Risk creating and risk reducing: Community perceptions of supervised consumption facilities for illicit drug use

Kolla, Gillian; Strike, Carol; Watson, Tara Marie; Jairam, Jennifer A.; Fischer, Benedikt; Bayoumi, Ahmed M.

doi:10.1080/13698575.2017.1291918

Cited by 48 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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 ).…”

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

“…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

“…There are over 100 SIFs in 60 cities around the world; they are legal and hygienic spaces that drug users can avail of with access to clean equipment and expert staff who can regulate their drug intake to ensure any risk is minimalised. Kolla et al (2017) Closer to home there are plans to introduce SIFs in Dublin (Murtagh, 2018) and Glasgow (BBC News Scotland, 2017) but they have met with the predictable NIMBYism and ill-informed stakeholder negativity. The Dublin case throws up specific relevance to this paper in that "planning permission would be required for whichever organisation won the tender to operate the project" (Brophy, 2018).…”

Section: Image 1: 'Drug Litter'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Illegal geographies and spatial planning: developing a dialogue on drugs

Boland

Fox-Rogers

McKay

et al. 2018

Territory, Politics, Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONIn 2015 a special issue of this journal dedicated to illegal geographies contained six studies on the "relationships between clandestine economies and the political geographies of law enforcement" (Banister, Boyce and Slack, 2015, p. 365). The unifying thread between the papers was their focus on illegal drugs, with some interesting nods to the role of land use planning (Polson, 2015).More recently, in another journal De Leo (2017, p 216) discusses the "links between urban planning and organised crime". Responding to this emergent body of scholarship in geography and planning we unpack and problematize the links between illegal drugs and spatial planningthe drugs-planning nexus. Moreover, in developing a dialogue on drugs we set the context for a new research agenda for the territoriality, governance and planning of contemporary cityspaces. The first point to make is that a reading of the academic literature reveals the overwhelming majority of planners do not dedicate their mind or motives to the massive issue of illegal drugs.Historically planning discourse has been framed under umbrella narratives such as the public interest (Lennon, 2016) and sustainable development (Davidson and Gleeson, 2014); today the trendy concepts are competitiveness (Boland, 2014), climate change (Wilson and Piper, 2010), resilience (Mehmood, 2016), health and wellbeing (Tewdwr-Jones, 2017). The eclectic nature of modern spatial planning encompasses almost every issue facing the modern city, from children's diet to the futurity of the planet. We deliberately emphasise the adjective almost because there is one notable, to us perplexing, omission in the intellectual focus of planners. Souza (2006, p. 333, our inset) explains "drug trafficking [and use] is an important challenge…for urban planning".However, there is a limited number of papers addressing drugs from a planning perspective (e.g. ). Regarding practice, at different spatialities of the UK's planning framework health, wellbeing, crime and anti-social behaviour are mentioned; however, in comparative terms drugs, and their often deleterious spatial and social consequences, are not discussed in any substantive or systematic manner in any planning strategy or policy document. Thus, drugs seemingly do not occupy the mindset of planners in universities or councils. Even in an era of inter-professional working and healthy urban planning the issue remains disconnected from praxis. Instead, drugs are largely the focus of other social science disciplines (e.g. geography, sociology, criminology and economics) and responsibility of other public officials. 2For us drugs are a planning problem. This necessitates planning scholars and practitioners to be just as familiar with the drugs debate as they are with child obesity or global warming; i.e. moving beyond simplistic stereotyping of 'druggies' and sensationalist statements such as 'drugs cause crime' and 'drugs kill'. These at best misleading axioms, peddled by professionals (e.g. scientists, politicians and the police 1 ) an...

show abstract

Risk creating and risk reducing: Community perceptions of supervised consumption facilities for illicit drug use

Cited by 48 publications

References 46 publications

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

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

Illegal geographies and spatial planning: developing a dialogue on drugs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About