Insite, “is that the place where people shoot up heroin? Do you shoot heroin?” a border officer asked me when he saw the sign on my T-shirt. I was puzzled by his questions, but glad he knew about Insite.
Inside works; inside out! The research proved it. This blog pays tribute to the enormous efforts of researchers, administrators, staff and clients of the supervised injection facility (SIF), who keep Insite working. Setting up SIF is feasible and other sites should be encouraged to do so.
|June 2009: 33studies in 15 journals
1) SIFs (Insite) may have a unique ability to address several outstanding public health and public order concerns related to injection drug use
2) The primary cohort used to evaluate Insite was based on a random sample of IDUs recruited from within Insite
3) Insite was being successfully integrated into the community
4) Insite attracts drug users who are at a particularly high risk of health problems and who were previously public drug users.
5) Frequent users of Insite are most likely to be those individuals who are also at highest risk of HIV and overdose as a result of their high-intensity injection practices
6) Insite is used by IDUs with a high burden of HCV infection, as well as a substantial number of uninfected individuals, and therefore has the potential to help reduce risk of disease transmission.
7) Insite has attracted a large number of hard-to-reach IDUs and that the existence of the facility presents an excellent opportunity to enhance HIV prevention through education, the provision of clean injecting equipment, and the availability of a supervised and sterile environment to self-inject.
8) Insite has succeeded in attracting young highrisk injection drug users.
9) Insite’s benefits on reducing the high-risk behaviours of IDUs and on increasing public order have not been offset by negative effects on drug use patterns among Vancouver’s IDU population
10) Insite has not promoted illicit drug injecting, but rather that it has attracted individuals with long histories of injection drug use.
11) Insite is facilitating entry into detoxification services among its clients
12) Insite encourages IDUs to enter detox
13) Insite has not contributed to an increase in drug-related crime in surrounding neighbourhoods.
14) Improvement in public order was a result of the presence of Insite
15) Insite successfully plays a role in managing overdoses among IDUs
16) people who use heroin at least daily are more likely to report overdose
17) Insite plays an important role in reducing overdose risk and in safely managing those overdoses that do occur
18) Prompt medical attention at Insite prevented as many as 12 overdose deaths per year over a recent four-year period
19) Reductions in syringe sharing observed among Insite users only occurred after Insite opened, suggesting that Insite may have been responsible for this important behavioural change
20) Insite appears to be helping to reduce syringe sharing, the key risk factor for HIV transmission
21) Regular SIF (Insite) users have reduced their likelihood of sharing syringes by 69%
22) Insite’s clients who are HIV-positive used condoms with their sex partners
23) Individuals who require help injecting were among those most likely to receive safer injecting education within Insite
24) Insite is helping to reduce some of the health risks associated with unsafe injecting
25) Insite nurses are reaching the high-risk injectors, particularly female injection drug users
26) Insite is providing a safe environment in which people who inject drugs are able to learn about and adopt practices that will help them to avoid serious injection-related harms
27) Insite may help to address barriers which normally make it difficult for injection drug users to access medical services
28) Insite clients’ lower rate of skin infections could be a result of the medical care and treatment provided
29) Insite is providing an opportunity to coordinate policing and public health efforts
30) Insite’s waiting time limits its use by IDUs who continue to inject in public
31) Insite was associated with an array of community and public health benefits and, despite rigorous evaluation, no identified adverse impacts
32) Insite might be improved by longer hours of operation, a washroom and reduced wait times
33) Insite is providing a safe space, away from the dangers of the street-based drug scene, for women who inject drugs
List of Published Studies until June 2009
1. Wood E, Kerr T, Montaner JS, Strathdee SA, Wodak A, Hankins C, Schechter MT, Tyndall MW. Rationale for evaluating North America’s first medically supervised safer-injecting facility. Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2004; 4(5): 301-306.
2. Wood E, Kerr T, Lloyd-Smith E, Buchner C, March DC, Montaner JSG, Tyndall MW. Methodology for evaluating Insite: Canada’s first medically supervised safer injection facility for injection drug users. Harm Reduction Journal, 2004; 1(1): 9.
3. Tyndall MW, Kerr T, Zhang R, King E, Montaner JG, Wood E. Attendance, drug use patterns, and referrals made from North America’s first supervised injection facility. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2006; 83(3): 193-198.
4. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Li K, Lloyd-Smith E, Small W, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Do supervised injecting facilities attract higher-risk injection drug users? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2005; 29(2): 126-130.
5. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Qui Z, Zhang R, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Service uptake and characteristics of injection drug users utilizing North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility. American Journal of Public Health, 2006; 96(5): 770-773.
6. Wood E, Kerr T, Stoltz J, Qui Z, Zhang R, Montaner JSG, Tyndall MW. Prevalence and correlates of hepatitis C infection among users of North America’s first medically supervised safer injection facility. Public Health, 2005; 119(12): 1111-1115.
7. Tyndall MW, Wood E, Zhang R, Lai C, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. HIV seroprevalence among participants at a supervised injection facility in Vancouver, Canada: Implications for prevention, care and treatment. Harm Reduction Journal, 2006; 3(1): 36.
8. Stoltz JA, Wood E, Miller C, Small W, Li K, Tyndall MW, Montaner J, Kerr T. Characteristics of young illicit drug injectors who use North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility. Addiction Research & Theory, 2007; 15(1): 63-69.
9. Kerr T, Stoltz JA, Tyndall M, Li K, Zhang R, Montaner J, Wood E. Impact of a medically supervised safer injection facility on community drug use patterns: A before and after study. British Medical Journal, 2006; 332(7535): 220-222.
10. 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. American Journal of Public Health, 2007; 97(7): 1228-1230.
11. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Stoltz J, Lai C, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Attendance at supervised injecting facilities and use of detoxification services. New England Journal of Medicine, 2006; 354(23): 2512-2514.
12. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users. Addiction, 2007; 102(6): 916-919.
13. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Lai C, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Impact of a medically supervised safer injecting facility on drug dealing and other drug-related crime. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 2006; 1(1): 13.
14. Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Li K, Marsh D, Montaner JS, Tyndall MW. Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2004; 171(7): 731-734.
15. Kerr T, Tyndall MW, Lai C, Montaner JSG, Wood E. Drug-related overdoses within a medically supervised safer injection facility. International Journal of Drug Policy, 2006; 17(5): 436-441.
16. Milloy M-JS, Kerr T, Mathias R, Zhang R, Montaner JS, Tyndall Mark, Wood E. Non-fatal overdose among a cohort of active injection drug users recruited from a supervised injection facility. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2008; 34(4): 499-509.
17. Kerr T, Small W, Moore D, Wood E. A micro-environmental intervention to reduce the harms associated with drug-related overdose: Evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver’s safer injection facility. International Journal of Drug Policy, 2007; 18(1): 37-45.
18. Milloy M-J, Kerr T, Tyndall M, Montaner J, Wood E. Estimated drug overdose deaths averted by North America’s first medically-supervised safer injection facility. PLoS ONE, 2008; 3(10): e3351.
19. 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): 316-318.
20. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Stoltz JA, Small W, Lloyd-Smith E, Zhang R, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Factors associated with syringe sharing among users of a medically supervised safer injecting facility. American Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2005; 1(1): 50-54.
21. Milloy M-J, Wood E. Emerging role of supervised injecting facilities in human immunodeficiency virus prevention. Addiction, 2009; 104(4): 620-621.
22. Marshall B, Wood E, Zhang R, Tyndall M, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Condom use among injection drug users accessing a supervised injecting facility. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2009; 85(2): 121-126.
23. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Stoltz J, Small W, Zhang R, O’Connell J, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Safer injecting education for HIV prevention within a medical supervised safer injecting facility. International Journal of Drug Policy, 2005; 16(4): 281-284.
24. Stoltz JA, Wood E, Small W, Li K, Tyndall MW, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Changes in injecting practices associated with the use of a medically supervised safer injection facility. Journal of Public Health, 2007; 29(1): 35-39.
25. Wood RA, Wood E, Lai C, Tyndall, MW, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Nurse-delivered safer injection education among a cohort of injection drug users: Evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility. International Journal of Drug Policy, 2008; 19(3): 183-188.
26. Fast D, Small W, Wood E, Kerr T. The perspectives of injection drug users regarding safer injecting education delivered through a supervised injecting facility. Harm Reduction Journal, 2008; 5(1): 32.
27. Small W, Wood E, Lloyd-Smith E, Tyndall M, Kerr T. Accessing care for injection-related infections through a medically supervised injecting facility: A qualitative study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2008; 98(1-2): 159-162.
28. Lloyd-Smith E, Wood E, Zhang R, Tyndall MW, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Risk factors for developing a cutaneous injection-related infection among injection drug users: A cohort study. BMC Public Health, 2008; 8(1): 405.
29. DeBeck K, Wood E, Zhang R, Tyndall M, Montaner J, Kerr T. Police and public health partnerships: Evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 2008; 3(1): 11.
30. McKnight I, Maas B, Wood E, Tyndall MW, Small W, Lai C, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Factors associated with public injecting among users of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2007; 33(2): 319-325.
31. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2006; 175(11): 1399-1404.
32. Petrar S, Kerr T, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Montaner JS, Wood E. Injection drug users’ perceptions regarding use of a medically supervised safer injecting facility. Addictive Behaviors, 2006; 32(5): 1088-1093.
33. Fairbairn N, Small W, Shannon K, Wood E, Kerr T. Seeking refuge from violence in street-based drug scenes: Women’s experiences in North America’s first supervised injection facility. Social Science & Medicine, 2008; 67(5): 817-823.
I wrote this post using conclusion quotes from summaries of research summed up in the document
The evaluation of Insite keeps going. Check out the newest research at http://uhri.cfenet.ubc.ca.