Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
News (Media Awareness Project) - Canada: ... The Opening Of A ... Safer Injecting Facility
Title:Canada: ... The Opening Of A ... Safer Injecting Facility
Published On:2004-09-28
Source:Canadian Medical Association Journal (Canada)
Fetched On:2008-01-17 22:40:25
CHANGES IN PUBLIC ORDER AFTER THE OPENING OF A MEDICALLY SUPERVISED
SAFER INJECTING FACILITY FOR ILLICIT INJECTION DRUG USERS

Abstract

Background: North America's first medically supervised safer injecting
facility for illicit injection drug users was opened in Vancouver on Sept.
22, 2003. Although similar facilities exist in a number of European cities
and in Sydney, Australia, no standardized evaluations of their impact have
been presented in the scientific literature.

Methods: Using a standardized prospective data collection protocol, we
measured injection-related public order problems during the 6 weeks before
and the 12 weeks after the opening of the safer injecting facility in
Vancouver. We measured changes in the number of drug users injecting in
public, publicly discarded syringes and injection-related litter. We used
Poisson log-linear regression models to evaluate changes in these public
order indicators while considering potential confounding variables such as
police presence and rainfall.

Results: In stratified linear regression models, the 12-week period after
the facility's opening was independently associated with reductions in the
number of drug users injecting in public (p ( 0.001), publicly discarded
syringes (p ( 0.001) and injection-related litter (p ( 0.001). The
predicted mean daily number of drug users injecting in public was 4.3 (95%
confidence interval [CI] 3.5-5.4) during the period before the facility's
opening and 2.4 (95% CI 1.9-3.0) after the opening; the corresponding
predicted mean daily numbers of publicly discarded syringes were 11.5 (95%
CI 10.0-13.2) and 5.4 (95% CI 4.7-6.2). Externally compiled statistics from
the city of Vancouver on the number of syringes discarded in outdoor safe
disposal boxes were consistent with our findings.

Interpretation: The opening of the safer injecting facility was
independently associated with improvements in several measures of public
order, including reduced public injection drug use and public syringe disposal.

Many cities are experiencing epidemics of bloodborne diseases as a result
of illicit injection drug use,1,2,3 and drug overdoses have become a
leading cause of death in many urban areas.4,5,6 Public drug use also
plagues many inner city neighbourhoods, and the unsafe disposal of syringes
in these settings is a major community concern.7,8,9,10,11,12,13

In over 2 dozen European cities and, more recently, in Sydney, Australia,
medically supervised safer injecting facilities, where injection drug users
(IDUs) can inject previously obtained illicit drugs under the supervision
of medical staff, have been established in an effort to reduce the
community and public health impacts of illicit drug use.14 Inside these
facilities IDUs are typically provided with sterile injecting equipment,
emergency care in the event of overdose, as well as primary care services
and referral to addiction treatment.13,15 Although anecdotal reports have
suggested that such sites may improve public order,12 reduce the number of
deaths from overdose16 and improve access to care,17 no standardized
evaluations of their impact are available in the scientific literature.18

On Sept. 22, 2003, health officials in Vancouver opened a
government-sanctioned safer injecting facility as pilot project. The
facility, the first in North America, is centrally located in Vancouver's
Downtown Eastside, which is the most impoverished urban neighbourhood in
Canada and home to well-documented overdose and HIV epidemics among the
estimated 5000 IDUs who reside there.19,20 Federal approval for the 3-year
project was granted on the condition that the health and social impacts of
the facility be rigorously evaluated. Although evaluation of the facility's
impact on certain outcomes (e.g., HIV incidence) is ongoing and will take
several years, it is now possible to examine the impacts of the site on
public order. Therefore, we conducted this study to test the hypothesis
that changes in improperly discarded syringes and public drug use would be
observed after the opening of the safer injecting facility.

Methods

The present study was designed before the opening of the safer injecting
facility in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and involved standardized data
collection protocols that were developed before the surveyor was trained
and before the study protocol was implemented in the field. The city of
Vancouver's activities for collecting used syringes were not modified
during the study period, to avoid this potential source of confounding. The
study design was approved by the University of British Columbia /
Providence Healthcare Research Ethics Board more than 3 months before the
opening of the safer injecting facility.

The survey protocol involved measuring specified public order indicators
within a predefined geographic area and at predefined times of the week
during the 6 weeks before and the 12 weeks after the facility opened.
Specifically, we obtained maps of the neighbourhood's network of roads and
alleyways and selected a predefined study area consisting of the 10 city
blocks that surrounded the safer injecting facility. Data collection times
were spread evenly throughout the week and involved walking through the
study zone in the same pattern from 10 am to noon on Monday, from 1 pm to 3
pm on Wednesday and from 3 pm to 5 pm on Friday each week. One of us
(W.S.), who had over 3 years' experience conducting ethnographic research
in the neighbourhood and is trained in environmental surveying and mapping
techniques, conducted all of the field surveys.

We identified 5 indicators of public disorder for measurement. Public
injection drug use, publicly discarded syringes and injection-related
litter were identified as measures of public drug use. Injection-related
litter was defined as syringe wrappers, syringe caps, sterile water
containers and "cookers" (containers used to heat drugs before injection).
We chose to measure injection-related litter in addition to discarded
syringes because Vancouver has multiple locations for syringe distribution
and return. The city's largest exchange location has observed a return rate
of used syringes of about 95%,21 and although publicly discarded syringes
are not an uncommon sight, syringe-related litter is a much more prevalent
sign of public drug use in the neighbourhood, because wrappers and other
debris are not often returned to needle exchange sites.22,23 For the fourth
indicator of public disorder, we counted the number of suspected drug
dealers as a background measure, since we assumed that this variable would
not be directly affected by the facility's opening. Finally, because law
enforcement activities are known to have an impact on the location of
injection drug use,21,24 we also evaluated the total number of police
patrols that were encountered during the hours of data collection.

Measurements were taken for 6 weeks before and 12 weeks after the opening
of the safer injecting facility. We chose these 2 periods to obtain
sufficient follow-up to afford statistical power while minimizing the
potential effect of seasonal changes on drug use patterns. In addition,
because we recognized that rainfall patterns could still confound rates of
public drug use and other public order measures, we also obtained daily
rainfall statistics from Environment Canada for the days measurements were
taken.25

We applied a statistical protocol, defined a priori, to examine the
potential relation between the public order measures and the operation of
the safer injecting facility. First, for the presentation of the crude
weekly data, we recognized that measures within the same week would likely
be highly correlated.8 Therefore, for each public order measure, we
calculated a daily average for each week from the 3 daily counts that week.
To test for changes in the various measures, we compared the daily averages
for the 6-week period before the opening of the facility with the daily
averages for the 12-week period after the opening, using the Wilcoxon
rank-sum test for non-normally distributed data. Second, we recognized
that, if there were a relation between the public order measures and the
operation of the facility, it would likely be highly dependent on the rate
of use of the facility. We therefore evaluated the number of times that the
facility was used by IDUs on the days data were collected and tested for
correlations between daily use of the facility and the daily counts of each
public order measure using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Third, we
fit Poisson log-linear regression models with the daily counts of each of
the public order measures as the dependent variable and potential
explanatory variables (e.g., police presence, rainfall) as the independent
variables. Although most IDUs do not discard their syringes in public in
Vancouver, each public order measure was considered in separate regression
models because we assumed that the measures would be highly correlated.21
We examined the independent variables in unadjusted linear regression
models and then adjusted for rainfall, police presence and study period
(before v. after the facility's opening). Parameter estimates from the
unadjusted regression models were used to calculate the predicted mean
daily numbers (and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of IDUs injecting in
public, publicly discarded syringes and injection-related litter in the 2
study periods. Finally, as an external measure of the impact of the safer
injecting facility on public drug use, we examined data from the city of
Vancouver on the number of syringes discarded in the 6 outdoor safe
disposal boxes in the study area during the 2 study periods. All p values
were 2-sided, with a significance level of p ( 0.05.

Results

The operating hours of Vancouver's safer injecting facility were 10 am to 4
am every day. The mean number of visits to the facility in the first week
of operation was 184; this number increased to 504 visits 2 months later
(Fig. 1).

When we compared data for the periods before and after the opening of the
facility, we found statistically significant reductions in the daily mean
numbers of IDUs injecting in public (4.3 [interquartile range (IQR)
4.0-4.3] v. 2.4 [IQR 1.5- 3.0]; p = 0.022), publicly discarded syringes
(11.5 [IQR 7.3- 14.3] v. 5.3 [IQR 3.0- 8.0]; p = 0.010) and
injection-related litter (601.7 [IQR 490.0-830.3] v. 305.3 [IQR 246.3-
387.0]; p = 0.014) (Fig. 1). When we tested for correlations between daily
counts of facility usage and daily counts of the 3 public order measures,
we found that the correlations were statistically significant (p ( 0.001)
in each case (public injection drug use, r = -0.48; publicly discarded
syringes, r = -0.56; and injection-related litter, r = -0.62). The daily
mean number of suspected drug dealers was 45.2 in the period before and
40.7 in the period after the opening of the facility; the difference was
not statistically significant (p = 0.34).

In the Poisson log-linear regression model in which the number of IDUs
injecting in public per day was the dependent variable, the period after
the opening of the safer injecting facility was associated with a
statistically significant reduction in the count (B coefficient = -0.59; p
( 0.001), whereas daily rainfall (B coefficient = -0.008; p = 0.42) and
police presence (B coefficient = 0.004; p = 0.91) were not. In the model
considering the number of publicly discarded syringes observed per day, all
3 variables were independently associated with a reduction in the number:
period after opening of facility, B coefficient = -0.76 (p ( 0.001); daily
rainfall, B coefficient = -0.02 (p = 0.025); and police presence, B
coefficient = 0.05 (p = 0.040). Similarly, in the third model the 3
variables were independently associated with a reduction in the count of
injection-related litter observed per day: period after opening of
facility, B coefficient = -0.66 (p ( 0.001); daily rainfall, B coefficient
= -0.006 (p ( 0.001); and police presence, B coefficient = 0.04 (p (
0.001). After adjustment for rainfall and police presence, the period after
the opening of the facility remained associated with a reduction in public
injection drug use (B coefficient = -0.61; p ( 0.001), publicly discarded
syringes (B coefficient = -0.72; p ( 0.001) and injection-related litter (B
coefficient = -0.72; p ( 0.001).

Using the parameter estimates from the unadjusted regression model, we
calculated the predicted mean daily level of each public order measure in
the periods before and after the opening of the safer injecting facility
(Table 1). The predicted mean daily number of IDUs injecting drugs in
public 4.3 (95% CI 3.5- 5.4) before the facility opened and 2.4 (95% CI
1.9- 3.0) after it opened. The corresponding values were 11.5 (95% CI
10.0-13.2) and 5.4 (95% CI 4.7-6.3) for the predicted daily mean number of
publicly discarded syringes and 601 (95% CI 590-613) and 310 (95% CI
305-317) for the predicted daily mean count of injection-related litter.

When we examined the number of syringes discarded in the neighbourhood's 6
outdoor safe disposal boxes, the mean number per box per week was
significantly higher before than after the safer injecting facility opened
(30.9 v. 9.4; p ( 0.001).

Interpretation

We found significant reductions in public injection drug use, publicly
discarded syringes and injection-related litter after the opening of the
medically supervised safer injecting facility in Vancouver. These
reductions were independent of law enforcement activities and changes in
rainfall patterns.

Our findings are consistent with anecdotal reports of improved public order
following the establishment of safer injecting facilities12,15 and are not
surprising given that a commonly reported reason for public drug use is the
lack of an alternative place to inject and that IDUs who go to safer
injecting facilities are often homeless or marginally housed.26 Our
findings are also highly plausible since more than 500 IDUs visited the
facility daily after it opened, and several feasibility studies have
suggested that IDUs who inject in public would be the most likely to use
safer injecting facilities.13,27 Our observations suggest that the
establishment of the safer injecting facility has resulted in measurable
improvements in public order, which in turn may improve the liveability of
communities and benefit tourism while reducing community concerns stemming
from public drug use and discarded syringes.7,8,9,10 It is also noteworthy
that we did not observe an increase in the number of drug dealers in the
vicinity of the facility, which indicates that the facility's opening did
not have a negative impact on drug dealing in the area. Although further
study of these issues is necessary, the safer injecting facility may also
offer public health benefits, since public injection drug use has been
associated with an array of health-related harms.11,12,18

Our study has limitations. Although we attempted to reduce the effect of
seasonality by limiting the duration of the study, a seasonal fluctuation
in drug use patterns may have affected our findings. However, our estimates
did not change significantly after adjustment for daily rainfall
statistics, and seasonal reductions in public drug use have not been
previously observed in Vancouver.23,28 The uncontrolled nature of our study
also raises the potential for an observer bias. This bias, if it existed,
is an unlikely explanation sinced our findings are consistent with
anecdotal reports from police and other agencies in the neighbourhood that
have reported reduced public injection drug use in the wake of the safer
injecting facility's opening,29,30,31 and police have reportedly been
helping IDUs find the facility. Furthermore, our findings were consistent
with the city's compiled data regarding discarded syringes in the outdoor
safe disposal boxes.

In summary, we documented significant reductions in the number of IDUs
injecting in public, publicly discarded syringes and injection-related
litter after the opening of the medically supervised safer injecting
facility. These reductions appeared to be independent of several potential
confounders, and our findings were supported by external data sources.
Although the overall health impacts of the facility will take several years
to evaluate, the findings from this study should be valuable to other
cities that are contemplating similar evaluations and should have
substantial relevance to many urban areas where public injection drug use
has been associated with substantial public health risks11,32,33 and
adverse community impacts.11,12,13

Footnotes

This article has been peer reviewed.

Contributors: Evan Wood, Mark Tyndall and Will Small were responsible for
the study design. Will Small collected the field survey data. Kathy Li
performed all statistical analyses. Evan Wood wrote the first draft of the
manuscript and compiled the coauthors suggestions. All of the authors
contributed to the conceptualization of the study and the various drafts of
the manuscript and approved the final version.

Acknowledgements: We thank the staff of the Insite safer injecting facility
and Vancouver Coastal Health (Chris Buchner, Heather Hay). We also thank
Bonnie Devlin, Evelyn King, Aaron Eddie, Peter Vann, Dave Isham, Steve
Gaspar, Carl Bognar, Martin Schechter, Suzy Coulter and Steve Kain for
their administrative assistance and suggestions.

This study was made possible by a financial contribution from Health
Canada, although the views expressed herein do not represent the official
policies of Health Canada.

Competing interests: None declared.

Correspondence to: Dr. Evan Wood, Division of Epidemiology and Population
Health, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, 608-1081 Burrard St.,
Vancouver BC V6Z 1Y6; fax 604 806-9044; ewood@cfenet.ubc.ca

References

Strathdee SA, Galai N, Safaiean M, Celentano DD, Vlahov D, Johnson L, et
al. Sex differences in risk factors for HIV seroconversion among injection
drug users: a 10-year perspective. Arch Intern Med
2001;161(10):1281-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Des Jarlais DCP, Friedman SRP, Hagan HMPH. Maintaining low HIV
seroprevalence among injecting drug users. JAMA 1996;275(8):597-8.

Tyndall MW, Currie S, Spittal P, Li K, Wood E, O'Shaughnessy MV, et al.
Intensive injection cocaine use as the primary risk factor in the Vancouver
HIV-1 epidemic. AIDS 2003;17(6):887-93.[CrossRef][Medline]

Garfield J, Drucker E. Fatal overdose trends in major US cities: 1990-97.
Addict Res Theory 2001;9(5):425-36.

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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Coffin PO, Galea S, Ahern J, Leon AC, Vlahov D, Tardiff K. Opiates,
cocaine, and alcohol combinations in accidental drug overdose deaths in New
York City, 1990-98. Addiction 2003;98(6):739-47.[CrossRef][Medline]

Doherty MC, Garfein RS, Vlahov D, Junge B, Rathouz PJ, Galai N, et al.
Discarded needles do not increase soon after the opening of a needle
exchange program. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145(8):730-7.[Abstract]

Doherty MC, Junge B, Rathouz P, Garfein RS, Riley E, Vlahov D. The effect
of a needle exchange program on numbers of discarded needles: a 2-year
follow-up. Am J Public Health 2000;90(6):936-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Broadhead RS, van Hulst Y, Heckathorn DD. The impact of a needle exchange's
closure. Public Health Rep 1999;114(5):439-47.[CrossRef][Medline]

Oliver KJ, Friedman SR, Maynard H, Magnuson L, Des Jarlais DC. Impact of a
needle exchange program on potentially infectious syringes in public
places. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1992;5(5):534-5.[Medline]

Dovey K, Fitzgerald J, Choi Y. Safety becomes danger: dilemmas of drug-use
in public space. Health Place 2001;7(4):319-31.[CrossRef][Medline]

Broadhead RS, Kerr TH, Altice FL. Safer injection facilities in North
America: their place in public policy and health initiatives. J Drug Issues
2002; 32 (1): 329-55.

Wood E, Kerr T, Spittal PM, Li K, Small W, Tyndall MW, et al. The potential
public health and community impacts of safer injecting facilities: evidence
from a cohort of injection drug users. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2003; 32
(1): 2-8.[Medline]

Kimber J, Dolan K, van Beek I, Hedrich D, Zurhold H. Drug consumption
facilities: an update since 2000. Drug Alcohol Rev
2003;22(2):227-33.[CrossRef][Medline]

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

De Jong W, Wever 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.[CrossRef]

Final report of the evaluation of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting
Centre. Kings Cross (Australia): Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting
Centre; Available: www.sydneymsic.com/Bginfo.htm [click on link to PDF of
report] (accessed 2004 June 17).

Wood E, Kerr T, Montaner JS, Strathdee SA, Wodak A, Hankins CA, et al.
Rationale for evaluating North America's first medically supervised safer
injecting facility. Lancet Infect Dis 2004;4:301-6.[CrossRef][Medline]

Strathdee SA, Patrick DM, Currie SL, Cornelisse PG, Rekart ML, Montaner JS,
et al. Needle exchange is not enough: lessons from the Vancouver injecting
drug use study. AIDS 1997;11(8):F59-65.

Wood E, Schechter MT, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS, O'Shaughnessy MV, Hogg RS.
Antiretroviral medication use among injection drug users: two potential
futures. AIDS 2000;14(9):1229-35.[CrossRef][Medline]

Wood E, Spittal PM, Small W, Kerr T, Li K, Hogg RS, et al. Displacement of
Canada's largest public illicit drug market in response to a police
crackdown. CMAJ 2004;170(10):1551-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kerr T, Small W, Peeace W, Pierre A, Wood E. Harm reduction by a 'user-run'
organization: a case study of the Vancouver area network of drug users. Int
J Drug Policy In press.

Spittal P, Small W, Laliberte N, Johnson C, Wood E. How otherwise well
meaning exchange agents can contribute to limited sterile syringe
availability in Vancouver, Canada. Int J Drug Policy 2003;15(1):36-45.

Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Jones J, Schechter MT, Tyndall MW. The impact of
police presence on access to needle exchange programs. J Acquir Immune
Defic Syndr 2003;34(1):116-8.[Medline]

Canadian climate data report. Ottawa: Health Canada. Available:
www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/hourlydata_e.html (accessed
2004 June 17).

Fry C, Fox S, Rumbold G. Establishing safe injecting rooms in Australia:
attitudes of injecting drug users. Aust N Z J Public Health
1999;23(5):501-4.[Medline]

Kerr T, Wood E, Small D, Palepu A, Tyndall M. Potential use of safer
injecting facilities among injection drug users in Vancouver's Downtown
Eastside. CMAJ 2003;169(8):759-63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wood E, Kerr T, Spittal PM, Small W, Tyndall MW, O'Shaughnessy MV, et al.
An external evaluation of a peer-run "unsanctioned" syringe exchange
program. J Urban Health 2003;80(3):455-64.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Safe injection site no problem, say police. Vancouver: CBC News British
Columbia; 2004 Mar 3. Available:
http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=3Dbc_vpd_sis20040303

(accessed 2004 June 17). Street injections down, police say. Vancouver Sun
2003 Nov 18; Sect B:6.

Fewer addicts shooting up on streets since injection site opened: police.
Nanaimo Daily News 2003 Nov 18; Sect A:5. Klee H, Morris J. Factors that
characterize street injectors. Addiction 1995; 90 (6):
837-41.[CrossRef][Medline]

Darke S, Kaye S, Ross J. Geographical injecting locations among injecting
drug users in Sydney, Australia. Addiction 2001;96(2):241-6.[CrossRef][Medline]
Member Comments
No member comments available...