Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

My Place, Your Place, or a Safer Place

The Intention Among Montréal Injecting Drug Users to Use Supervised Injecting Facilities

  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Public Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Supervised injection facilities (SIF), a harm reduction intervention, may reduce several risks of public injection drug use. The prospect of conducting a scientific, multi-site pilot project of these facilities is being explored at federal and local levels in Canada. Experiences with SIF in Europe and Australia indicate that successful outcomes for the community ultimately hinge upon the responsiveness and relevance of the facilities to the needs of their primary target group: people who inject drugs in public places. Consideration of the factors and conditions found to influence a potential user’s uptake of SIF, therefore, is imperative. This study sought to assess the acceptability of SIF and to determine factors associated with willingness of injecting drug users (IDU) to use SIF in a city considering their establishment.

Methods

From April 2001 to February 2002, following key informant interviews, a crosssectional study was conducted among publicly injecting IDU participating in an ongoing HIV surveillance study in Montréal. Univariate and bivariate analyses preceded logistic regression.

Results

Participants were 11 key informants and 251 publicly injecting IDU. Key informants generated the Montréal-specific SIF model subsequently presented to IDU. 76% of IDU were willing to use at least one of three proposed SIF sites. Exploratory multivariable models indicated drug-use characteristics and SIF attributes as determinants of outcome: predominant cocaine injection, history of overdose, knowing about SIF, relieving and empowering feelings toward using SIF, and comfort with disclosure of one’s injecting drug use.

Conclusion

User consultations are essential to assess relevance and plan SIF acceptable to IDU.

Résumé

Contexte

Les piqueries supervisées, une mesure de réduction des méfaits, peuvent réduire plusieurs des risques liés à l’utilisation de drogues injectables en public. Au Canada, on étudie aux paliers fédéral et local la possibilité de mener un projet pilote scientifique dans plusieurs installations à la fois. L’expérience des piqueries supervisées a été tentée en Europe et en Australie et semble indiquer que des résultats favorables à la collectivité dépendent en bout de ligne de la polyvalence des installations et de leur adaptation aux besoins de leur principal groupe cible: les personnes qui s’injectent des drogues dans des lieux publics. Il est donc impératif de prendre en considération les facteurs et les conditions connus pour influencer la bonne réaction de cette clientèle à ces installations. La présente étude visait à évaluer l’acceptabilité des piqueries supervisées et à déterminer les facteurs associés à la volonté des utilisateurs de drogues injectables (UDI) d’y recourir dans une ville qui songe à établir de telles installations.

Méthode

Entre avril 2001 et février 2002, à la suite d’entretiens avec des informateurs clés, nous avons mené une étude transversale auprès d’UDI qui s’injectaient dans des lieux publics. Ces UDI participaient déjà à une étude de surveillance du VIH à Montréal. Des analyses univariée et bivariée ont été suivies d’une analyse de régression logistique.

Résultats

Onze informateurs clés et 251 UDI s’injectant dans des lieux publics ont participé à notre étude. Les informateurs clés ont produit le modèle montréalais des piqueries supervisées, que nous avons ensuite présenté aux UDI. Soixante-seize p. cent des UDI étaient disposés à utiliser au moins une des trois piqueries supervisées qui leur étaient proposées. Des modèles multivariables préliminaires ont mis au jour des profils de consommation de drogues et des attributs des piqueries supervisées qui pourraient avoir un effet déterminant sur les résultats, à savoir: l’injection prédominante de cocaïne; les antécédents de surdose; le fait d’avoir entendu parler des piqueries supervisées; les sentiments de soulagement et de renforcement de l’autonomie liés à l’utilisation des piqueries supervisées; et la facilité à divulguer sa propre consommation de drogues injectables.

Conclusion

La consultation des utilisateurs est un élément essentiel lorsqu’on veut évaluer la pertinence des piqueries supervisées et planifier des installations acceptables aux yeux des UDI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schneider WSH (Ed.). Guidelines for the operation and use of consumption rooms. Developed at the conference: Consumption rooms as a professional service in addictions health. Munster, Germany: Akzept Bundesverband, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dolan K, Kimber J, Fry C, Fitzgerald J, McDonald D, Trautmann F. Drug consumption facilities in Europe and the establishment of supervised injecting centres in Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev 2000;19:337–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaldor J, Lapsley H, Mattick R, Weatherburn D, Kimber J, MacDonald M. Six Month Process Report on the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Federal, Provincial, Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health; F/P/T Committee on Alcohol and Other Drug Issues; F/P/T Advisory Committee on AIDS; F/P/T Heads of Corrections Working Group on HIV/AIDS. Reducing the Harm Associated with Injection Drug Use in Canada. 2001 Sept. Ottawa, ON: The Committees, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pemberton K, Petrozzi A. ‘Huge step’ for safe injection sites. Vancouver Sun Nov 2, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Task Group on the Feasibility of a Supervised Injection Site Research Project in Canada. Consensus statement. April 27, 2001. Ottawa, ON: Office of Drug Strategy, Health Canada, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  7. MacPherson D, Rowley M. A framework for action: A four-pillar approach to drug problems in Vancouver. Draft discussion paper. Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Spittal PM, Li K, Kerr T, Hogg RS, et al. Unsafe injection practices in a cohort of injection drug users in Vancouver: Could safer injecting rooms help? CMAJ 2001;165(4):405–10.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kerr T, Palepu A. Safe injection facilities in Canada: Is it time? CMAJ 2001;165(4):436–37.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kerr T. Safe injection facilities: Proposal for a Vancouver pilot project. Vancouver, Canada: Harm Reduction Action Society; 2000.[cited 2001 Apr 20] Available on-line at: https://doi.org/www.lindesmith.org/library/safe_injection.html.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hankins C, Alary M, Parent R, Noel L, Claessens C, the SurvUDI Working Group. Long-term cocaine injectors at highest risk for HIV acquisition. Proceedings of XIII International AIDS Conference, Durban, South Africa, July 9, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Malkin I, Gold J, Elliott R. Establishing safe injection sites: Issues, obstacles, and obligations. Montréal, QC: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Meeting Summary. April 26, 2001; Aylmer, QC: Office of Canada’s Drug Strategy, Health Canada, internal document, 2001.

  14. Elliott R, Malkin I, Gold J. Establishing safe injection facilities in Canada: Legal and ethical issues. Montréal, QC: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hankins CA, Parent R, Alary M, Noel L, Claessens C. Le Réseau SurvUDI: Qui sont les UDI qui sont déjà infectés par le VIH? Rapport intérimaire. Québec: Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, Québec, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Remis RS, Bruneau J, Hankins CA. Enough sterile syringes to prevent HIV transmission among injection drug users in Montréal? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1998;18(Suppl 1):S57–S59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hankins C, Alary M, Parent R, Blanchette C, Claessens C and the SurvUDI Working Group. Continuing HIV Transmission Among Injection Drug Users in Eastern Central Canada: The SurvUDI Study 1995–2000. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002;30:514–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. de Jong W, Weber U. The professional acceptance of drug use: A closer look at drug consumption rooms in the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. Int J Drug Policy 1999;10:99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fischer B, Kirst M, Rehm J, Kim G. Safe injection facilities: Goals, impact and recent developments. Presented at the Journée Scientifique “Les Lieux d’Injection Supervisés”, Montréal Regional Department of Public Health, Nov 22, 2001, Montréal, QC.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Green TC. My place, your place, or a safer place: The intention among Montreal injecting drug users to use supervised injecting facilities. Master’s Thesis. McGill University, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. Logistic Regression: A Self-Learning Text, 2nd edition. New York: Springer Verlag, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hosmer DW Jr, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fry C, Fox S, Rumbold G. Establishing safer injection rooms in Australia: Attitudes of injecting drug users. Aust N Z J Public Health 1999;23(5):501–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Fry C, Testro R. “Not just for us...” Safe injecting rooms: A survey of the attitudes of 215 streetbased heroin users in Melbourne, Victoria. Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia: Youth Substance Abuse Service in association with Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  25. van Beek I, Gilmour S. Preference to have used a medically supervised injecting centre among injecting drug users in Kings Cross, Sydney. Aust N Z J Public Health 2000;24(5):540–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kemmesies UE. The open drug scene and the safe injection room offers in Frankfurt am Main: Final report. Frankfurt, Germany: City of Frankfurt, municipal department women and health, drug policy coordination office; 1995. [cited 2001 Dec 13] Available on-line at: https://doi.org/www.home.muenster.net/~indro/injection_room.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hankins CA. Syringe exchange in Canada: Good but not enough to stem the HIV tide. Subst Use Misuse 1998;33(5):1129–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Remis R, Leclerc P. Consortium to characterize injection drug users in Canada (Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver). Final Report. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Traci C. Green MSc, Catherine A. Hankins MD, MSc, FRCPC, Jean-François Boivin MD, ScD, FRCPC & Robert Platt PhD

  2. Montréal Regional Public Health Department, Montréal, Canada

    Catherine A. Hankins MD, MSc, FRCPC, Darlène Palmer & Jean-François Boivin MD, ScD, FRCPC

  3. Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Montréal, Canada

    Catherine A. Hankins MD, MSc, FRCPC

  4. 23 Ellsworth Ave., #2, Cambridge, MA, 02139-1009, USA

    Traci C. Green MSc

Authors
  1. Traci C. Green MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine A. Hankins MD, MSc, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Darlène Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-François Boivin MD, ScD, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert Platt PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Traci C. Green MSc.

Additional information

Acknowledgements: This research was supported in part by a grant from the Centre québécois de coordination sur le sida, of the Québec Ministry of Health and Social Services (MSSS, Québec). The authors gratefully acknowledge the Québec Ministry of Health and Social Services (MSSS, Québec) for their support of this research. Thanks to Dr. Joanne Otis for advice on the theoretical aspects and measurements used in this study; to the SurvUDI Study interviewers, Mélissa Prévost and Karine Lavoie, and the study site collaborators; to Dr. Hankins’ research team at the Direction de la Santé Publique à Montréal, Karina Pourreaux, Andréa Hankins-Palmer, Nicole Labrie, and Jing-Ou Shu, who were instrumental in facilitating the planning, data collection, and analysis of this work; and to the 11 key informants and 251 publicly injecting drug users who participated in the SIF Study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Green, T.C., Hankins, C.A., Palmer, D. et al. My Place, Your Place, or a Safer Place. Can J Public Health 95, 110–114 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03405777

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03405777

Search

Navigation