Public opinions about supervised smoking facilities for crack cocaine and other stimulants

Abstract

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsMembers 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.

The effectiveness of substance use interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed persons: A systematic review of systematic reviews on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs, and pharmacological agents for opioid use disorder

“…While public perception persists that SCFs may increase non-prescribed substance use and local crime and discourage individuals from seeking addiction treatment, such concerns are not supported by existing evidence [65,66]. The effective implementation of SCFs is unfortunately influenced by mixed public perceptions [102][103][104][105][106]. Finally, most formal evaluations, including those captured by this review, are of stand-alone SCF sites.…”

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

“…Since 2013, an increasing number of papers analysed SIF‐related laws and policies . In 2016 and 2017, a larger number of publications emphasised the need to expand DCRs/SIFs , including studies that examined the willingness to use SIFs/DCRs among people who use drugs (PWUD) , community support for these services and cost‐effectiveness of scaling them up (Figure ). The need for scale‐up was expressed mainly in papers from Canada and from counties where there are no SIFs such as the USA or UK (Figure , Figure ).…”

Práticas de redução de danos e consumo de crack

“…Entre os 9 artigos selecionados, 7 eram estudos quantitativos, (Cheng et al, 2015; Kuo, Shamsian, Tzemis & Buxton, 2014) a maioria originários de um estudo de coorte maior e 2 eram estudos qualitativos (Inglez-Dias, Ribeiro, Bastos & Page, 2018;McNeil, Kerr, Lampkin & Small, 2015). Do total, 7 eram estudos canadenses, (Cheng et al, 2015;Jozaghi, 2014;Kuo et al, 2014;McNeil et al, 2015;Shaw et al, 2015;Strik, Rotondi, Watson, Kolla & Bayoumi, 2016;Ti et al, 2012) 3 deles realizados na cidade de Vancouver (Cheng et al, 2015;Jozaghi, 2014;McNeil et al, 2015) e outros 2 eram estudos americanos, realizados na Califórnia (Carrico et al, 2014;Inglez-Dias et al, 2014). Os anos de publicação variaram entre 2012 e 2016, sendo 1 artigo de 2012 (Ti et al, 2012), 4 artigos de 2014, (Carrico et al, 2014;Inglez-Dias et al, 2014;Jozaghi, 2014;Kuo et al, 2014) 3 de 2015, (Cheng et al, 2015;McNeil et al, 2015;Shaw et al, 2015) 1 artigo de 2016 (Strik et al, 2016) e nenhum relativo aos anos de 2013 e 2017.…”

“…Todos os 9 artigos estavam relacionados com as "salas ou locais de uso controlado ou supervisionado" (SSR) e defendiam que esta estratégia era uma forte potência para a redução de danos. Destes 9 estudos, todos relatam a partilha de piteiras (8 estudos) (Carrico et al, 2014;Cheng et al, 2015;Jozaghi, 2014;Kuo et al, 2014;McNeil et al, 2015;Shaw et al, 2015;Strik et al, 2016;Ti et al, 2012) ou de seringas e agulhas (2 estudos), (Inglez-Dias et al, 2014;Shaw et al, 2015), um dos estudos aborda as duas questões, 7 estão diretamente associados ao aumento de DST's e outros danos relacionados com a saúde do usuário. Justamente esse tipo de comportamento mostra-se um fator de risco para a saúde da pessoa que usa drogas e esses locais de uso potencializam os benefícios da RD, visto que oferecem ao usuário um local limpo, seguro e com disponibilidade de materiais individuais para o consumo.…”