Design considerations for supervised consumption facilities (SCFs): Preferences for facilities where people can inject and smoke drugs

Watson, Tara Marie; Strike, Carol; Kolla, Gillian; Penn, Rebecca; Jairam, Jennifer A.; Hopkins, Shaun; Luce, Janine; Degani, Naushaba; Millson, Peggy; Bayoumi, Ahmed M.

doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.09.003

Cited by 26 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since 2006, more papers described DCR/SIF clients or service operation . Also, after 2006, papers using qualitative methods have spiked including those focused on DCR clients or staff , and on other stakeholders . Since 2013, an increasing number of papers analysed SIF‐related laws and policies .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Běláčková¹,

Salmon²,

Day

et al. 2019

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues. Drug consumptions rooms (DCR) and supervised injecting facilities (SIF) are expanding internationally. Previous reviews have not systematically addressed evaluation methodologies. Approach. Results from systematic searches of scientific databases in English until June 2017 were coded for paper type, country and year of publication. For evaluation papers, study outcome, methodology/study design and main indicators of DCR/SIF 'exposure' were recorded. Key Findings. Two hundred and nineteen eligible peer-reviewed papers were published since 1999: the majority from Canada (n = 117 papers), Europe (n = 36) and Australia (n = 32). Fifty-six papers reported evaluation outcomes. Ecological study designs (n = 10) were used to assess the impact on overdose, public nuisance and crime; modelling techniques (n = 6) estimated impact on bloodborne diseases, overdose deaths and costs. Papers using individual-level data included four prospective cohorts (n = 28), cross-sectional surveys (n = 7) and service records (n = 5). Individual-level data were used to assess safer injecting practice, uptake into health and social services and all the other above outcomes except for impact on crime and costs. Four different indicators of DCR/SIF attendance were used to measure service 'exposure'. Implications. Research around DCRs/SIFs has used ecological, modelling, cross-sectional and cohort study designs. Further research could involve systematic inclusion of a control group of people who are eligible but do not access SIFs, validation of self-reported proportion of injections at SIFs or a stepped-wedge or a cluster trial comparing localities. Conclusions. Methodologies appropriate for DCR/SIF evaluation have been established and can be readily replicated from the existing literature. Research on operational aspects, implementation and transferability is also warranted. [

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Běláčková¹,

Salmon²,

Day

et al. 2019

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also recruited people who use drugs ( n = 95, including people who inject drugs, people who smoke drugs like crack cocaine, and those who use drugs in both ways) as part of the larger mixed-methods study. Their opinions about supervised consumption design preferences and SIF policy are reported elsewhere [ 11 , 12 ]. In the study design, we proposed to recruit equal numbers from each city; however, during recruitment a large, multi-stakeholder, community group interested in public safety issues asked the investigators to conduct focus groups with them.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCommunity 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.FindingsWe 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.ConclusionsStakeholders 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.

show abstract

“…These studies mirror similar explorations of stakeholder attitudes undertaken in international jurisdictions. For instance, the introduction of SCSs in Toronto and Ottawa had been preceded by a large body of research on stakeholder views Watson et al, 2012;Watson et al, 2013;Strike et al, 2014;Strike et al, 2015;Watson et al, 2015;Kolla et al, 2017). Although existing literature on stakeholder views focuses predominantly on large urban centers, some international studies have also gathered insights from smaller jurisdictions (e.g., Fischer and Allard, 2007;Bardwell et al, 2017;Mitra et al, 2017).…”

Section: Box 11 Fda-approved Medications Currently Offered For Treamentioning

confidence: 99%

Considering Heroin-Assisted Treatment and Supervised Drug Consumption Sites in the United States

Kilmer¹,

Taylor²,

Caulkins³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RANDMake a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2693Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.

show abstract

Design considerations for supervised consumption facilities (SCFs): Preferences for facilities where people can inject and smoke drugs

Cited by 26 publications

References 42 publications

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders

Considering Heroin-Assisted Treatment and Supervised Drug Consumption Sites in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About