Supervised Injection Facilities and International Law

Malkin, Ian; Elliott, Richard; McRae, Rowan

doi:10.1177/002204260303300302

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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 . 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 ).…”

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

“…Given the known role of methadone and other forms of addiction treatment in reducing levels of injection drug use [24–27], and given that detoxification programme use was associated with reduced injecting at the SIF, our findings imply that the SIF has probably helped to reduce rates of injection drug use among users of the facility. This report should be useful, given recently raised questions about the Vancouver SIF [11–14,28], for international agencies concerned about the impacts of SIF, [13,16,29,30] and for the large number of national and international settings where the merits of SIF are currently being debated as a strategy to address the injection drug use problem [6–10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings suggest that the benefits of the SIF on public drug use and HIV risk behavior have not been offset by an increase in criminal activity in the neighborhood [ 12 , 15 ]. These findings should make a valuable contribution to the ongoing debates regarding the value of SIF, and for the cities in Canada and elsewhere that are considering initiating SIF trials [ 8 - 10 , 16 - 19 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of a medically supervised safer injecting facility on drug dealing and other drug-related crime

Wood

Tyndall

Lai

et al. 2006

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

North America's first medically supervised safer injecting facility (SIF) recently opened in Vancouver, Canada. One of the concerns prior to the SIF's opening was that the facility might lead to a migration of drug activity and an increase in drug-related crime. Therefore, we examined crime rates in the neighborhood where the SIF is located in the year before versus the year after the SIF opened. No increases were seen with respect to drug trafficking (124 vs. 116) or assaults/robbery (174 vs. 180), although a decline in vehicle break-ins/vehicle theft was observed (302 vs. 227). The SIF was not associated with increased drug trafficking or crimes commonly linked to drug use.

show abstract

Supervised Injection Facilities and International Law

Cited by 14 publications

References 9 publications

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users

Impact of a medically supervised safer injecting facility on drug dealing and other drug-related crime

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About