fairbairn N, Small W, Shannon K, Wood E, Kerr T. Seeking refuge from violence in street based drug scenes: women's experiences in North America's first supervised injection facility. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67:817-823.
• [17]Fisher B, Rehm J, Kirst M, Casas M, Hall W, Krausz M. Heroin assisted treatment as a response to the public health problem of opiate dependence. Eur J Pub Health. 2002; 12:228-234.
• [18]Hankins C. Syringe exchange in Canada: good but not enough to stem the HIV tide. Subst Use Misuse. 1998; 33:1129-1145.
• [19]Hedrich D. European report on drug consumption rooms. Lisbon, European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction; 2004.
• [20]Hurley S, Jolley D, Kaldor J. Effectiveness of needle and syringe programmes for prevention of HIV infection. Lancet. 1997; 349:1797-1800.
• [21]Kerr T, Kimber J, DeBeck K, Wood E. The role of safer injection facilities in the response to HIV/AIDS among injection drug users. Curr HIV/AIDS Report. 2007; 4:158-164.
• [22]Kerr T, Small W, Moore D, Wood E. A microenvironmental intervention to reduce the harms associated with drug-related overdose: evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver's safer injection facility. Int J Drug Pol. 2007; 18:37-45.
• [23]Kerr T, Stolz J, Tyndall M, Li K, Zhang R, Montaner J. Impact of medically supervised safer injection facility on community drug use patterns: a before and after study. Br Med J. 2006; 332:220-222.
• [24]Kerr T, Tyndall M, Li K, Montaner J, Wodd E. Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. Lancet. 2005; 366:316-318.
• [25]Kerr T, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Lai C, Montaner JCG, Wood E. Circumstances of first injection among illicit drig users accessing a medically supervised safer injection facility. Am J Pub Health. 2007; 97(7):1228-1230.
• [26]Lee RD, Rasinski KW. Five grams of coke: Racism, moralism, and White public opinion on sanctions for first time posession. Int J Drug Pol. 2006; 17:183-191.
• [27]Link BG, Cullen FT, Frank J, Wozniak JF. The social rejection of former mental patients: understanding why labels matter. Am J Soc. 1987; 92(6):1461-1500.
• [28]Matheson M, Jaffray M, Ryan CM, Bond K, Fraser M, Liddell KD. Public opinion of drug treatment policy: exploring the public's attitudes, knowledge, experience and willingness to pay for drug treatment strategies. Int J Drug Pol. 2014;25(3):407-15.
• [29]Nosek BA, Smyth FL, Hansen JJ, Devos T, Lindner NM, Ranganath KA et al.. Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2007; 18:36-88.
• [30]Nosek BA, Smyth FL, Sriram N, Lindner NM, Devos T, Ayala A et al.. National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106(26):10593-10597.
• [31]National Drug Control Strategy: FY2014 Budget Summary. White House, Washington, DC; 2014.
• [32]Rasinski KA, Timberlake JM, Lock ED. Public support for increased spending on the drug problem in America is not a simple matter. Int J Pub Opinion Res. 2000; 12(4):431-439.
• [33]Reuter P. Why does research have so little impact on American drug policy? Addiction. 2001; 96:373-376.
• [34]Skitka LJ, Tetlock PE. Of ants and grasshoppers: The political psychology of allocating public assistance. In: Psychological perspectives injustice. Mellers B, Baron J, editors. Cambridge University Press, New York; 1993: p.205-233.
• [35]Strathdee S, Vlahov D. The effectiveness of needle and syringe programs: a review of the science and policy. AIDS Science. 2001;1.
• [36]Strike C, Jairam JA, Kolla G, Millson P, Shepherd S, Fischer B et al.. Increasing public support for supervised injection facilities in Ontario, Canada. Addiction. 2014; 109(6):946-53.
• [37]Thein H, Kimber J, Maher L, MacDonald M, Kaldor J. Public opinion towards supervised injection centers and the Sydney Medically Supervised Injection Centre. Int J Drug Pol. 2005; 16:275-280.
• [38]Tyndall MW, Kerr T, Zhang R, King E, Montaner JG, Wood E. Attendance, drug use patterns and referrals made from North America's first medically supervised safer injection facility. Drug Alcohol Dep. 2006; 83:193-198.
• [39]Tzemis D, Campbell J, Kuo M, Buxton JA. A cross-sectional study of public attitudes towards safer drug use practices in British Columbia, Canada. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2013; 8:40. BioMed Central Full Text
• [40]Vernick JS, Burris S, Strathdee SA. Public opinion about syringe exchange programmes in the U.S.A.: An analysis of national surveys. Int J Drug Pol. 2003; 14:431-435.
• [41]Wodak A, Cooney A. Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programmes. Int J Drug Pol. 2005; 16(s):S31-S44.
• [42]Wodak A, Cooney A. Do needle syringe programs reduce HIV infection among injecting drug users: A comprehensive review of international evidence. Subst Use Misuse. 2006; 41:777-813.
• [43]Wood E, Tybdall M, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised injecting facility. J Can MEd Assoc. 2006; 175:1399-1404.
• [44]Wood E, Tyndall M, Stolz J, Small W, Lloyd-Smith E, Zhang R. Factors associated with syringe sharing among users of a medically supervised safer injection facility. AM J Inf Dis. 2005; 1:50-54.
• [45]Zurhold H, Degkwitz P, Verthein U, Haasen C. Drug consumption rooms in Hamburg, Germany: evaluation of the efects of harm reduction and the reduction of public nuisance. J Drug Iss. 2003; 33:663-688.