People who require help injecting are disproportionately vulnerable to drug-related harm, including HIV transmission. North America’s only sanctioned SIF operates in Vancouver, Canada under an exemption to federal drug laws, which imposes operating regulations prohibiting assisted injections. In response, the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) launched a peer-run unsanctioned SIF in which trained peer volunteers provide assisted injections to increase the coverage of supervised injection services and minimize drug-related harm. We undertook qualitative interviews (n=23) and ethnographic observation (50 hours) to explore how this facility shaped assisted injection practices. Findings indicated that VANDU reshaped the social, structural, and spatial contexts of assisted injection practices in a manner that minimized HIV and other health risks, while allowing people who require help injecting to escape drug scene violence. Findings underscore the need for changes to regulatory frameworks governing SIFs to ensure that they accommodate people who require help injecting.

Introduction Many cities around the globe have experienced substantial increases in crack cocaine use. Public health programmes have begun to address crack smoking, primarily through the distribution of safer crack use equipment, but their impacts have been limited. More comprehensive safer environmental interventions, specifically safer smoking rooms (SSR), have been implemented only in select European cities. However, none have been subjected to rigorous evaluation. This ethnographic study was undertaken at an ‘unsanctioned’ SSR operated by a drug user-led organization in Vancouver, Canada, to explore how this intervention shaped crack smoking practices, public crack smoking, and related harms. Methods Ethnographic fieldwork was undertaken at this SSR from September to December 2011, and included approximately 50 hours of ethnographic observation and 23 in-depth interviews with people who smoke crack. Data were analyzed by drawing on the ‘Risk Environment’ framework and concepts of ‘symbolic’, ‘everyday’, and ‘structural’ violence. Findings Our findings illustrate how a high demand for SSRs was driven by the need to minimize exposure to policing (structural violence), drug scene violence (everyday violence), and stigma (symbolic violence) that characterized unregulated drug use settings (e.g., public spaces). Although resource scarcity and social norms operating within the local drug scene (e.g., gendered power relations) perpetuated crack pipe-sharing within unregulated drug use settings, the SSR fostered harm reduction practices by reshaping the social-structural context of crack smoking and reduced the potential for health harms. Conclusion Given the significant potential of SSRs in reducing health and social harms, there is an urgent need to scale up these interventions. Integrating SSRs into public health systems, and supplementing these interventions with health and social supports, has potential to improve the health and safety of crack-smoking populations.

BackgroundThe role of peers (former or current drug users) in reducing risky behavior within methamphetamine and crack smokers has not been well described or researched. The current study not only explores the role of peers in reducing risk factors for morbidity within the illicit drug smoking population in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) community of Vancouver but it also investigates the changes in the nature of drug use after the closure of an unsanctioned smoking facility.MethodsThe data pertain to qualitative interviews with 10 peers and 10 illicit drug smokers. The semi-structured interviews were conducted through community-based research, and the digital transcripts were analyzed via NVivo 10 software.ResultsThe results indicate that peers (former and current drug users who are employed as educators) are instrumental in transferring risk reduction knowledge within crack and methamphetamine smokers. For example, these peers have been able to teach users about the risk of sharing pipes, using brillo, and using public drug. Furthermore, the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users provides employment for crack and methamphetamine users in Vancouver who tend to have scarce sources of employment. However, since the closure of the unsanctioned inhalation facility, there has been significantly more public drug use and pipe sharing in the vicinity of the facility, placing drug smokers at significant risk of arrest, violence, and blood-borne infections.ConclusionsThe current study recommends expanding the harm reduction peer network for people who smoke illicit drugs in the DTES community of Vancouver who have historically been underserved.

Objectives Globally, engaging people who have used drugs, or peers, in decision-making has been increasingly touted as a best practice approach to developing priorities, programs, and policies. Peer engagement ensures decisions are relevant, appropriate, and effective to the affected community. However, ensuring that inclusion is accessible and equitable for those involved remains a challenge. In this study, we examined the perspectives of people who use or have used illicit drugs (PWUD) on peer engagement in health and harm reduction settings across British Columbia (BC), Canada. Methods The Peer Engagement and Evaluation Project used a participatory approach to conducting 13 peer-facilitated focus groups (n = 83) across BC. Focus group data were coded and analyzed with five peer research assistants. Themes about the nature of peer engagement were generated. From this analysis, peer engagement barriers and enablers were identified. Results Barriers to peer engagement included individual, geographical, systemic, and social factors. Issues related to stigma, confidentiality, and mistrust were intensely discussed among participants. Being Bouted^in one's community was a barrier to engagement, particularly in rural areas. Participants voiced that compensation, setting, and the right people help facilitate and motivate engagement. Peer networks are an essential ingredient to engagement by promoting support and advocacy. Conclusion PWUD are important stakeholders in decisions that affect them. This cross-jurisdictional study investigated how PWUD have experienced engagement efforts in BC, identifying several factors that influence participation. Meaningful engagement can be facilitated by attention to communication, relationships, personal capacity, and compassion between peers and other professionals.

Low threshold employment opportunities within DUO may provide significant individual and public health benefits. However, these benefits are constrained by the small size of stipends. Therefore, to ensure better inclusion of PWUD, our findings recommend the development and expansion of equitable, accessible, well-paying employment programs for PWUD.