Uptake of wheel‐filtration among clients of a supervised injecting facility: Can structured education work?

Steele, Maureen; Silins, Edmund; Flaherty, Ian; Hiley, Sarah; Breda, Nick van; Jauncey, Marianne

doi:10.1111/dar.12481

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study included approximately 1000 HIV‐negative individuals who inject drugs, and the AIDS Care Cohort to evaluate Exposure to Survival Services included approximately 1000 individuals who are living with HIV disease and who use illicit drugs other than cannabis (injection and non‐injection drug use). A further paper included here reported on a cohort of people in Spain who inject drugs and one paper presented outcomes of a pre‐ and post‐study of promoting the use of wheel‐filters to remove the solid compounds of pharmaceutical preparations prior to injecting at the Sydney SIF .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Self‐reported improvements are presented , ,d , pre‐ and post‐intervention of wheel filtration at a SIF showed the rate of its uptake …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The prospective/follow‐up cohort design was used to assess the DCR/SIF impact across all outcome categories specified in Table except for ‘not increasing crime’ (see Table for details). That is, it was used to assess whether DCRs/SIFs were attracting high‐risk drug users , managing overdose , enhancing safe injecting practice , decreasing public use , increasing uptake into treatment and other healthcare , addressing BBV transmission and yield cost savings and the impact on drug use and related risks .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Běláčková¹,

Salmon²,

Day

et al. 2019

Drug and Alcohol Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues. Drug consumptions rooms (DCR) and supervised injecting facilities (SIF) are expanding internationally. Previous reviews have not systematically addressed evaluation methodologies. Approach. Results from systematic searches of scientific databases in English until June 2017 were coded for paper type, country and year of publication. For evaluation papers, study outcome, methodology/study design and main indicators of DCR/SIF 'exposure' were recorded. Key Findings. Two hundred and nineteen eligible peer-reviewed papers were published since 1999: the majority from Canada (n = 117 papers), Europe (n = 36) and Australia (n = 32). Fifty-six papers reported evaluation outcomes. Ecological study designs (n = 10) were used to assess the impact on overdose, public nuisance and crime; modelling techniques (n = 6) estimated impact on bloodborne diseases, overdose deaths and costs. Papers using individual-level data included four prospective cohorts (n = 28), cross-sectional surveys (n = 7) and service records (n = 5). Individual-level data were used to assess safer injecting practice, uptake into health and social services and all the other above outcomes except for impact on crime and costs. Four different indicators of DCR/SIF attendance were used to measure service 'exposure'. Implications. Research around DCRs/SIFs has used ecological, modelling, cross-sectional and cohort study designs. Further research could involve systematic inclusion of a control group of people who are eligible but do not access SIFs, validation of self-reported proportion of injections at SIFs or a stepped-wedge or a cluster trial comparing localities. Conclusions. Methodologies appropriate for DCR/SIF evaluation have been established and can be readily replicated from the existing literature. Research on operational aspects, implementation and transferability is also warranted. [

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Self‐reported improvements are presented , ,d , pre‐ and post‐intervention of wheel filtration at a SIF showed the rate of its uptake …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Běláčková¹,

Salmon²,

Day

et al. 2019

Drug and Alcohol Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Filtering of the final product is recommended to reduce infections and injuries associated with injecting . Wheel filters, a single‐use filter cartridge that is attached to a syringe and filtrates the injectable product when drawn through , cotton wool and cigarette filters are commonly used by Australian PWID. While all three filter types are efficacious in removing larger impurities (≥50 μm), only wheel filters remove smaller impurities (≤20 μm) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intravenous fentanyl use among people who inject drugs in Australia

Geddes¹,

Iversen²,

Memedovic³

et al. 2018

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…New drug preparation guidelines have also been taken up by PWID in other contexts [19]. But, despite the promotion, by harm reduction professionals of a cold preparation technique for Skenan, this advice has not been followed up [17].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing harm through the development of good preparation practices for the injection of slow release morphine sulphate capsules

Keijzer¹

2020

Harm Reduct J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It is not always easy to advise people who inject drugs (PWID) on how to prepare their drugs in a way that is associated with reduced harm. This is particularly true for pharmaceutical drugs that are not meant to be injected. Our objective was to find "good preparation practices" for slow release morphine sulphate capsules, namely preparation methods that reduce harm, that are evidence-based and acceptable to PWID. Methods: In the laboratory, morphine sulphate capsules were prepared using both a cold and lukewarm preparation technique, two contact and stirring durations (1 min and 20 s) and 4 different filters (cotton filter, Sterifilt, Sterifilt+ and a wheel filter). The following outcomes were compared: particle reduction and morphine content in the filtrate, as well as filtration ease and time. Results: The lukewarm method and a stirring and contact time of 1 min were associated with a considerably higher morphine yield than both the cold method and the stirring time of only 20 s. Moreover, the suspension obtained was easy to filter using membrane filters. Particle reduction was important with all three membrane filters tested. Using the lukewarm method, morphine recovery was 86% for the wheel filter, 89% for the Sterifilt and 99% for the Sterifilt+. Conclusions: The provision of a method that is easy to use, reduces harms associated to the injection of insoluble particles and recovers virtually all the active drug has a large chance to be adopted by people who use drugs. This type of "best practices" can be provided by drug workers and by people who use drugs to actively promote harm reduction.

show abstract

Uptake of wheel‐filtration among clients of a supervised injecting facility: Can structured education work?

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

Intravenous fentanyl use among people who inject drugs in Australia

Reducing harm through the development of good preparation practices for the injection of slow release morphine sulphate capsules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About