Perspectives on Supervised Injection Facilities Among Service Industry Employees in New York City: A Qualitative Exploration

Overview

Journal Int J Drug Policy

Publisher Elsevier

Specialties Psychiatry
Public Health

Date 2018 Oct 26

PMID 30359875

Citations 3

Authors

Brett Wolfson-Stofko

Luther Elliott

Alex S Bennett

Ric Curtis

Marya Gwadz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Managing Addiction and Overdose Deaths: The Debate Over America's Safe Injection Spaces.

Rasool F, Klein A, Leheste J Cureus. 2024; 15(12):e50406.

PMID: 38213341 PMC: 10783936. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50406.

Feasibility, acceptability, concerns, and challenges of implementing supervised injection services at a specialty HIV hospital in Toronto, Canada: perspectives of people living with HIV.

Rudzinski K, Xavier J, Guta A, Chan Carusone S, King K, Phillips J BMC Public Health. 2021; 21(1):1482.

PMID: 34325681 PMC: 8323264. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11507-z.

Implementing harm reduction in non-urban communities affected by opioids and polysubstance use: A qualitative study exploring challenges and mitigating strategies.

Childs E, Biello K, Valente P, Salhaney P, Biancarelli D, Olson J Int J Drug Policy. 2020; 90:103080.

PMID: 33340947 PMC: 8046716. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.103080.

References

Marshall B, Kerr T, Qi J, Montaner J, Wood E . Public injecting and HIV risk behaviour among street-involved youth. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010; 110(3):254-8. PMC: 2905504. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.01.022. View

Stoltz J, Wood E, Small W, Li K, Tyndall M, Montaner J . Changes in injecting practices associated with the use of a medically supervised safer injection facility. J Public Health (Oxf). 2007; 29(1):35-9. DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdl090. View

Kerr T, Tyndall M, Zhang R, Lai C, Montaner J, Wood E . Circumstances of first injection among illicit drug users accessing a medically supervised safer injection facility. Am J Public Health. 2007; 97(7):1228-30. PMC: 1913080. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.086256. View

Petrar S, Kerr T, Tyndall M, Zhang R, Montaner J, Wood E . Injection drug users' perceptions regarding use of a medically supervised safer injecting facility. Addict Behav. 2006; 32(5):1088-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.07.013. View

Wenger L, Arreola S, Kral A . The prospect of implementing a Safer Injection Facility in San Francisco: perspectives of community stakeholders. Int J Drug Policy. 2011; 22(3):239-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.01.001. View

DeBeck K, Small W, Wood E, Li K, Montaner J, Kerr T . Public injecting among a cohort of injecting drug users in Vancouver, Canada. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008; 63(1):81-6. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2007.069013. View

Irwin A, Jozaghi E, Weir B, Allen S, Lindsay A, Sherman S . Mitigating the heroin crisis in Baltimore, MD, USA: a cost-benefit analysis of a hypothetical supervised injection facility. Harm Reduct J. 2017; 14(1):29. PMC: 5441005. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-017-0153-2. View

Potier C, Laprevote V, Dubois-Arber F, Cottencin O, Rolland B . Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014; 145:48-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.10.012. View

Salmon A, Thein H, Kimber J, Kaldor J, Maher L . Five years on: what are the community perceptions of drug-related public amenity following the establishment of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre?. Int J Drug Policy. 2007; 18(1):46-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2006.11.010. View

10.

Wood E, Tyndall M, Zhang R, Stoltz J, Lai C, Montaner J . Attendance at supervised injecting facilities and use of detoxification services. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354(23):2512-4. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc052939. View

11.

Wood E, Tyndall M, Lai C, Montaner J, Kerr T . Impact of a medically supervised safer injecting facility on drug dealing and other drug-related crime. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2006; 1:13. PMC: 1471778. DOI: 10.1186/1747-597X-1-13. View

12.

Freeman K, Jones C, Weatherburn D, Rutter S, Spooner C, Donnelly N . The impact of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) on crime. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2005; 24(2):173-84. DOI: 10.1080/09595230500167460. View

13.

Small W, Rhodes T, Wood E, Kerr T . Public injection settings in Vancouver: physical environment, social context and risk. Int J Drug Policy. 2007; 18(1):27-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2006.11.019. View

14.

Andresen M, Boyd N . A cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of Vancouver's supervised injection facility. Int J Drug Policy. 2009; 21(1):70-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.03.004. View

15.

Kerr T, Tyndall M, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E . Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. Lancet. 2005; 366(9482):316-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66475-6. View

16.

Gibson E, Exner H, Stone R, Lindquist J, Cowen L, Roth E . A mixed methods approach to delineating and understanding injection practices among clientele of a Victoria, British Columbia needle exchange program. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011; 30(4):360-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00219.x. View

17.

Cooper H, Moore L, Gruskin S, Krieger N . The impact of a police drug crackdown on drug injectors' ability to practice harm reduction: a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61(3):673-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.030. View

18.

Jozaghi E, Reid A, Andresen M, Juneau A . A cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis of proposed supervised injection facilities in Ottawa, Canada. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2014; 9:31. PMC: 4123501. DOI: 10.1186/1747-597X-9-31. View

19.

Rudd R, Seth P, David F, Scholl L . Increases in Drug and Opioid-Involved Overdose Deaths - United States, 2010-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016; 65(50-51):1445-1452. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm655051e1. View

20.

Marshall B, Milloy M, Wood E, Montaner J, Kerr T . Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America's first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet. 2011; 377(9775):1429-37. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62353-7. View