Synthetic Opioid key responses
- Mapping evidence-based key responses to synthetic opioids and their implementation strategies
- Field-tested Toolkit with seven implementation guides
Police and public health partnerships: Evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver's supervised injection facility
In various settings, drug market policing strategies have been found to have unintended negative effects on health service use among injection drug users (IDU). This has prompted calls for more effective coordination of policing and public health efforts. In Vancouver, Canada, a supervised injection facility (SIF) was established in 2003. We sought to determine if local police impacted utilization of the SIF. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to prospectively identify the prevalence and correlates of being referred by local police to Vancouver's SIF among IDU participating in the Scientific Evaluation of Supervised Injecting (SEOSI) cohort during the period of December 2003 to November 2005. Among 1090 SIF clients enrolled in SEOSI, 182 (16.7%) individuals reported having ever been referred to the SIF by local police. At baseline, 22 (2.0%) participants reported that they first learned of the SIF via police. In multivariate analyses, factors positively associated with being referred to the SIF by local police when injecting in public include: sex work (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 1.80, 95%CI 1.28 – 2.53); daily cocaine injection (AOR = 1.54, 95%CI 1.14 – 2.08); and unsafe syringe disposal (AOR = 1.46, 95%CI 1.00 – 2.11). These findings indicate that local police are facilitating use of the SIF by IDU at high risk for various adverse health outcomes. We further found that police may be helping to address public order concerns by referring IDU who are more likely to discard used syringes in public spaces. Our study suggests that the SIF provides an opportunity to coordinate policing and public health efforts and thereby resolve some of the existing tensions between public order and health initiatives.
Police Perceptions of Supervised Consumption Sites (SCSs): A Qualitative Study
Police are key stakeholders in cities considering supervised consumption site (SCS) implementation. We examine police perceptions of SCSs using data collected between 2008 and 2010. Data from interviews and focus groups conducted with police officers of varied ranks (n = 18) in Ottawa and Toronto, Canada, were analyzed using thematic analyses. Participants opposed SCS implementation in their respective cities. The police views we heard invoke values and perspectives on evidence that differ from those used in research. Whether these divergent frameworks are reconcilable is a question for future research. Study limitations are noted. The Ontario HIV Treatment Network funded the study.
Policing space in the overdose crisis: A rapid ethnographic study of the impact of law enforcement practices on the effectiveness of overdose prevention sites
North America is in the midst of an overdose crisis. In some of the hardest hit areas of Canada, local responses have included the implementation of low-threshold drug consumption facilities, termed Overdose Prevention Sites (OPS). In Vancouver, Canada the crisis and response occur in an urban terrain that is simultaneously impacted by a housing crisis in which formerly ‘undesirable’ areas are rapidly gentrifying, leading to demands to more closely police areas at the epicenter of the overdose crisis. We examined the intersection of street-level policing and gentrification and how these practices re/made space in and around OPS in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside neighborhood. Between December 2016 and October 2017, qualitative interviews were conducted with 72 people who use drugs (PWUD) and over 200 h of ethnographic fieldwork were undertaken at OPS and surrounding areas. Data were analyzed thematically and interpreted by drawing on structural vulnerability and elements of social geography. While OPS were established within existing social-spatial practices of PWUD, gentrification strategies and associated police tactics created barriers to OPS services. Participants highlighted how fear of arrest and police engagement necessitated responding to overdoses alone, rather than engaging emergency services. Routine policing near OPS and the enforcement of area restrictions and warrant searches, often deterred participants from accessing particular sites. Further documented was an increase in the number of police present in the neighborhood the week of, and the week proceeding, the disbursement of income assistance cheques. Our findings demonstrate how some law enforcement practices, driven in part by ongoing gentrification efforts and buttressed by multiple forms of criminalization present in the lives of PWUD, limited access to needed overdose-related services. Moving away from place-based policing practices, including those driven by gentrification, will be necessary so as to not undermine the effectiveness of life-saving public health interventions amid an overdose crisis.
Potential community and public health impacts of medically supervised safer smoking facilities for crack cocaine users
There is growing evidence of the public health and community harms associated with crack cocaine smoking, particularly the risk of blood-borne transmission through non-parenteral routes. In response, community advocates and policy makers in Vancouver, Canada are calling for an exemption from Health Canada to pilot a medically supervised safer smoking facility (SSF) for non-injection drug users (NIDU). Current reluctance on the part of health authorities is likely due to the lack of existing evidence surrounding the extent of related harm and potential uptake of such a facility among NIDUs in this setting. In November 2004, a feasibility study was conducted among 437 crack cocaine smokers. Univariate analyses were conducted to determine associations with willingness to use a SSF and logistic regression was used to adjust for potentially confounding variables (p < 0.05). Variables found to be independently associated with willingness to use a SSF included recent injection drug use (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.09–2.70), having equipment confiscated or broken by police (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.24–2.85), crack bingeing (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.39–3.12), smoking crack in public places (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.65–3.27), borrowing crack pipes (OR = 2.50, 95% CI: 1.86–3.40), and burns/ inhaled brillo due to rushing smoke in public places (OR = 4.37, 95% CI: 2.71–8.64). The results suggest a strong potential for a SSF to reduce the health related harms and address concerns of public order and open drug use among crack cocaine smokers should a facility be implemented in this setting.
Potential uptake and correlates of willingness to use a supervised smoking facility for noninjection illicit drug use
Many cities are experiencing infectious disease epidemics and substantial community harms as a result of illicit drug use. Although medically supervised smoking facilities (SSFs) remain untested in North America, local health officials in Vancouver are considering to prepare a submission to Health Canada for an exemption to open Canada’s first SSF for evaluation. Reluctance of health policymakers to initiate a pilot study of SSFs may be due in part to outstanding questions regarding the potential uptake and community impacts of the intervention. This study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence and correlates of willingness to use an SSF among illicit drug smokers who are enrolled in the Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study. Participants who reported actively smoking cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine who returned for follow-up between June 2002 and December 2002 were eligible for these analyses. Those who reported willingness to use an SSF were compared with those who were unwilling to use an SSF by using logistic regression analyses. Four hundred and forty-three participants were eligible for this study. Among respondents, 124 (27,99%) expressed willingness to attend an SSF. Variables that were independently associated with willingness to attend an SSF in multivariate analyses included sex-trade work (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.85), crack pipe sharing (AOR=2.24), and residing in the city’s HIV epicentre (AOR=1.64). We found that participants who demonstrated a willingness to attend an SSF were more likely to be involved in the sex trade and share crack pipes. Although the impact of SSFs in North America can only be quantified by scientific evaluation, these data indicate a potential for public health and community benefits if SSFs were to become available.
Prospects for scaling-up supervised injection facilities in Canada: the role of evidence in legal and political decision-making
BACKGROUND: North America's first supervised injection facility-Insite-opened in Vancouver in 2003 under a special federal legal exemption. Insite has faced significant political and legal opposition, which culminated in a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling that ordered the federal Minister of Health to extend the facility's exemption and cited evidence that the facility is life-preserving and does not increase public disorder. Officials in several other cities have initiated or accelerated preparations for new facilities due to speculation that the ruling provides sufficient legal basis to expand supervised injection in Canada. However, a comprehensive assessment of the barriers and facilitators to supervised injection facility scale-up is lacking.
METHODS: This policy case study reviews a corpus of jurisprudence, legislation, scientific research and media texts to: describe the role of evidence in legal and political decision-making around Insite; analyze the implications of the Insite decision for new facilities; and discuss alternative avenues for supervised injection facility expansion.
RESULTS: The Insite decision does not simplify the path towards new supervised injection facilities, but nor does it does pose an insurmountable hurdle. Whether new facilities will be established depends largely upon how the Minister of Health interprets the ruling, the proponents' ability to demonstrate need and support from municipal and provincial governments and community members. Formally defining supervised injection as within nurses' scope of practice could further efforts to establish new facilities.
CONCLUSION: Additional court action may be required to establish a stable legal and policy basis for supervised injection facilities in Canada.
Public injecting among people who inject drugs in a mid-sized Canadian city
BACKGROUND: Harms associated with public drug injection in large cities are well-established, but little is known about challenges that public injecting may pose for smaller municipalities. We evaluated the prevalence and correlates of public injecting among a sample of people who inject drugs in London, a mid-sized city in southwestern Ontario.
METHODS: Between March and April 2016, a sample of people who injected drugs participated in a quantitative survey as part of the Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Feasibility Study. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models estimated associations of sociodemographic characteristics, sociostructural exposures and drug use behaviours with regular public injecting (injecting in public ≥ 25% of the time over the previous 6 mo). We also described the locations and rationales provided for public injecting.
RESULTS: A total of 196 participants (38.3% female, median age 39 yr) provided complete data. Of the 196, 141 (71.9%) reported any public injecting in the previous 6 months, and 91 (46.4%) injected in public regularly. Homelessness or unstable housing (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-4.12) and frequently injecting opioids (adjusted OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.17-4.42) or crystal methamphetamine (adjusted OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.18-4.79) daily were independently associated with regular public injection. Convenience (98 participants [69.5%]) and homelessness (56 [39.7%]) were the most commonly reported reasons for public injecting.
INTERPRETATION: As in large cities in Canada, public injecting in London is common and appears to be associated with unstable housing and high-intensity injecting. These results indicate an urgent need to create safer environments for people who inject drugs in London, including supervised injection, to reduce the negative individual and community impacts of public injecting.
Public opinion towards supervised injection facilities and heroin-assisted treatment in Ontario, Canada
In recent years, controversial interventions such as ‘heroin-assisted treatment’ (HAT) and ‘supervised injection facilities’ (SIFs) have been established in attempts to minimise the high morbidity and mortality consequences of illicit drug use. This paper examines public opinion towards HAT and SIF using data from the 2003 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) Monitor, a representative population survey conducted among adults residing in Ontario, Canada. Data relating specifically to SIFs and HAT were isolated from the main database (n = 885); agreement scores were collapsed to create a scale and analysed using independent sample t-tests and ANOVAs. Results revealed that 60 percent (n = 530) of the sample agreed that SIFs should be made available to injection drug users, while 40 percent (n = 355) disagreed. When asked about the provision of HAT, a similar pattern emerged. Variables significantly associated with positive opinions toward SIFs and HAT were: income; higher education; the use of cocaine or cannabis within the last 12 months; being in favour of cannabis decriminalisation; support of needle exchange in prison; view of illicit drug users as ill people; and agreement that drug users are in need of public support. Given the current political climate and the tentative position of SIFs and HAT in Canada, understanding the public's opinion is crucial for the feasibility and long-term sustainability of these interventions.
Public opinions about supervised smoking facilities for crack cocaine and other stimulants
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate awareness and opinions about supervised smoking facilities (SSFs) for smoking crack cocaine and other stimulants and make comparisons with awareness and opinions about supervised injection facilities (SIFs) in Ontario, Canada.
METHODS: We used data from a 2009 telephone survey of a representative adult sample. The survey asked about awareness of, and level of support for, the implementation of SSFs and SIFs. Data were analysed using statistical models for complex survey data, which account for stratified sampling and incorporate sampling weights.
RESULTS: A total of 1035 participated in the survey. Significantly fewer had knowledge about SSFs (17.9 %) than about SIFs (57.6 %). Fewer strongly agreed with implementation of SSFs (19.6 %) than SIFs (28.3 %). Just over half (51.1 %) of participants somewhat agreed or disagreed, 15.7 % strongly agreed, and 10.6 % strongly disagreed with implementing both SSFs and SIFs.
CONCLUSIONS: Members of the public in Ontario had little knowledge of SSFs compared to SIFs. Recent federal government changes in Canada may provide the leadership environment necessary to ensure that innovative, evidence-based harm reduction programs such as SSFs are developed and implemented.
