A cross-sectional study of public attitudes towards safer drug use practices in British Columbia, Canada

Abstract

BackgroundHarm reduction programs are often vulnerable to political and vocal opposition despite documented evidence of their effectiveness and economic benefit. It is not well understood if opponents to harm reduction represent the general public’s attitudes.ObjectiveTo understand the attitudes of the people of British Columbia (BC) towards various harm reduction strategies and services, and factors associated with support for harm reduction.MethodsA random-digit dialing telephone survey assessing attitudes towards various harm reduction strategies was administered to British Columbians in August 2011 (n = 2000). We compared the level of support for general harm reduction by sex, age, education level, and area of residence (Health Authority region) (χ2). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess odds of support for harm reduction.ResultsOverall support for general harm reduction among participants was 76%; needle distribution 72%; needle distribution in one’s local community 65%; and safer inhalation equipment distribution 52%. In the multivariate analysis, those with significantly lower odds of supporting harm reduction were male, older, had equal or less than high school education or completed a certificate/diploma program, and resided in the Fraser Health Authority region. The Health Authority region with a municipality that has introduced a bylaw prohibiting the implementation of harm reduction services was found to have 69% support for harm reduction. Another Health Authority region with a municipality that closed a long-standing needle distribution site was found to have over 78% support.ConclusionIn contrast to some local policies, our results show the British Columbians surveyed in our study support harm reduction. It is unclear whether policy makers are swayed by a vocal minority or block harm reduction activities for other reasons. Tailoring messages towards segments of the public less likely to support harm reduction, as well civic policy-makers and the media, may help to reduce stigma and gain support for harm reduction services designed to protect and improve the health of the individual and the public.

Correlates of public support toward federal funding for harm reduction strategies

“…These results are consistent with some prior literature suggesting that male gender, but not race, is a significant predictor of support for drug policy initiatives [ 32 ]. However, there are contrasting prior findings related to gender [ 13 , 39 ], education [ 13 , 39 ] and age [ 39 ].…”

“…Second, findings from two studies conducted in Canada assessing participants’ views about harm reduction programs indicated that several factors were associated with greater support: higher income and education [ 13 , 39 ], younger age [ 39 ], personal use of cocaine or marijuana in the past year [ 13 ], favorable view of marijuana decriminalization [ 13 ], and perception of individuals with substance abuse as ill people [ 13 ]. Gender, however, was not a significant predictor in one study [ 13 ] while another reported that women were more supportive [ 39 ]. Also, a study evaluating U.S. public support for increased government spending for “dealing with drug addiction” found that while all demographic groups were generally supportive of increased spending, after controlling for general domestic spending, men (vs. women), conservatives (vs. liberals), older (vs. younger) individuals, and residents of the South (vs. North) were more supportive of spending [ 32 ].…”

“…Interestingly, race/ethnicity was not a significant predictor. Because these data were either from Canada [ 13 , 39 ] or are dated [ 32 ], we evaluated predictors of current support toward harm reduction services in a large U.S. sample.…”

Guidelines to destigmatize harm reduction: How stigma and misperceptions impede benefits of evidence-based drug policy

“…The statistics in public perceptions outlined in the section above are mostly positive, yet harm reduction remains a highly contentious topic that receives vocal GUIDELINES TO DESTIGMATIZE HARM REDUCTION WORK 21 political and public opposition. Tzemis et al (2013) noted that even in municipalities in B.C. that responded with a majority support for harm reduction, the policies did not reflect supportive attitudes.…”

“…A 2013 study of public attitudes towards safer drug use practices in B.C. found 76% support for harm reduction in general, 72% for NSP, 65% for NSP in their local community, and 52% for safer inhalation equipment (Tzemis et al, 2013). Cruz et al (2007) completed a study of public opinions towards harm reduction practices, and found 60% support for SIFs and HATs in Ontario.…”