supervised injection facilities
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

35
(FIVE YEARS 8)

H-INDEX

11
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliana Duncan ◽  
Sarah Shufelt ◽  
Meredith Barranco ◽  
Tomoko Udo

Abstract Background Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) provide spaces where persons who inject drugs (PWID) can inject under medical supervision and access harm reductions services. Though SIFs are not formally established in the US, such facilities are being considered for approval in several New York State (NYS) communities. No data exists from PWID in NYS, and little from outside major US urban centers, on willingness to use SIFs and associated factors. Methods This analysis included 285 PWID (mean age=38.7; 57.7% male; 72.3% non-Hispanic white) recruited for a study on hepatitis C prevalence among PWID in Upstate New York, where participants were recruited from syringe exchange programs (n=80) and able to refer other PWID from their injection networks (n=223). Participants completed an electronic questionnaire that included a brief description of SIFs and assessed willingness to use SIFs. We compared sociodemographic characteristics, drug use/harm reduction history, healthcare experience, and stigma between participants who were willing vs. unwilling to use such programs. Results Overall, 67.4% were willing to use SIFs, 18.3% unwilling, and 14.4% unsure. Among those reporting being willing or unwilling, we found higher willingness among those who were currently homeless (91.8% vs. 74.6%; p=0.004), who had interacted with police in the past 12 months (85.7% vs. 74.5%; p=0.04), and who were refused service within a healthcare setting (100% vs. 77.1%; p=0.03). Conclusion Our results support SIF acceptability in several Upstate New York PWID communities, particularly among those reporting feelings of marginalization. A large proportion reported being unsure about usage of SIFs, suggesting room for educating PWID on the potential benefits of this service. Our results support SIF acceptability in NYS and may facilitate reaching PWID subgroups that are most marginalized, should SIFs become available.


Author(s):  
Timothy W. Levengood ◽  
Grace H. Yoon ◽  
Melissa J. Davoust ◽  
Shannon N. Ogden ◽  
Brandon D.L. Marshall ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Maria Teresa Munoz Sastre ◽  
Lonzozou Kpanake ◽  
Etienne Mullet

Abstract 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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-25
Author(s):  
Shannon R. Kenney ◽  
Bradley J. Anderson ◽  
Genie L. Bailey ◽  
Debra S. Herman ◽  
Micah T. Conti ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 106 ◽  
pp. 79-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Czarina N. Behrends ◽  
Denise Paone ◽  
Michelle L. Nolan ◽  
Ellenie Tuazon ◽  
Sean M. Murphy ◽  
...  

JAMA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 321 (8) ◽  
pp. 745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence O. Gostin ◽  
James G. Hodge ◽  
Chelsea L. Gulinson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document