2004
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040774
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
187
1
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 226 publications
(194 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
5
187
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding also has immediate relevance of SIF operation since these participants may benefit from safer injecting education and since assisted injection is not presently allowed within the SIF [12,16] . It is also interesting that public drug use and shooting gallery use were associated with syringe sharing among SIF users, given that homeless and public drug users may be more likely to use the SIF [17] . This association will have to be explored further in future studies, since reducing wait times at the SIF, extending operating hours and performing outreach into shooting galleries may all be helpful in addressing this concern.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This finding also has immediate relevance of SIF operation since these participants may benefit from safer injecting education and since assisted injection is not presently allowed within the SIF [12,16] . It is also interesting that public drug use and shooting gallery use were associated with syringe sharing among SIF users, given that homeless and public drug users may be more likely to use the SIF [17] . This association will have to be explored further in future studies, since reducing wait times at the SIF, extending operating hours and performing outreach into shooting galleries may all be helpful in addressing this concern.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reduced sightings of injecting and discarded needles/syringes by local residents and businesses were also reported (KPMG, 2010). A number of evaluations of the DCR provision in Vancouver, Canada, also showed positive outcomes, including cleaner injecting practices, reduced injecting in public places, less unsafe syringe disposal and reduced needle sharing (Wood et al, 2004;Petrar et al, 2007). In addition, the facility attracted higher-risk IDUs including public injectors and users at high risk for HIV and overdose .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They may also have ancillary benefits to the local community, such as reducing drug-related litter (IWG, 2006;KPMG;Wood et al, 2004). All DCRs have explicit rules with which the users must comply, such as no sharing of drugs, and no injecting in the neck or groin (Hedrich, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Theoretical possibilities of SIF expansion needs to be decided on by the local health authorities on the basis of scientific evidence supporting such expansion (17). Public awareness by the local health policy-makers and doctors regarding SIF will allow the community to be better educated about the benefits of these harm reduction programs and the role they play in reducing crime, drug dealing, public injection, and a host of other social maladies (9,(12)(13)(14)34,(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51). Community support is a fundamental part of sustaining the program and it will ultimately help in conceptualizing injection drug use as a health issue, rather than a moral one (11,16,53).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%