|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
All authors are with the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver. Thomas Kerr, Mark W. Tyndall, Julio S.G. Montaner, and Evan Wood are also with the Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Thomas Kerr, PhD, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, 608-1081 Burrard St, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6 (e-mail: tkerr{at}cfenet.ubc.ca).
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
There have been concerns that safer injecting facilities may promote initiation into injection drug use. We examined length of injecting career and circumstances surrounding initiation into injection drug use among 1065 users of North Americas first safer injecting facility and found that the median years of injection drug use were 15.9 years, and that only 1 individual reported performing a first injection at the safer injecting facility. These findings indicate that the safer injecting facilitys benefits have not been offset by a rise in initiation into injection drug use.
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In the light of concerns regarding the potential of safer injecting facilities to promote initiation into injection drug use,11 we examined length of injecting career and circumstances surrounding initiation into injection drug use among a cohort of users of a safer injecting facility in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Vancouver safer injecting facilityknown as Insiteopened in September 2003 as part of a 3-year pilot study.
The Scientific Evaluation of Supervised Injecting (SEOSI) cohort has been described previously.12 In brief, the SEOSI participants were a representative sample of users of the Insite safer injecting facility derived through random recruitment at the Insite facility. During study visits, blood samples for HIV and hepatitis C virus testing were drawn and a questionnaire was administered to elicit demographic and other information, including drug use and HIV riskassociated behavior.
| METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The negligible number of new injectors observed in the Vancouver safer injecting facility compares favorably with the proportions observed in European safer injecting facilities.11 Our findings also may reflect rules that prevent first-time injectors from using the safer injecting facility. More specifically, the staff members at the safer injecting facility ask all new visitors to the facility to sign a waiver indicating that they have injected previously, and it is known in the community that first-time injectors are prohibited from using the facility.
The findings pertaining to risky behavior during first injections were consistent with those of previous studies19 and indicated the need for interventions to prevent initiation into injection drug use and programs that promote safer injecting practices among new injectors. Given the high rates of syringe borrowing and assisted injection during the first injections reported among participants in this study, rules preventing first-time injectors from using the safer injecting facility should potentially be reevaluated. For example, perhaps first-time injectors could inject at the safer injecting facility if, after a careful assessment, an addiction counselor determined that the individual was unlikely to act on referrals to abstinence-based treatments and remained highly likely to initiate injection drug use.
This study relied on self-reports that may have been susceptible to socially desirable reporting. Although studies indicate that injection drug users may underreport undesirable behaviors, participants were blinded to this eventual use of the data, and therefore, we have no reason to believe that our estimates were biased. This assumption was further supported by the fact that our primary outcome was calculated by subtracting the age at first injection from the participants current age rather than asking directly about years of injecting. However, we recognize that socially desirable responding may have biased our estimates of the number of first injections performed at the safer injecting facility among the 14 individuals who initiated injection drug use after the safer injecting facility opened. Regardless, even if we assume that all of these individuals initiated injection drug use at the safer injecting facility, the rate of initiation into injection drug use among users of safer injecting facilities still would be lower than the rates that have been reported among similar at-risk populations.
Also, even though we generalized the rates observed in the SEOSI cohort to the overall cohort of users of the safer injecting facility, we thought that this was justifiable because SEOSI was based on a random sample and because previous comparisons between the SEOSI cohort and the overall cohort of users of the safer injecting facility have shown the 2 populations to be statistically similar.12 A further potential limitation of our study pertains to our comparison of rates of initiation into injection drug use from other settings and from previous years. We recognize that contextual and temporal differences may have limited the appropriateness of these comparisons, but local estimates were unavailable.
We found that the Vancouver safer injecting facility is used by individuals with long injecting careers and that users of the safer injecting facility were almost universally long-term injectors. Together, these findings indicate that the reported benefits of the safer injecting facility on HIV riskassociated behavior and public disorder were unlikely to have been offset by negative effects of increased rates of initiation into injection drug use.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
We wish to thank the staff of the Insite Safer Injecting Facility, the Portland Hotel Society, and Vancouver Coastal Health (Chris Buchner, David Marsh, Heather Hay). We also thank Aaron Eddie, Suzy Coulter, Megan Oleson, Peter Vann, Soni Thindal, Dave Isham, Daniel Miles Kane, Steve Gaspar, Cristy Power, Carl Bognar, Jo-Anne Stoltz, and Deborah Graham for their research and administrative assistance.
Note. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the offical policies of the studys sponsor.
Human Participant Protection
The evaluation received ethical approval from the University of British Columbia/Providence Health Care Clinical Research Ethics Board and from Health Canada.
| Footnotes |
|---|
Contributors
T. Kerr and E. Wood originated and designed the study, supervised all aspects of study implementation, drafted the article, and incorporated reviewer suggestions. T. Kerr, R. Zhang, and C. Lai conducted the statistical analyses. M. W. Tyndall and J. S. G. Montaner made significant contributions to the formulation and design of the analyses, interpretation of the data, and drafting of the article. All authors helped to interpret findings and review drafts of the article.
Accepted for publication August 16, 2006.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Poschade S, Höger R, Schnitzler J. Evaluation of the Work of the Drug Consumption Rooms in the Federal Republic of Germany [in German]. Final Report on Behalf of the Federal Ministry for Health. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos; 2003.
3. Kerr T, Tyndall M, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E. Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. Lancet.2005;366:316318.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4. Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, et al. Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. CMAJ.2004;171:731734.
5. Strang J, Fortson R. Supervised fixing rooms, supervised injectable maintenance clinicsunderstanding the difference. BMJ.2004;328:102103.
6. Wright NM, Tompkins CN. Supervised injecting centres. BMJ.2004;328:100102.
7. Capozza KL. U.S., Canada spar over anti-drug policies. United Press International. September 16, 2003.
8. Vancouvers heroin users get safe-injection site. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. September 15, 2003.
9. Vlahov D, Des Jarlais DC, Goosby E, et al. Needle exchange programs for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus infection: epidemiology and policy. Am J Epidemiol.2001;154(12 suppl):S70S77.
10. Vlahov D, Fuller CM, Ompad DC, Galea S, Des Jarlais DC. Updating the infection risk reduction hierarchy: preventing transition into injection. J Urban Health.2004;81:1419.[Web of Science][Medline]
11. Hedrich D. European Report on Drug Consumption Rooms. Lisbon, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; 2004.
12. Wood E, Kerr T, Lloyd-Smith E, et al. Methodology for evaluating Insite: Canadas first medically supervised safer injection facility for injection drug users. Harm Reduct J.2004;1:9.[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Tyndall MW, Kerr T, Zhang R, King E, Montaner JG, Wood E. Attendance, drug use patterns, and referrals made from North Americas first supervised injection facility. Drug Alcohol Depend.2006;83:193198.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
14. Poulin C, Fralick P, Whynot EM, et al. The epidemiology of cocaine and opiate abuse in urban Canada. Can J Public Health.1998;89:234238.[Web of Science][Medline]
15. Wood E, Stoltz J, Montaner J, Kerr T. Evaluating methamphetamine use and risks of injection initiation among street youth: the ARYS study. Harm Reduct J.2006;3:18.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Roy E, Haley N, Leclerc P, Cedras L, Blais L, Boivin JF. Drug injection among street youths in Montreal: predictors of initiation. J Urban Health.2003;80:92105.[Web of Science][Medline]
17. Kerr T, Marsh D, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E. Factors associated with methadone maintenance therapy use among a cohort of polysubstance using injection drug users in Vancouver. Drug Alcohol Depend.2005;80:329335.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
18. van Ameijden EJ, van den Hoek JA, Hartgers C, Coutinho RA. Risk factors for the transition from non-injection to injection drug use and accompanying AIDS risk behavior in a cohort of drug users. Am J Epidemiol.1994;139:11531163.
19. Fuller CM, Vlahov D, Latkin CA, Ompad DC, Celentano DD, Strathdee SA. Social circumstances of initiation of injection drug use and early shooting gallery attendance: implications for HIV intervention among adolescent and young adult injection drug users. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr.2003;32:8693.[Web of Science][Medline]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |