Brittany C L Lange1, Anders Malthe Bach-Mortensen2. 1. University of Oxford, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: brittany.lange@spi.ox.ac.uk. 2. University of Oxford, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) have been developed to address the public health burden associated with substance use. While these facilities have been associated with a number of positive outcomes, stakeholder opinion (the opinions of those potentially affected by these facilities) is likely to influence their future development. This systematic review aims to answer the question, "how do stakeholders perceive SIFs?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles were located through nine academic databases, by searching for grey literature, by contacting health departments in countries where SIFs have been implemented, by searching articles that cited included articles, and by searching the reference lists of included articles. Two reviewers screened all articles. Data was double-extracted and quality appraised. All extracted perceptions were analyzed by two coders. RESULTS: Forty-seven articles were synthesized. Key themes included (1) benefits of SIFs, such as the increased safety of people who use drugs (PWUD) and the education that was provided at these facilities; (2) concerns regarding SIFs, such as the location of these facilities and existing rules and regulations; and (3) suggestions for SIFs, such as changing restrictions and regulations. Perceptions often fluctuated between stakeholders with first-hand experience of SIFs (e.g. staff and PWUD) and stakeholders not involved in the operation of SIFs (e.g. the general public). CONCLUSION: The findings of this review illustrate how perceptions vary and align across different types of SIFs. Going forward, it will be important to draw on these insights to facilitate a more informed discussion on the implementation and continuation of these facilities.
INTRODUCTION: Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) have been developed to address the public health burden associated with substance use. While these facilities have been associated with a number of positive outcomes, stakeholder opinion (the opinions of those potentially affected by these facilities) is likely to influence their future development. This systematic review aims to answer the question, "how do stakeholders perceive SIFs?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles were located through nine academic databases, by searching for grey literature, by contacting health departments in countries where SIFs have been implemented, by searching articles that cited included articles, and by searching the reference lists of included articles. Two reviewers screened all articles. Data was double-extracted and quality appraised. All extracted perceptions were analyzed by two coders. RESULTS: Forty-seven articles were synthesized. Key themes included (1) benefits of SIFs, such as the increased safety of people who use drugs (PWUD) and the education that was provided at these facilities; (2) concerns regarding SIFs, such as the location of these facilities and existing rules and regulations; and (3) suggestions for SIFs, such as changing restrictions and regulations. Perceptions often fluctuated between stakeholders with first-hand experience of SIFs (e.g. staff and PWUD) and stakeholders not involved in the operation of SIFs (e.g. the general public). CONCLUSION: The findings of this review illustrate how perceptions vary and align across different types of SIFs. Going forward, it will be important to draw on these insights to facilitate a more informed discussion on the implementation and continuation of these facilities.
Authors: Alexis M Roth; Alex H Kral; Allison Mitchell; Rohit Mukherjee; Peter Davidson; Stephen E Lankenau Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Grace H Yoon; Timothy W Levengood; Melissa J Davoust; Shannon N Ogden; Alex H Kral; Sean R Cahill; Angela R Bazzi Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2022-07-05
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: Nav Persaud; Hannah Woods; Aine Workentin; Itunu Adekoya; James R Dunn; Stephen W Hwang; Jonathon Maguire; Andrew D Pinto; Patricia O'Campo; Sean B Rourke; Daniel Werb Journal: CMAJ Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 8.262
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