Cargando…

Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders

BACKGROUND: Community stakeholders express a range of opinions about supervised injection facilities (SIFs). We sought to identify reasons for ambivalence about SIFs amongst community stakeholders in two Canadian cities. FINDINGS: We used purposive sampling methods to recruit various stakeholder rep...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Strike, Carol, Watson, Tara Marie, Kolla, Gillian, Penn, Rebecca, Bayoumi, Ahmed M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4546245/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26292715
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12954-015-0060-3
_version_ 1782386885843222528
author Strike, Carol
Watson, Tara Marie
Kolla, Gillian
Penn, Rebecca
Bayoumi, Ahmed M.
author_facet Strike, Carol
Watson, Tara Marie
Kolla, Gillian
Penn, Rebecca
Bayoumi, Ahmed M.
author_sort Strike, Carol
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Community stakeholders express a range of opinions about supervised injection facilities (SIFs). We sought to identify reasons for ambivalence about SIFs amongst community stakeholders in two Canadian cities. FINDINGS: We used purposive sampling methods to recruit various stakeholder representatives (n = 141) for key informant interviews or focus group discussions. Data were analyzed using a thematic process. We identified seven reasons for ambivalence about SIFs: lack of personal knowledge of evidence about SIFs; concern that SIF goals are too narrow and the need for a comprehensive response to drug use; uncertainty that the community drug problem is large enough to warrant a SIF(s); the need to know more about the “right” places to locate a SIF(s) to avoid damaging communities or businesses; worry that a SIF(s) will renew problems that existed prior to gentrification; concern that resources for drug use prevention and treatment efforts will be diverted to pay for a SIF(s); and concern that SIF implementation must include evaluation, community consultation, and an explicit commitment to discontinue a SIF(s) in the event of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders desire evidence about potential SIF impacts relevant to local contexts and that addresses perceived potential harms. Stakeholders would also like to see SIFs situated within a comprehensive response to drug use. Future research should determine the relative importance of these concerns and optimal approaches to address them to help guide decision-making about SIFs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4546245
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45462452015-08-23 Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders Strike, Carol Watson, Tara Marie Kolla, Gillian Penn, Rebecca Bayoumi, Ahmed M. Harm Reduct J Brief Report BACKGROUND: Community stakeholders express a range of opinions about supervised injection facilities (SIFs). We sought to identify reasons for ambivalence about SIFs amongst community stakeholders in two Canadian cities. FINDINGS: We used purposive sampling methods to recruit various stakeholder representatives (n = 141) for key informant interviews or focus group discussions. Data were analyzed using a thematic process. We identified seven reasons for ambivalence about SIFs: lack of personal knowledge of evidence about SIFs; concern that SIF goals are too narrow and the need for a comprehensive response to drug use; uncertainty that the community drug problem is large enough to warrant a SIF(s); the need to know more about the “right” places to locate a SIF(s) to avoid damaging communities or businesses; worry that a SIF(s) will renew problems that existed prior to gentrification; concern that resources for drug use prevention and treatment efforts will be diverted to pay for a SIF(s); and concern that SIF implementation must include evaluation, community consultation, and an explicit commitment to discontinue a SIF(s) in the event of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders desire evidence about potential SIF impacts relevant to local contexts and that addresses perceived potential harms. Stakeholders would also like to see SIFs situated within a comprehensive response to drug use. Future research should determine the relative importance of these concerns and optimal approaches to address them to help guide decision-making about SIFs. BioMed Central 2015-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4546245/ /pubmed/26292715 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12954-015-0060-3 Text en © Strike et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Brief Report
Strike, Carol
Watson, Tara Marie
Kolla, Gillian
Penn, Rebecca
Bayoumi, Ahmed M.
Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders
title Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders
title_full Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders
title_fullStr Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders
title_full_unstemmed Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders
title_short Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders
title_sort ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4546245/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26292715
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12954-015-0060-3
work_keys_str_mv AT strikecarol ambivalenceaboutsupervisedinjectionfacilitiesamongcommunitystakeholders
AT watsontaramarie ambivalenceaboutsupervisedinjectionfacilitiesamongcommunitystakeholders
AT kollagillian ambivalenceaboutsupervisedinjectionfacilitiesamongcommunitystakeholders
AT pennrebecca ambivalenceaboutsupervisedinjectionfacilitiesamongcommunitystakeholders
AT bayoumiahmedm ambivalenceaboutsupervisedinjectionfacilitiesamongcommunitystakeholders