Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders.
Strike, Carol; Watson, Tara Marie; Kolla, Gillian; Penn, Rebecca; Bayoumi, Ahmed M.
Afiliação
  • Strike C; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada. carol.strike@utoronto.ca.
  • Watson TM; Social and Epidemiological Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 2S1, Canada. carol.strike@utoronto.ca.
  • Kolla G; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada. tara.watson@utoronto.ca.
  • Penn R; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada. gillian.kolla@utoronto.ca.
  • Bayoumi AM; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada. rebecca.penn@mail.utoronto.ca.
Harm Reduct J ; 12: 26, 2015 Aug 21.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26292715
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.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Opinião Pública / Atitude Frente a Saúde / Abuso de Substâncias por Via Intravenosa / Serviços de Saúde Comunitária / Programas de Troca de Agulhas / Redução do Dano Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Opinião Pública / Atitude Frente a Saúde / Abuso de Substâncias por Via Intravenosa / Serviços de Saúde Comunitária / Programas de Troca de Agulhas / Redução do Dano Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article