BackgroundIn Canada, funding, administration, and delivery of health services—including those targeting people who use drugs—are primarily the responsibility of the provinces and territories. Access to harm reduction services varies across jurisdictions, possibly reflecting differences in provincial and territorial policy commitments. We examined the quality of current provincial and territorial harm reduction policies in Canada, relative to how well official documents reflect internationally recognized principles and attributes of a harm reduction approach.MethodsWe employed an iterative search and screening process to generate a corpus of 54 provincial and territorial harm reduction policy documents that were current to the end of 2015. Documents were content-analyzed using a deductive coding framework comprised of 17 indicators that assessed the quality of policies relative to how well they described key population and program aspects of a harm reduction approach.ResultsOnly two jurisdictions had current provincial-level, stand-alone harm reduction policies; all other documents were focused on either substance use, addiction and/or mental health, or sexually transmitted and/or blood-borne infections. Policies rarely named specific harm reduction interventions and more frequently referred to generic harm reduction programs or services. Only one document met all 17 indicators. Very few documents acknowledged that stigma and discrimination are issues faced by people who use drugs, that not all substance use is problematic, or that people who use drugs are legitimate participants in policymaking. A minority of documents recognized that abstaining from substance use is not required to receive services. Just over a quarter addressed the risk of drug overdose, and even fewer acknowledged the need to apply harm reduction approaches to an array of drugs and modes of use.ConclusionsCurrent provincial and territorial policies offer few robust characterizations of harm reduction or go beyond rhetorical or generic support for the approach. By endorsing harm reduction in name, but not in substance, provincial and territorial policies may communicate to diverse stakeholders a general lack of support for key aspects of the approach, potentially challenging efforts to expand harm reduction services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12954-017-0177-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

We described public views toward harm reduction among Canadian adults and tested a social exposure model predicting support for these contentious services, drawing on theories in the morality policy, intergroup relations, addiction, and media communication literatures. A quota sample of 4645 adults (18+ years), randomly drawn from an online research panel and stratified to match age and sex distributions of adults within and across Canadian provinces, was recruited in June 2018. Participants completed survey items assessing support for harm reduction for people who use drugs (PWUD) and for seven harm reduction interventions. Additional items assessed exposure to media coverage on harm reduction, and scales assessing stigma toward PWUD (α = .72), personal familiarity with PWUD (α = .84), and disease model beliefs about addiction (α = .79). Most (64%) Canadians supported harm reduction (provincial estimates = 60% - 73%). Five of seven interventions received majority support, including: outreach (79%), naloxone (72%), drug checking (70%), needle distribution (60%) and supervised drug consumption (55%). Low-threshold opioid agonist treatment and safe inhalation interventions received less support (49% and 44%). Our social exposure model, adjusted for respondent sex, household income, political views, and education, exhibited good fit and accounted for 17% of variance in public support for harm reduction. Personal familiarity with PWUD and disease model beliefs about addiction were directly associated with support (βs = .07 and -0.10, respectively), and indirectly influenced public support via stigmatized attitudes toward PWUD (βs = 0.01 and -0.01, respectively). Strategies to increase support for harm reduction could problematize certain disease model beliefs (e.g., “There are only two possibilities for an alcoholic or drug addict–permanent abstinence or death”) and creating opportunities to reduce social distance between PWUD, the public, and policy makers.

No abstract

No abstract