Pubdate: Tue, 14 Oct 2003
Source: Canadian Medical Association Journal (Canada)
Copyright: 2003 Canadian Medical Association
Contact:  http://www.cmaj.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/754
Author: Thomas Kerr, Evan Wood, Dan Small, Anita Palepu, Mark W. Tyndall

Research

POTENTIAL USE OF SAFER INJECTING FACILITIES AMONG INJECTION DRUG USERS IN 
VANCOUVER'S DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE

Thomas Kerr, Evan Wood, Dan Small, Anita Palepu and Mark W. Tyndall

 From the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Montreal, Que. (Kerr); the 
British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (Kerr, Wood, Tyndall) 
and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (Palepu), St. 
Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC; the Department of Healthcare and 
Epidemiology (Wood) and the Department of Medicine (Palepu, Tyndall), 
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; and the Portland Hotel 
Society, Vancouver, BC (Small)

Correspondence to: Dr. Thomas Kerr, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 417, 
rue Saint Pierre, Suite 408, Montreal QC H2Y 2M4; fax 514 397-8570; Abstract

Background: The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority will initiate North 
America's first sanctioned safer injecting facility, as a pilot project, on 
Sept. 15, 2003. The analyses presented here were conducted to estimate the 
potential use of safer injecting facilities by local illicit injection drug 
users (IDUs) and to evaluate the potential impact of newly established 
Health Canada restrictions and current police activities on the use of the 
proposed facility.

Methods: During April and May 2003, we recruited active IDUs in Vancouver's 
Downtown Eastside to participate in a feasibility study. We used 
descriptive and univariate statistics to determine potential use of a safer 
injecting facility and to explore factors associated with willingness to 
use such a facility with and without federal restrictions and police presence.

Results: Overall, 458 street-recruited IDUs completed an 
interviewer-administered survey, of whom 422 (92%) reported a willingness 
to use a safer injecting facility. Those expressing willingness were more 
likely to inject in public (odds ratio [OR] 3.9, 95% confidence interval 
[CI] 1.9=AD8.0). When the restrictions in the Health Canada guidelines were 
considered, only 144 (31%) participants were willing to use a safer 
injecting facility. IDUs who inject alone were more likely (OR 1.8, 95% CI 
1.0=AD3.1) and women were less likely (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4=AD0.9) to be 
willing to use a safer injecting facility operating under these 
restrictions. Only 103 (22%) of the participants said they would be willing 
to use a safer injecting facility if police were stationed near the entrance.

Interpretation: Most IDUs participating in this study expressed a 
willingness to use a safer injecting facility. However, willingness 
declined substantially when the IDUs were asked about using a facility 
operating under selected Health Canada restrictions and in the event that 
police were stationed near the entrance.

Many Canadian cities are experiencing an array of health and social harms 
as a result of illicit injection drug use, including epidemics of HIV, 
hepatitis C and overdose deaths.1,2,3 Health care costs due to 
injection-related bacterial infections also take a substantial toll on 
health care budgets.4,5 In other settings, where similar health crises have 
emerged, medically supervised safer injecting facilities, where injection 
drug users (IDUs) can inject previously obtained illicit drugs under the 
supervision of medical staff, have been implemented to reduce the 
community, public health and fiscal impacts of illicit drug use.6 Although 
safer injecting facilities vary considerably in design and function, 
evaluations conducted in Germany, Switzerland, Australia and the 
Netherlands indicate that such facilities have improved the health and 
social functioning of their clients,7 while reducing overdose deaths,8 HIV 
risk behaviours,7 improper disposal of syringes8 and use of drugs in 
public.9 In addition, improved access to medical care and drug treatment 
has been attributed to attendance at safer injecting facilities.6

In December 2002, following a federal task force's recommendation that 
safer injecting facility pilot projects proceed, Health Canada released 
guidelines for applying for a legal exemption to conduct such research 
studies.10 The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority recently received an 
exemption from Health Canada to conduct a sanctioned pilot study and 
intends to open a safer injecting facility on Sept. 15, 2003.11 The pilot 
facility will be open 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. It will have 12 
private cubicles where IDUs can self-inject previously obtained drugs under 
the supervision of a registered nurse. Included in the Health Canada 
guidelines are a number of restrictions on the design and operation of 
safer injecting facility pilot sites, including prohibition of the sharing 
of drugs and prohibition of assisted injection. The guidelines also require 
that individuals register when using a safer injecting facility. These 
restrictions have been implemented primarily to limit the scope of the 
federal exemption to issues associated with the possession of illicit drugs 
in the facility and to reduce the risks associated with civil and criminal 
liability.

Previous studies have indicated that the use of safer injecting facilities 
may be limited when the service design includes many rules and 
restrictions.12,13 In addition, although the adverse effects of a police 
presence on access to health care services among IDUs has been well 
documented,14,15 the Vancouver Police Department is currently undertaking a 
controversial operation whereby police cruisers are at times parked outside 
local health services.16,17 Although willingness among Vancouver IDUs to 
use a safer injecting facility has been examined previously,18 the impacts 
of the newly established federal restrictions and current police activities 
have not been characterized. Therefore, we undertook a survey to estimate 
the potential use of a safer injecting facility by IDUs in Vancouver's 
Downtown Eastside and to evaluate how new federal restrictions and police 
activities might affect this potential use.

Methods

During April and May 2003, active IDUs were recruited for participation in 
a feasibility study of safer injecting facilities. The IDUs were informed 
of the study through street-based recruitment and "snowballing" methods and 
were eligible for inclusion if they reported being active IDUs (currently 
injecting illicit drugs), provided evidence of track marks and provided 
written informed consent. Participants completed an 
interviewer-administered survey in 1 of 3 Downtown Eastside locations: a 
rented storefront, a newly established Life Skills Centre and a large space 
that operates as a needle exchange site. A published definition of a 
medically supervised safer injecting facility18 was read to each 
participant, who was then shown 2 pictures of a facility similar to the 
model planned for Vancouver. Each study participant received $15 upon 
completion of the survey. The University of British Columbia/Providence 
Health Care Research Ethics Board approved the study.

Sociodemographic variables considered in these analyses included sex, age 
and housing status. In addition, because of the recent observation that 
Aboriginal IDUs in Vancouver are at heightened risk for HIV infection,1 
ethnicity (Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal) was also examined. Unstable 
housing was defined as living in a single room occupancy hotel or shelters 
or having no fixed address. Drug use and behavioural variables were 
sex-trade work, number of previous overdoses, injecting in public spaces, 
requiring help injecting, injecting alone, and frequency of cocaine and 
heroin injection per day. Variables specific to safer injecting facilities 
included willingness to use such a facility and willingness to use a 
facility under 3 of the conditions stipulated by Health Canada's guidelines 
for a scientific pilot study: no sharing of drugs, no assisted injection 
and mandatory registration. More specifically, participants were told that 
a number of restrictions were being considered for safer injecting 
facilities and were then asked to indicate whether they would use a 
facility operating under each condition (e.g., "... if you were required to 
register to use the facility"). The survey further evaluated willingness to 
attend a safer injecting facility if police were stationed near the 
facility entrance.

We used descriptive and univariate statistics to determine potential use of 
safer injecting facilities and to explore factors associated with 
willingness to use a facility with and without the Health Canada 
restrictions. Categorical and explanatory variables were analyzed by means 
of Pearson 2, normally distributed continuous variables were analyzed by 
means of t-tests for independent samples, and skewed continuous variables 
were analyzed with Mann=ADWhitney U-tests.

Results

In total, 458 active IDUs were recruited and completed questionnaires 
during April and May 2003. There were no refusals to participate in the 
study, although one IDU was unable to participate because of intoxication. 
The participants consisted of 197 women (43%) and 261 men (57%). Almost a 
third (149 or 32%) of the participants were of Aboriginal ancestry, the 
median age was 40 years, and 307 (67%) participants reported that they 
regularly injected in public places.

A total of 422 (92%) of the participants reported a willingness to use a 
safer injecting facility in the absence of Health Canada restrictions, and 
those expressing willingness were more likely to inject in public (odds 
ratio [OR] 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9=AD8.0) (Table 1). There 
were no differences in willingness to use a safer injecting facility with 
regard to any of the other characteristics examined (Table 1).

Among the 422 participants (92%) who initially expressed willingness to use 
a safer injecting facility, 296 (64% of the total sample) were willing to 
use such a facility under a restriction prohibiting the sharing of drugs 
(Fig. 1). In bivariate analyses, injecting alone was associated with 
willingness under this restriction (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2=AD3.6), whereas 
female sex was associated with nonwillingness (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4=AD0.9).

Fig. 1: Flow diagram illustrating initial willingness to use a safer 
injecting facility (SIF) and reductions in willingness related to Health 
Canada restrictions and police presence. All percentages are calculated on 
the basis of the complete sample of 458 survey participants.

Similarly, 282 participants (62% of the total sample) were willing to use a 
safer injecting facility under the restriction prohibiting assisted 
injection (Fig. 1). Injecting alone was also associated with willingness 
under this restriction (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1=AD2.9), whereas female sex (OR 
0.4, 95% CI 0.3=AD0.7) and requiring help injecting (OR 0.4, 95% CI 
0.2=AD0.6) were associated with nonwillingness.

Two hundred and forty-six participants (54% of the total sample) were 
willing to use a safer injecting facility under the restriction requiring 
client registration (Fig. 1). Aboriginal ethnicity (OR 1.6, 95% CI 
1.0=AD2.4) and injecting in public (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0=AD2.3) were 
associated with willingness under this restriction.

Finally, only 144 participants (31% of the total) were willing to use a 
safer injecting facility when the 3 Health Canada restrictions (no sharing 
of drugs, no assisted injection and mandatory registration) were considered 
together, on the basis of overlap for the 3 restrictions separately (Fig. 
1, Table 2). Injecting alone was associated with willingness to use a 
facility under these restrictions (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0=AD3.1), whereas 
injecting in public was marginally associated with willingness (Table 2). 
Conversely, women were less likely to be willing to use a facility 
operating under these restrictions (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4=AD0.9) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Only 103 (22%) of the participants said they would be willing to use a 
safer injecting facility if police were stationed near the entrance. About 
half of these (59 or 13% of the total) would be willing to use a safer 
injecting facility when all 3 Health Canada restrictions and police 
presence were considered together (on the basis of overlap). None of the 
variables under study were associated with willingness to use a safer 
injecting facility under the latter 2 scenarios.

Interpretation

In this study 92% of IDUs expressed willingness to use a medically 
supervised safer injecting facility, and injection of drugs in public was 
associated with willingness. However, willingness declined substantially 
when participants were asked if they would use a facility operating under 3 
of the Health Canada restrictions. Study participants who inject alone were 
more likely and women were less likely to be willing to use a safer 
injecting facility operating under these restrictions. Only 22% of 
participants said they would use a safer injecting facility if police were 
stationed near the entrance.

The results of this study suggest that a safer injecting facility in 
Vancouver's Downtown Eastside could be well accepted by local IDUs, 
including those who inject in public. The latter finding, which is 
consistent with an earlier study involving Vancouver IDUs,18 is 
encouraging, given previous studies indicating that public injection is 
associated with an array of injection-related harms, including 
syringe-sharing, bacterial infection and overdose.19,20,21 However, our 
results differ from those of the earlier Vancouver study, in which only 36% 
of IDUs expressed willingness to use a safer injecting facility;18 the high 
rates of willingness observed here may be explained by the fact that, 
unlike IDUs in the earlier study, most participants in the current study 
were active street-based injectors and all were recruited from the heart of 
Vancouver's open drug scene in the Downtown Eastside. Our findings are 
consistent with an Australian study of IDU attitudes, which found that 
rules prohibiting the sharing of drugs and prohibiting assisted injection 
were associated with a substantial reduction in willingness to use a safer 
injecting facility.13 Although the overall decline in willingness is 
problematic, of particular concern was the finding that female sex was 
associated with unwillingness to use a safer injecting facility operating 
under specific restrictions, since the risk of HIV infection among female 
IDUs living in Vancouver is elevated.22 This negative impact of the 
restrictions on potential use of such facilities by women is not 
surprising, given that elevated rates of requiring help injecting have been 
associated with female sex.23 It should be noted that legal precedents 
indicate that operators of safer injecting facilities may be legally 
required to accommodate people with disabilities who are physically unable 
to self-inject by allowing them to obtain injection assistance from other 
IDUs in this supervised setting.24,25 The reduced willingness to use a 
safer injecting facility in the event of a police presence near the 
entrance is particularly worrisome. Previous studies in Vancouver have 
repeatedly indicated that police presence has had a negative impact on 
access to health care services,14,16,26 a finding that has also been 
demonstrated in the United States.15,27 For example, a recent Vancouver 
police operation was found to substantially reduce access to sterile 
syringes.14

Our study had several limitations. First, it offers evidence only of 
potential use of a safer injecting facility by IDUs; actual use can only be 
assessed once Vancouver's pilot study is under way. For instance, the 
adverse impact of Health Canada's restrictions may be overestimated in our 
study, as previous studies have indicated that IDUs will modify their 
behaviour in an effort to reduce harm to themselves and others.28 
Nevertheless, the proposed single safer injecting facility in Vancouver 
might have difficulty meeting service needs, even in the event of 
restrictive guidelines and police presence.29 Second, this study relied on 
a convenience sample of IDUs recruited in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, 
which might not be representative of IDU populations in other settings. 
Third, the study examined only a limited set of restrictions that might 
affect use of such a facility and may have neglected other restrictions 
that could limit use. Fourth, the age range of the active IDUs recruited in 
this study precluded an assessment of potential use of the safer injecting 
facility by youth. However, we feel that our sample is representative of 
the population targeted by the pilot project. Finally, the current study 
relies on self-reporting and therefore may be susceptible to socially 
desirable reporting.30

In summary, 92% of active IDUs in this study expressed an initial 
willingness to use a safer injecting facility. Those who expressed 
willingness were likely to be public injectors, suggesting the potential 
for immediate public health and public order benefits. However, willingness 
to use a safer injecting facility declined substantially when IDUs were 
asked if they would use a facility operating under Health Canada 
restrictions and in the event that police were stationed near its entrance. 
To maximize benefit, it is essential that safer injecting facilities be 
designed to address concerns regarding liability while making the service 
accessible to those at highest risk. In addition, the success of the safer 
injecting facility will probably require substantial modification of the 
potentially harmful law enforcement practices now in effect in Vancouver's 
Downtown Eastside.14,16,26

=DF See related articles pages 777 and 825

Footnotes

Fast-tracked article. Published at www.cmaj.ca on Sept. 12, 2003.

This article has been peer reviewed.

Contributors: Thomas Kerr was the principal investigator of the study, and 
he coordinated the collection of the data, conducted the analyses and 
prepared the first draft of the manuscript. Thomas Kerr and Evan Wood 
designed the methodology for the paper. Evan Wood, Dan Small, Anita Palepu 
and Mark Tyndall provided input to the design of the survey questionnaire 
and the methodology and made critical comments and revisions to the content 
of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements: Anita Palepu is supported by a Canadian Institutes of 
Health Research New Investigator Award. Evan Wood is supported by the 
Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

We acknowledge the contributions of Tomiye Ishida, Daniel Miles Kane, Dean 
Wilson, Calvin Lai and the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users for their 
assistance with the study design and for administrative support.

We also acknowledge the assistance of Richard Elliot and Ruth Carey with 
the legal and policy analyses.

This research was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research 
operating grant (Mark Tyndall, principal investigator).

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Craib KJP, Spittal PM, Wood E, Laliberte N, Hogg RS, Li K, et al. Risk 
factors for elevated HIV incidence among Aboriginal injection drug users in 
Vancouver. CMAJ 2003;168(1):19-24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Fischer B, Rehm J, Blitz-Miller T. Injection drug use and preventive 
measures: a comparison of Canadian and Western European jurisdictions over 
time. CMAJ 2000;162(12):1709-13.[Free Full Text]

3. 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]

4. Palepu A, Tyndall MW, Leon H, Muller J, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT, 
et al. Hospital utilization and costs in a cohort of injection drug users. 
CMAJ 2001;165(4):415-20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

5. Wood E, Kerr T, Spittal PM, Tyndall MW, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT. 
The healthcare and fiscal costs of the illicit drug use epidemic: the 
impact of conventional drug control strategies and the impact of a 
comprehensive approach. B C Med J 2003;45(3):130-6.

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

7. 1996;41(Suppl 1):S58-68.

8. Kemmesies UE. The open drug scene and the safe injection room offers in 
Frankfurt and Main 1995. Final report. Hamburg, Germany: European Cities on 
Drug Policy; 1999.

9. 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.

10. Health Canada. Application for an exemption under section 56 of the 
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a scientific purpose for a pilot 
supervised injection site research project. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2002.

11. Injection site gets go-ahead: Health Canada approves three-year 
supervised injection trial in Downtown Eastside. Vancouver Sun 2003 June 25.

12. 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]

13. Fry CL. Injecting drug user attitudes towards rules for supervised 
injecting rooms: implications for uptake. Int J Drug Pol 2002;13:471-6.

14. 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]

15. Bluthenthal RN, Kral AH, Lorvick J, Watters JK. Impact of law 
enforcement on syringe exchange programs: a look at Oakland and San 
Francisco. Med Anthropol 1997;18(1):61-83.[Medline]

16. Human Rights Watch. Canada: Abusing the user: police misconduct, harm 
reduction and HIV/AIDS in Vancouver [report online]. Hum Rights Watch Rep 
2003;15(2B). Available: www.hrw.org/reports/2003/canada/canada0503.pdf 
(accessed 2003 Sep 6).

17. Human rights news. HRW letter to Mayor Larry Campbell. New York: Human 
Rights Watch; 2003 Jun 23. Available: 
www.hrw.org/press/2003/06/canada0623031-ltr.htm (accessed 2003 Sep 6).

18. 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]

19. Darke S, Kaye S, Ross J. Geographical injecting locations among 
injecting drug users in Sydney, Australia. Addiction 2001;96(2):241-6.[Medline]

20. Klee H, Morris J. Factors that characterize street injectors. Addiction 
1995; 90 (6): 837-41.[Medline]

21. Latkin C, Mandell W, Vlahov D, Oziemkowska M, Knowlton A, Celentano D. 
My place, your place, and no place: behavior settings as a risk factor for 
HIV-related injection practices of drug users in Baltimore, Maryland. Am J 
Community Psychol 1994;22(3):415-30.[Medline]

22. Spittal PM, Craib KJ, Wood E, Laliberte N, Li K, Tyndall MW, et al. 
Risk factors for elevated HIV incidence rates among female injection drug 
users in Vancouver. CMAJ 2002;166(7):894-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

23. Wood E, Spittal P, Kerr T, Small W, O'Shaughnessy M, Schechter M. 
Requiring help injecting as a risk factor for HIV infection in the 
Vancouver epidemic: implications for HIV prevention. Can J Public Health. 
In press.

24. Eldridge v. Attorney General of British Columbia and the Medical 
Services Commission [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624.

25. Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H. 19 as amended. Available: 
192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90h19_e.htm (accessed 2003 Sep 9).

26. during an ongoing HIV epidemic. Int J Drug Pol 2002;13(2):95-102.

27. Rich JD, Strong L, Towe CW, McKenzie M. Obstacles to needle exchange 
participation in Rhode Island. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 
1999;21(5):396-400.[Medline]

28. Friedman SR, Des Jarlais DC, Sterk CE, Sotheran JL, Tross S, Woods J, 
et al. AIDS and the social relations of intravenous drug users [published 
erratum appears in Milbank Q 1990;68(1):142]. Milbank Q 1990;68(Suppl 
1):85-110.

29. Kerr T, Wood E, Small D, Palepu A, Tyndall MW. Potential uptake and 
coverage of a safe injection site in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside [poster 
abstract]. In: 2nd International Conference on Urban Health; 2003 Oct 
15=AD18; New York. In press.

30. Des Jarlais DC, Paone D, Milliken J, Turner CF, Miller H, Gribble J, et 
al. Audio-computer interviewing to measure risk behaviour for HIV among 
injecting drug users: a quasi-randomised trial. Lancet 
1999;353(9165):1657-61.[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

C. L. Fry

Safer injecting facilities in Vancouver: considering issues beyond 
potential use Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 14, 2003; 169(8): 777 - 778.

Related articles in eCMAJ:

Safer injecting facilities in Vancouver: considering issues beyond 
potential use

Craig L. Fry

eCMAJ 2003 169: 777-778. [Full Text]
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens