Brett Wolfson-Stofko1, Luther Elliott2, Alex S Bennett2, Ric Curtis3, Marya Gwadz4. 1. Center for Drug Use and HIV Research, Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York University, 433 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10010, United States; National Development & Research Institute, Center on Community and Health Disparities Research, 71 W. 23rd St, 4th Fl, New York, NY, 10010, United States. Electronic address: wolfson-stofko@ndri.org. 2. Center for Drug Use and HIV Research, Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York University, 433 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10010, United States; National Development & Research Institute, Center on Community and Health Disparities Research, 71 W. 23rd St, 4th Fl, New York, NY, 10010, United States. 3. Center for Drug Use and HIV Research, Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York University, 433 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10010, United States; John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration, Department of Anthropology, 524 W. 59th St, New York, NY, 10019, United States. 4. Center for Drug Use and HIV Research, Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York University, 433 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10010, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 100 supervised injection facilities (SIFs) operate in 66 cities around the world to reduce overdose deaths, the spread of disease and public disorder, though none legally exist in the United States. Public bathrooms are among the most common public places for injection reported by people who inject drugs in New York City (NYC) and service industry employees (SIEs) inadvertently become first-responders when overdoses occur in business bathrooms. The goal of this study was to assess SIE acceptability of SIFs and the perceived effects that SIFs would have on them, their colleagues, their businesses and communities. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 SIEs recruited through convenience sampling throughout NYC. Participants were provided with peer-reviewed scientific evidence prior to discussing SIFs. Data were analysed using a hybrid deductive and inductive approach. RESULTS: Most SIEs had encountered drug use (93%, n = 14/15) and syringes (73%, n = 11/15) in their business bathrooms and three had encountered unresponsive individuals. Nearly all workers (93%, n = 14/15) were supportive of SIFs and believed SIFs would reduce injection drug use in their business bathrooms. Participants also believed that 'not in my backyard' arguments from community boards may impede SIF operation. CONCLUSIONS: Service industry employees are critical stakeholders due to their exposure to occupational health hazards related to public injection. Those interviewed were amenable to SIF operation as a form of occupational harm reduction and their experiences provide an important dimension to the political debate surrounding SIFs.
BACKGROUND: Approximately 100 supervised injection facilities (SIFs) operate in 66 cities around the world to reduce overdose deaths, the spread of disease and public disorder, though none legally exist in the United States. Public bathrooms are among the most common public places for injection reported by people who inject drugs in New York City (NYC) and service industry employees (SIEs) inadvertently become first-responders when overdoses occur in business bathrooms. The goal of this study was to assess SIE acceptability of SIFs and the perceived effects that SIFs would have on them, their colleagues, their businesses and communities. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 SIEs recruited through convenience sampling throughout NYC. Participants were provided with peer-reviewed scientific evidence prior to discussing SIFs. Data were analysed using a hybrid deductive and inductive approach. RESULTS: Most SIEs had encountered drug use (93%, n = 14/15) and syringes (73%, n = 11/15) in their business bathrooms and three had encountered unresponsive individuals. Nearly all workers (93%, n = 14/15) were supportive of SIFs and believed SIFs would reduce injection drug use in their business bathrooms. Participants also believed that 'not in my backyard' arguments from community boards may impede SIF operation. CONCLUSIONS: Service industry employees are critical stakeholders due to their exposure to occupational health hazards related to public injection. Those interviewed were amenable to SIF operation as a form of occupational harm reduction and their experiences provide an important dimension to the political debate surrounding SIFs.
Authors: Evan Wood; Mark W Tyndall; Ruth Zhang; Jo-Anne Stoltz; Calvin Lai; Julio S G Montaner; Thomas Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-06-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jo-Anne Stoltz; Evan Wood; Will Small; Kathy Li; Mark Tyndall; Julio Montaner; Thomas Kerr Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Steven Petrar; Thomas Kerr; Mark W Tyndall; Ruth Zhang; Julio S G Montaner; Evan Wood Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2006-08-22 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Alex H Kral; Lynn Wenger; Lisa Carpenter; Evan Wood; Thomas Kerr; Philippe Bourgois Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2010-03-19 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: E Childs; K B Biello; P K Valente; P Salhaney; D L Biancarelli; J Olson; J J Earlywine; B D L Marshall; A R Bazzi Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2020-12-16
Authors: Katherine Rudzinski; Jessica Xavier; Adrian Guta; Soo Chan Carusone; Kenneth King; J Craig Phillips; Sarah Switzer; Bill O'Leary; Rosalind Baltzer Turje; Scott Harrison; Karen de Prinse; Joanne Simons; Carol Strike Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 3.295