Abstract
Canada has been a pioneer in adopting a harm reduction approach to address risks associated with drug use for people who inject drugs. Today, Canada is home to 39 supervised injection sites spread throughout the country. The scientific literature demonstrates, unequivocally, that these sites have numerous health benefits for people who inject drugs, namely by decreasing risks of blood-borne diseases, overdose, and mortality. Yet, a lack of clear guidelines on optimal locations for the implementation of such sites and NIMBYISM (“Not In My Back Yard”) have been stumbling blocks for planned and operating sites. Various Canadian governments have introduced their own policies to overcome the lack of national public health guidelines on community planning. Namely, policies aim to limit the exposure to sites and drug use for vulnerable populations, such as children. However, there is a veritable lack of research on the public health impacts of supervised injection sites for local communities, who tend to be disadvantaged. The existing literature fails to address the broader and differential impacts of such sites for local vulnerable and disadvantaged populations, including use of active transportation, psychological distress, perceived safety, and social cohesion. Moreover, existing research, largely focusing on assessing pre-implementation social acceptability and post-implementation impacts on crime, faces important methodological limitations. The following commentary reviews the existing literature and makes recommendations for future public health research on the impacts of supervised injection sites.
Résumé
Le Canada a été un pionnier dans l’adoption de l’approche de réduction des méfaits liés à la consommation de drogues pour les personnes utilisatrices de drogues par injection. Aujourd’hui, le Canada compte 39 sites d’injection supervisée répartis sur l’ensemble du territoire. La littérature scientifique démontre sans équivoque que ces sites présentent de nombreux avantages pour la santé des personnes utilisatrices de drogues par injection, notamment en réduisant les risques de maladies transmises par le sang, de surdoses et de décès. Toutefois, l’absence de lignes directrices claires sur les emplacements optimaux pour l’implantation de ces sites et le phénomène du « pas dans ma cour » (“Not In My Back Yard”) représentent des défis pour les sites existants et futurs. Plusieurs gouvernements canadiens ont introduit des politiques pour pallier l’absence de lignes directrices nationales en matière de santé publique et de planification communautaire. Ces politiques visent à limiter l’exposition aux sites d’injection supervisée et à la consommation de drogues pour les populations vulnérables, comme les enfants. Cependant, il y a un véritable manque de connaissances quant aux impacts en matière de santé publique des sites d’injection supervisée pour les communautés locales, qui ont tendance à être défavorisées. La littérature existante n’aborde pas les impacts élargis et différentiels de ces sites pour les populations vulnérables et défavorisées résidant à proximité, particulièrement sur l’utilisation des transports actifs, la détresse psychologique, la perception de sécurité et la cohésion sociale. En outre, la recherche existante, qui se concentre principalement sur l’évaluation de l’acceptabilité sociale avant l’implantation des sites et sur les impacts sur la criminalité après l’implantation des sites, se heurte à d’importantes limites méthodologiques. Ce commentaire fait état de la littérature existante et formule des recommandations pour de futures recherches sur les impacts en matière de santé publique des sites d’injection supervisée.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Change history
29 April 2024
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-024-00892-8
References
Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2008). The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.02.001
Côté-Lussier, C., Fitzpatrick, C., Séguin, L., & Barnett, T. A. (2015). Poor, unsafe, and overweight: The role of feeling unsafe at school in mediating the association among poverty exposure, youth screen time, physical activity, and weight status. American Journal of Epidemiology, 182(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwv005
Davidson, P. J., Lambdin, B. H., Browne, E. N., Wenger, L. D., & Kral, A. H. (2021). Impact of an unsanctioned safe consumption site on criminal activity, 2010–2019. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 220, 108521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108521
Donnelly, N. & Mahoney, N. (2013). Trends in property and illicit drug crime around the medically supervised injecting centre in Kings Cross: 2012 update. New South Wales, Australia: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 90, 1–10. https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/BB/bb90.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2023
Johnson, S. (2010). A brief history of the analysis of crime concentration. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 21(4–5), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956792510000082
Kerr, T., Mitra, S., Kennedy, M. C., & McNeil, R. (2017). Supervised injection facilities in Canada: Past, present, and future. Harm Reduction Journal, 14(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-017-0154-1
Kolla, G., Strike, C., Watson, T. M., Jairam, J., Fischer, B., & Bayoumi, A. M. (2017). Risk creating and risk reducing: Community perceptions of supervised consumption facilities for illicit drug use. Health, Risk & Society, 19(1–2), 91–111.
Levengood, T. W., Yoon, G. H., Davoust, M. J., Ogden, S. N., Marshall, B. D. L., Cahill, S. R., & Bazzi, A. R. (2021). Supervised injection facilities as harm reduction: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 61(5), 738–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.04.017
Myer, A. J., & Belisle, L. (2018). Highs and lows: An interrupted time-series evaluation of the impact of North America’s only supervised injection facility on crime. Journal of Drug Issues, 48(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042617727513
Pijl, E. (2020). Urban social issues study: Impacts of the Lethbridge supervised consumption site on the local neighbourhood. Lethbridge: University of Lethbridge. https://opus.uleth.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/e00b20f7-cb43-4b16-a224-b1df62bb07a6/content. Accessed 19 Oct 2023
Potier, C., Laprévote, V., Dubois-Arber, F., Cottencin, O., & Rolland, B. (2014). Supervised injection services: What has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 145, 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.10.012
Rhodes, T., Kimber, J., Small, W., Fitzgerald, J., Kerr, T., Hickman, M., & Holloway, G. (2006). Public injecting and the need for ‘safer environment interventions’ in the reduction of drug-related harm. Addiction, 101(10), 1384–1393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01556.x
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2001). Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(3), 258–276.
Rudzinski, K., Xavier, J., Guta, A., Chan Carusone, S., King, K., Phillips, J. C., et al. (2021). Feasibility, acceptability, concerns, and challenges of implementing supervised injection services at a specialty HIV hospital in Toronto, Canada: Perspectives of people living with HIV. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1482. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11507-z
Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in Black and White: Ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611104271105
Wood, E., Tyndall, M. W., Lai, C., Montaner, J. S., & Kerr, T. (2006). Impact of a medically supervised safer injecting facility on drug dealing and other drug-related crime. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 1, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-1-13
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CCL: conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation, writing—reviewing and editing. PR: writing—original draft preparation, writing—reviewing and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article was updated to change “100 m” to “15 m” in the following sentence in the Impact of SIS on local communities section: In September 2023, the BC government banned illicit drug use within 15 m of playgrounds, spray and wading pools, and skate parks.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Côté-Lussier, C., Rodrigues, P. The public health impacts of supervised injection sites in Canada: Moving beyond social acceptability and impacts on crime. Can J Public Health (2024). https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-024-00874-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-024-00874-w