Mobile supervised consumption services in Rural British Columbia: lessons learned

Mema, Silvina C.; Frosst, Gillian; Bridgeman, Jessica; Drake, Hilary; Dolman, Corinne; Lappalainen, Leslie; Corneil, Trevor

doi:10.1186/s12954-018-0273-3

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beginning in December 2016, multiple overdose prevention sites (OPS) and supervised consumption sites (SCS) opened across the province, including two mobile units in Kelowna and Kamloops [ 5 ]. These services complemented the two supervised injection facilities (SIF) that already existed in Vancouver (InSite and the Dr. Peter Centre).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the population-level effects of overdose prevention sites and supervised consumption sites in British Columbia, Canada: Controlled interrupted time series

Panagiotoglou

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background On 14 April 2016, British Columbia’s Provincial Medical Health Officer declared the overdose crisis a public health emergency, sanctioning the implementation of new overdose prevention sites (OPS) and supervised consumption sites (SCS) across the province. Methods We used the BC Centre for Disease Control’s Provincial Overdose Cohort of all overdose events between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2017 to evaluate the population-level effects of OPSs and SCSs on acute health service use and mortality. We matched local health areas (LHA) that implemented any site with propensity score matched controls and conducted controlled interrupted time series analysis. Results During the study period, twenty-five OPSs and SCSs opened across fourteen of British Columbia’s 89 LHAs. Results from analysis of LHAs with matched controls (i.e. excluding Vancouver DTES) were mixed. Significant declines in reported overdose events, paramedic attendance, and emergency department visits were observed. However, there were no changes to trends in monthly hospitalization or mortality rates. Extensive sensitivity analyses found these results persisted. Conclusions We found OPSs and SCSs reduce opioid-related paramedic attendance and emergency department visit rates but no evidence that they reduce local hospitalization or mortality rates.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the population-level effects of overdose prevention sites and supervised consumption sites in British Columbia, Canada: Controlled interrupted time series

Panagiotoglou

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Females, younger participants and more educated participants were more supportive than males, older and less educated participants [12]. However, support was lower in rural areas of the province [13].…”

Section: Public Views Regarding Supervised Injection Facilitiesmentioning

confidence: 87%

French People’s positions on supervised injection facilities for drug users

Sastre

Mullet

2020

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Supervised injection facilities have been set-up in many countries to curb the health risks associated with unsafe injection practices. These facilities have, however, been met with vocal opposition, notably in France. As harm reduction policies can only succeed to the extent that people agree with them, this study mapped French people’s opinions regarding the setting-up of these facilities. Method A sample of 318 adults--among them health professionals--were presented with 48 vignettes depicting plans to create a supervised injection facility in their town. Each vignette contained three pieces of information: (a) the type of substance that would be injected in the facility (amphetamines only, amphetamines and cocaine only, or amphetamines, cocaine and heroin), (b) the type of staff who would be working in the facility (physicians and nurses, specially trained former drug users, specially trained current drug users, or trained volunteers recruited by the municipality), and (c) the staff members’ mission (to be present and observe only, technical counselling about safe injection, counselling about safe injection and hygiene, or counselling and encouragement to follow a detoxification program). Results Through cluster analysis, three qualitatively different positions were found: Not very acceptable (20%), Depends on staff and mission (49%), and Always acceptable (31%). These positions were associated with demographic characteristics--namely gender, age and political orientation. Conclusion French people’s positions regarding supervised injection facilities were extremely diverse. One type of facility would, however, be accepted by a large majority of people: supervised injection facilities run by health professionals whose mission would be, in addition to technical and hygienic counselling, to encourage patrons to enter detoxification or rehabilitation programs.

show abstract

“… 1 Additionally, literature shows that MHCs have been effectively utilized in health care crises such as the opioid epidemic. 2 , 3 , 4 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pediatric Mobile Health Care Delivery During COVID-19

Nass

Chase

Buncher

et al. 2022

Academic Pediatrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobile supervised consumption services in Rural British Columbia: lessons learned

Cited by 20 publications

References 14 publications

Evaluating the population-level effects of overdose prevention sites and supervised consumption sites in British Columbia, Canada: Controlled interrupted time series

Evaluating the population-level effects of overdose prevention sites and supervised consumption sites in British Columbia, Canada: Controlled interrupted time series

French People’s positions on supervised injection facilities for drug users

Pediatric Mobile Health Care Delivery During COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About